AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: carlsonjok

form_srcid: carlsonjok

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 23.20.33.176

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: carlsonjok

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/05/27 05:55:02, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (ericmurphy @ May 27 2006,10:25)
     
Quote
RESISTANT BACTERIA -- STILL NO PROOF FOR 'UPWARD' EVOLUTION
(for the slow people 'upward' in this context means 'toward more complex life forms';)

Just to recap, evolutionists for many years having been offering anti-biotic resistant bacteria as evidence for macroevolution.  The reasoning is "Look at bacteria ... they 'evolve' and develop drug resistance ... see?  

You didn't read my previous post on why bacterial resistance is not evidence for macroevolution, Dave? I only posted it yesterday. Come on.

You know, I am just a simple industrial engineer (which isn't much more than business with some calculus thrown in) and the extent of my knowledge of biology comes from reading "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.  Even I knew that anti-biotic resistance in bacteria was proof of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.

After watching this thread for a few days now, I have to wonder if continuing the discussion is like mud wrestling a pig.  Pretty soon you realize that it is pointless, and that the pig is enjoying it.

Date: 2006/05/27 12:50:07, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ May 27 2006,14:53)
         
Quote
Even I knew that anti-biotic resistance in bacteria was proof of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.

Very good, Mr. Carlson.  And how does macroevolution happen, you may ask?  By microevolution happening over millions of years according to the Evos.

Just look in any World Book under the "Evolution" article (or other popular works on Evolution) and you will see how the truth about bacteria adapting (microevolution) fits into the very large Fairy Tale of the development of all life on earth.

Only a moron or a dishonest person could miss it.


See, here is the thing.  You and me, we're not scientists, we're engineers. Sure, we had to take chemistry and physics in college.  But don't kid yourself.  What we took what amounts to the remedial, short-bus versions.  As engineers, we are glorified mechanics.  So, if I have an interest in a topic outside of my area of expertise, I am humble enough to seek out people who have devoted their life to the subject, I listen to them and I try to understand.  

I think I'm a reasonably intelligent person.  But, I don't make an idol of my intellect and suppose that I know better than those that make a subject their life's business.  

 
Quote

Do you understand now?


All too well, my man, all too well. May I be so presumptuous to make a suggestion?  I referenced before the book "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.  If you are truly interested in understanding the practice of science (frankly, it isn't clear to me that you are), buy it and read it.  It takes you on a jolly good tour through cosmology, physics, archaelogy, paleontology, mathematics, and biology.  And, best of all, it is written to be understood by wrench-turners like us.  It is especially interesting in the sections devoted to the process of aging the earth and plate tectonics.  Did you know that many of the early contributors to these sciences were ministers and priests?

Date: 2006/05/28 05:18:33, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ May 28 2006,06:41)
       
Quote
As engineers, we are glorified mechanics.
Speak for yourself, please.  I am an electrical engineer and this means I design things which very much resemble biological systems.

I seem to recall a while back you were asked for some exposition in an area where you have expertise.  Perhaps this should have come up then?  A discussion of what you have designed and how they are analogous to biological systems might serve to give us some insight into where you are coming from.
       
Quote
 As a business owner, I used the work of scientists to create wealth.

Hydroponic tomatoes and phone cards?  Okay. I'll bite.  Discuss.
       
Quote
You are very naive if you think you are too dumb to understand how scientists operate.  You do not need an advanced science degree to understand both the good things scientists do and the errors that they make.  My approach is to analyze the writings of scientists with advanced degrees on both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate.  Scientists on both sides often write papers that are easily understandable by "amateur scientists" such as you and I.  Even the "original research" technical papers are often accessible to laymen.  Don't sell yourself short.

I don't sell myself short. But, I know what I know and I know what I don't know.  And in areas where I do not have expertise or knowledge, I don't presume to lecture those that have made that area their life's work.  To assume that because I have may have mastered one subject that I am equally knowledgeable and erudite on all topics is arrogant. It elevates the intellect to the level of a god.  And I am pretty sure that there are injunctions against that.

Date: 2006/06/02 08:44:36, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ June 02 2006,13:20)
Steve Story...  
Quote
How exactly do the "Laws of Relativity" show that?
Something tells me that explaining this again to a guy who doesn't understand that Biological Machines and Cosmic Fine Tuning are good evidence for an Intelligent Designer, is probably a waste of time.  Oh well, I tried.

Do I understand correctly that your rebuttal is "if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you?"  Is that the best you can do to explain the implications of relativity?

I'd almost suspect that you didn't know and were using condescension to mask ignorance.  I mean really, that is so eighth grade.  Surely, you can juke your way around that with a little more finesse.

Date: 2006/06/07 03:59:30, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ June 07 2006,05:44)
   
Quote
OA ...      
Quote
People are upset with you not for your YEC views, but for the dishonest and patronizing way you have gone about trying to proselytize.
This probably ranks up there as the supreme example of the 'pot calling the kettle black.'  As for proselytizing, I'm not.  This applies to religion and I'm not religious.  We've been over that.  Religious people are about rituals and candles and robes and homina-hominas.  I'm about the truth about Origins.  

Religion is about adherence to ritual AND dogma.  And while you may not be into robes and candles and such, your emotional investment in an inerrant Bible is rather dogmatic.  

 
Quote
I'm simply here to show you why the ToE and billions of years is incorrect and unsupported by the evidence, and why the Biblical model of Creation and the Flood is much better supported.

Heck, even the Catholic Church, as hidebound as it is, doesn't cling anymore to the inerrancy of the Bible.  I have heard it said that the Catholic Church invites parody.  That you are more dogmatic than the RCC on this issue may explain why you are not taken very seriously hereabouts. Just a thought, but as always, YMMV.

One other thought, though.  Why do you suppose that God has only given a paltry few data points of a young earth the RATE folks and thousands, if not millions, of data points of a very old earth to the rest of the scientific community.  If he wants us to believe, why so stingy?

Date: 2006/06/07 09:57:00, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ June 07 2006,13:52)
       
Quote
Heck, even the Catholic Church, as hidebound as it is, doesn't cling anymore to the inerrancy of the Bible.  I have heard it said that the Catholic Church invites parody.  That you are more dogmatic than the RCC on this issue may explain why you are not taken very seriously hereabouts. Just a thought, but as always, YMMV.
My view is that the Catholic Church has always been a people control institution, not a Christian Church in the Pauline (the apostle) sense of the word.  As such, what do they care about Biblical inerrancy?  After all, they view ultimate authority for faith and practice as coming from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church itself, not the Bible.  In fact, they scorn Protestants like me as 'Bible Christians.'

I am amazed.  You know more about biology than professional biologists. You know more about genetics than a geneticist. You know more about physics than physicists. You know more about languages than someone with a PhD in linguistics.  And now, apparently, you know more about theology than the theologians serving the oldest Christian church.  By God, you are:

http://www.lje.com/gallery/genius2.htm

         
Quote
     
Quote
One other thought, though.  Why do you suppose that God has only given a paltry few data points of a young earth the RATE folks and thousands, if not millions, of data points of a very old earth to the rest of the scientific community.  If he wants us to believe, why so stingy?
There are millions of data points supporting a young earth.  The reason you don't see them is because the majority of scientists today have bought into the Old Earth Myth and they publish thousands of articles in line with this thinking.
 
Yes. Thousands of articles that have shown their data and calculations and been critically peer reviewed before publications.  But, you know, actually having to show your work to other people who understand the topic is just an onerous hurdle to perpetuate the conspiracy, huh?

Date: 2006/06/08 05:31:15, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote

Carlson ...            
Quote
I am amazed.  You know more about biology than professional biologists. You know more about genetics than a geneticist. You know more about physics than physicists. You know more about languages than someone with a PhD in linguistics.  And now, apparently, you know more about theology than the theologians serving the oldest Christian church.
No, Carlson, it's just that error is easily arrived at, even for experts.

Sure, they are.  And that is what the peer-review is all about.  Subjects like evolution and the age of the earth, for example, have been under review since the mid-nineteenth century.  So, what you are saying is that hundreds of thousands of scientists for better than a century and a half have been making the same errors?  Doesn't that strike you as, well, just a little improbable?  How exactly do you explain that?
   
Quote

Truth is much more difficult to arrive at.  Do you have any idea how many ideas of 'experts' down through history have been refuted, often by non-experts?  Go do a a study on that and get back to me.

And an electrical engineer shall lead them?  Are you sure your horse's name is Shadow and not Rocinante?
     
Quote
 But of course, that's not to say that experts don't do good work generally.  Many of them do fine work, and I appreciate what they do and benefit from it.

Ahh, I love the smell of irony in the morning.
           
Quote
But, you know, actually having to show your work to other people who understand the topic is just an onerous hurdle to perpetuate the conspiracy, huh?  
Quote
The RATE Group presented at the American Geophysical Convention (correct name?) in San Francisco where there were 10,000 or so scientists present.  They were very well received.

From the various comments about the RATE results right here, it would seem that they haven't quite past the peer-review muster yet, so don't confuse politeness with acceptance ;)
   
Quote
The articles in the YEC journals ARE peer-reviewed ... it's just that we are in the minority right now. But the work is being submitted to conventional journals as well.  Maybe if they are not too biased against creationists (like you guys are), the RATE results will be published.

That is a possibility.  And if it doesn't get published I suppose that it all part of the conspiracy?  I mean it just isn't possible that the work lacks scientific merit.  After all, God is a powerful God and he wouldn't let his servants fail, right?

Date: 2006/06/09 10:19:20, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ June 09 2006,14:56)
So basically Deadman has no idea how the 3He/4He ratio would rule out extraneous Helium, he was just parroting what Henke said.

That's what I thought.

You have five kids.  Do you do their homework for them?  Or do you make them do it themselves because they learn better that way?

Date: 2006/06/13 12:23:46, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stephenWells @ June 13 2006,14:53)
 
Quote

Wells...              
Quote
But Dave doesn't care about any of that. In his little mind, Prof X said "The earth is 4.5 billion years old. There will be no argument." and everyone just fell into line.
Why don't you give me a quick summary of the history since you are an expert on it.  That way you can show you are not just mouthing off.

What don't you check a copy of Bill Bryson's "Brief history of nearly everything" out of your local library? It's concise, well-written, and full of references.

Oh no- I referred AFDave to another source! Another book for him not to read.

Not to be peevish, but I recommended he read that book on May 27th on the "AFDave Wants you to Prove Evolution to Him" discussion.  He didn't take my suggestion then, but I suppose YMMV.

Date: 2006/06/14 06:48:28, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,10:02)
AFDave:STILL NO SUCCESSFUL REFUTATION OF HUMPHREYS

Just out of curiousity, what would you consider a successful refutation?

Date: 2006/06/14 12:06:30, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,12:14)
         
Quote
Just out of curiousity, what would you consider a successful refutation?
Something that makes me go 'Hmmm ... really?  I never noticed that glaring error before.  OK, you're right'

Not good enough, Bubba.  What are the characteristics of something that makes you say "Hmm"? Because all this discussion around the Fenton Hill zircons has had at least a half-dozen "Hmm" moments for me. So, I'm kinda wondering what hurdles have to be jumped to get your attention. So, you are going to have to answer the question with more precision.
     
Quote
You may not be on a crusade personally.  But the NCSE is and I think they run this forum, do they not?]

Well, I suppose I should note that the NCSE particular area of interest is public science education and not the entirety of the curricullum.  I can't say I've seen them take a position on the teaching of history, or comparative religion.
 
Quote
They apparently think that 'Separation of Church and State' is in the constitution and they think that 'no establishment of religion' means no mention of a Creator or God in public settings.

The Establishment Clause prohibits the endorsement of a particular religion/diety in public settings by a government entity.  And the mention of a particular diety to the exclusion of other dieties is a de facto endorsement. That is why a manger scene alone on the public square is a no-no, but a manger seen accompanied by a creche and other such seasonal symbols is (umm) kosher. And that is where your creationist brethren get into trouble.  Completely aside from a lack of good supporting science, creationism is a concept mostly associated with a limited set of conservative, Christian sects.  The fact that people who adhere to different belief systems, including many Christians, might not buy into your viewpoint and stand for good science to be taught in science class just doesn't occur to you, does it?

And, anticipating your next knee jerk, I define good science as science that is characterized by sound, controlled methodology, has been independently verified hundreds (if not thousands or more) times and has withstood broad scrutiny by the scientific community.  And a couple of zircons of a indeterminate geological history does not good science make.

Date: 2006/06/15 08:02:55, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ June 15 2006,11:27)


Wow, Rilke.  Didn't know you could do anything but 'troll.'  I'm impressed.  You apparently don't understand the issue of separation of church and state.  You need to read 'The Myth of Separation' by David Barton.  Here is an article from him, but you should read his book.  David Barton's works are some of the best documented you will ever find.  He is one of the few academics that I know of that almost exclusively uses the higher legal standard for documenting his quotes.  Most academics use a lesser standard than this.

Actually David Barton isn't particularly credible except amongst the true believers. If you want solid, unbiased information on the religiosity of the Founding Fathers you would be better of investigating the academic work of Gregg Frazer.  Frazer is conservative, evangelical Christian, and (get this) a literal 6 day creationist. Just your kind of guy. But, be forewarned, Frazer won't paint the Founders as the good Christian soldiers you would want them to be.
   
Quote
In contrast to the intent of Jefferson and the intent of early courts, the NCSE is seeking to eliminate all reference to God in public school science classes.

Oh my gawd!  They want to only talk about science in science class?  Why, the audacity!!  
 
Quote
The ACLU is similarly trying to eliminate all reference to God in public school PERIOD.

Well, public schools are open to people of any religious background right?  Why should Jews or Hindus be subjected to Christian proselytizing in order to get an education?
 
Quote

This is un-American and naive.  The USA was founded as a Christian nation in the sense that the laws and practices were founded upon the general principles of Christianity without favoring a particular sect of Christianity.

Nominally Christian.  But the Founders were far more influenced by Enlightment thinkers like John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau. The most openly religious of the leading Fathers was John Adams and John Jay.  Adams was a Unitarian (see letter to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816) and Jay was rather un-Christian towards Catholics (probably because of his French Huguenot ancestry).  Other leading founders would not fit in well in your congregation, as it were. Benjamin Franklin and Gouverneur Morris were deists and decidely libertine in their demeanour.  What Thomas Jefferson did to the New Testament would be considered borderline criminal in the circles you move in. Washington attended church, but never took communion.  The personal beliefs of James Madison were probably somewhere between that of Adams and Jefferson, but his writings on the nature of religion in public life were unequivocal in their force of keeping the two from intermingling.

As far as the nation being found on Christian principles, I would say there is no doubt that many of the Founders considered Christ to be a great teacher.  But he was one among many teachers that stretch back even past the Enlightenment to ancient Greece.  Our legal system (expect for Louisiana, I am led to understand) is built on the base of English common law. It is well nigh impossible to draw a link between the 10 Commandments and American law. I will grant that Commandments 6, 8, and 9 are codified in American law, but you'll find them in all societies laws, Christian or not.  But you'll be hard pressed to find the other 7 in the Federal Register.

Date: 2006/06/15 09:15:09, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ June 15 2006,14:08)
Incorygible...    
Quote
So what do I think WHAT test will show, Davey?  You don't have a test.
I do.  It's called the SAT Test.  You go find the gorilla and the chimp.  I'll provide the human, the SAT test and the testing room. We'll give them each the same amount of time.

How about WE provide the human?  Because, I am willing to bet WE could choose a human that would score a similar result to the chimp and the gorilla.

Date: 2006/06/17 02:38:07, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ June 17 2006,07:14)

Do you guys really not understand this?  That is astounding.  Is no one familiar with dog breeders?  Or horse breeeders?  Do you not understand what a short time it takes to get radically different looking dogs and horses?  

Well, as a horse owner, I understand quite well.  There is one problem, dude.  A breed is not the same thing as a species.  The four year old AWS registered Percheron-Arab cross out in my pasture is Equus caballus.  Just like her sire and just like her dam.  Funny thing, the race-bred quarter horse, paint horse, and Section A Welsh out grazing with her are a pretty diverse looking lot, but are all Equus caballus too.

Date: 2006/06/17 11:56:29, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ June 17 2006,10:23)

Carlson...    
Quote
Well, as a horse owner, I understand quite well.  There is one problem, dude.  A breed is not the same thing as a species.  The four year old AWS registered Percheron-Arab cross out in my pasture is Equus caballus.  Just like her sire and just like her dam.  Funny thing, the race-bred quarter horse, paint horse, and Section A Welsh out grazing with her are a pretty diverse looking lot, but are all Equus caballus too.
Yes.  And the apes are a pretty diverse looking lot as well and anyone that knows anything about breeding should know that it doesn't take long to get a lot of very different looking apes.

Umm, get a dictionary. Look up the noun 'breed'.  Now look up 'specie'. Notice any difference?
Quote
My head just spins at some of the blindness on this thread!

You might want to get your eye sight checked. I hear it can cause equillibrium problems.  ;)

Date: 2006/06/17 15:25:14, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ June 17 2006,18:12)
Arden...        
Quote
Now, "it's amazing to me that you don't scratch your head and say ... 'Hmmm ... with all this opportunity that we Christians have to indocrinate everyone with our theory, why don't they buy it?  Could it be wrong?"
Christians have not had the opportunity for indocrination that Evos have had.  You give me all the world's school children and all the media and all the museums and all the encyclopedias to disseminate my message and I guarantee you I can raise the worldwide % of Christians a whale of a lot.  This is the kind of monopoly Evolution has had in Western society and yet only about half the population buys into it.

Christianity has had, what, around about 2000 years to spread it's message?  And modern science has been around, to work in round numbers, about 200 years. So, if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that science has gained almost complete hegemony over the human mind in around one tenth the time than the Christian religion has been working at it?  Why would God allow that?  You'd think if He saw incompatibility between belief in Him and modern science, he would have not allowed it to gain the upper hand.  Why do you suppose that is, Dave?

Date: 2006/06/20 04:18:22, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ June 20 2006,08:18)
JonF...    
Quote
It's a horrible guess.  There's no flood to account for.  If their scenario were corect, we'd see a step in the C14 calibration curves and results.
No.  There's no Flood.  There's only Millions and millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth  But there's no Flood!  There's only marine fossils on mountain tops, but no Flood!  Wink, wink.  That's right, JonF, no Flood!

You know, this reminds me that you haven't ever answered any of the questions put to you on plate tectonics.  Since you brought this up, perhaps now is a good time.  You up for it, Bubba?  My guess is no, you will ignore it again, like you ignored it before. But, who knows.......

Date: 2006/06/20 04:39:15, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ June 20 2006,08:18)
Clamboy...      
Quote
17 years per species, and you call that "hyperevolution"?!? Pshaw, I say, P-SHAW!!!
I'm not sure where you guys got off on this track.  YECs really cannot say how many kinds were originally created.

Why not, Dave?  You know how big the Ark was, right?  So, knowing how much space was available you could figure out how many "kinds" could fit into the Ark.  This sounds like an area where you could do some original scientific work instead of just regurgitating AIG work. Just remember to leave enough space for a years worth of food.  Oooh, don't forget you'll need some buffer space to keep the carnivores away from the leaf-eaters. Go for it.  This could be really exciting and place your name in the pantheon of Creationist scientists.

Date: 2006/06/21 04:50:25, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ June 21 2006,09:05)
carlsonjok...          
Quote
You know, this reminds me that you haven't ever answered any of the questions put to you on plate tectonics.  
Actually, I have several times ... here it is again ... I think there was one super-continent before the Flood, then it broke apart during the Flood and began separating into the present day continents.

Actually, that isn't an answer. That is a supposition that you pulled out of your ass.  Or AIG's ass.  Or ICR's ass. I'm not sure, since they are virtually indistinguishable.  The problem is that you have provided no empirical proof of such an event. Heck, you haven't even provided an empirical mechanism.  In short, all you are providing is bluster.  
 
Quote
Renier...          
Quote
Why does only America have this blotto called creationism and the rest of the world only laugh at it? I know it has been attempted in other countries, like the UK, yet all in all the people still laugh at it. Heck, a BIG proportion of Christians laugh at it. In fact, I think the majority of Christians worldwide laugh at it. So, a little population in America think they are God's gift to the world, and that everyone should just agree with them and do what they say, since they say so.
In case you have not noticed, America is the current leader of the world.  America has historically been the leader of the world because America has historically honored the Creator of the world.

Well, we've gone over this before.  The founders were far more influenced by the Enlightenment than by any general or specific religious system of belief. What the founders honored was the natural rights of men: But, let's have a pop quiz.
Who was it, Dave, who said the following:  "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."  

Quote
carlson...          
Quote
Why not, Dave?  You know how big the Ark was, right?  So, knowing how much space was available you could figure out how many "kinds" could fit into the Ark.
This is old news, carlson.  There was plenty of space.  Morris and Whitcomb covered this back in 1961 in "The Genesis Flood."  At that time Ernst Mayr was reporting about 1,000,000 animal species in existence today of which only about 17,600 of these were mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, which of course, would be the only ones needing an ark.  The original number of kinds was undoubtedly less than this for reasons already stated.  But if you take this number and assume sheep sized animals on average, you only need about 73 railroad stock cars.  The ark had a volume at least as large as 522 stock cars, based on 1 cubit=18 inches.  My opinion is that it was bigger than this because according to Newton, the cubit was 25 inches.  But in either case, you can see that there would have been plenty of room for the animals and humans, plus food, plus extra space.  I have some good pictures which depict what it may have been like.  Maybe I will post them soon.

I do not see.  The problem is you have provided the veneer of math without having actually done so.  So, I think there is still fertile ground for you to become the great creationist scientist that you aspire to. You should start with the number of kinds (which I would note that you failed to provide) and then you can get into proving that microevolutionary mechanisms could provide the diversity we see todayin just a few short millenia. Come on, man. Did you leave your cajones at 30,000 feet?  Define some original research here and go for it. You could graduate from preaching at the cheap seats here and propel yourself onto a national or even a global stage.  Wouldn't that be great?  Your a smart guy but you are, as others have pointed out, a dilletante.  You absorb and regurgitate the work of others.  Here is a chance to make your own name by doing something original.

Date: 2006/06/21 05:45:19, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ June 21 2006,10:11)
cj...        
Quote
Actually, that isn't an answer. That is a supposition that you pulled out of your ass.  Or AIG's ass.  Or ICR's ass. I'm not sure, since they are virtually indistinguishable.  The problem is that you have provided no empirical proof of such an event. Heck, you haven't even provided an empirical mechanism.  In short, all you are providing is bluster.
You are correct on one count ... that I have not yet provided YOU with the proof.  There is much proof available, though, and if you stick around long enough, I will show it to you.

Oh, I've been around here a while and I've heard you say that alot. But, you have delivered precious little.  You are, in the secular vernacular, a tease.
   
Quote

cj...        
Quote
Well, we've gone over this before.  The founders were far more influenced by the Enlightenment than by any general or specific religious system of belief. What the founders honored was the natural rights of men: But, let's have a pop quiz.
Who was it, Dave, who said the following:  "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."  
You would not have the slightest chance of winning an argument with David Barton on the Founders.

Well, I am an engineer and I don't pretend to be a historian. But, Barton would be eaten alive by Gregg Frazer.  Did you ever look into Frazer like I suggested some time back?  He is a evangelical, 6 day creationist, so he should have instant credibility with you.  Or are you avoiding him since he would force you to face uncomfortable truths?

Oh, by the way, you didn't answer the question.  Who said it?  I'll give you a hint. It was the same person that said "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."  

   
Quote
 He shows quite clearly that America was founded as a Christian nation from the founders own original writings.  The problem is that you will probably never bother to read what he says.  And I'm not going to take the space to show you on this thread right now.

Barton is something of a joke amongst serious historians. I have however, added Gregg Frazer to my reading list. Have you?
Quote
   
Quote
I do not see.  The problem is you have provided the veneer of math without having actually done so.
No.  The problem is with you.  This is quite easy math that I have given you, but you are offended at the idea of the Bible being true and the Flood being a real possibility, so you resort to lamely trying to insult me.

I didn't insult you Dave. I pointed out that you didn't provide any number of kinds.  Without that, you were just throwing around numbers in the hopes that no one noticed there was more unknowns than equations.  And if you do provide that, then it should be a short step for you to prove that all the diversity of life could evolve from those kinds.  But I predict that you won't.  
   
Quote
As for my aspirations of some great global platform, I have none.  I only have a desire to "bloom where I am planted" and do my small part in revealing truth to people.  If God wants me to do bigger things in the future, He will make that clear and provide a way.

God wants you to regurgitate AIG stuff whole and unaltered?  Why is that?  Isn't AIG perfectly capable of explaining themselves?

Date: 2006/06/21 07:27:18, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ June 21 2006,11:52)
cj...      
Quote
Barton is something of a joke amongst serious historians.
Why?  He's far more thorough than any other historian I have ever read.  Maybe by 'serious historians' you mean 'revisionist historians.'  

No. I mean serious historians.  That they come to conclusions you may not like doesn't make them necessarily revisionist. Or are you suggesting that you have exclusive ownership of the truth in history, in addition to biology, paleontology, cosmology, linguistics,.....? Oh heck, is their any subject you are not better informed on then actual practitioners?
   
Quote

No.  I have never read your guy.  Give me a link or a title or something.

Strictly speaking, he isn't "my guy".He is an evangelical and a 6 day creationist, of which I am neither. He is "your guy." That is why I suggested him to you. I have recently read biographies of 7 different of the Founding Fathers (technically 7 and a half because I left a biography of Governuer Morris on an airplane on the way back from a business trip in Mexico before I could finish it) by 7 different authors and none of them agreed with your supposition.  But, as to the link:

www.google.com

   
Quote
cj...      
Quote
And if you do provide that, then it should be a short step for you to prove that all the diversity of life could evolve from those kinds.  But I predict that you won't.
You predict wrong.

Since you have yet to provide anything, my prediction is, at worst, neither proved nor disproved. But, I suppose it is possible that you might actually prove me wrong in the future.
   
Quote
 But not today.

Indeed.  

Date: 2006/06/21 14:02:30, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 21 2006,18:04)
 
Quote
Oh, by the way, you didn't answer the question.  Who said it?  I'll give you a hint. It was the same person that said "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."  


oh! oh! I know! pick me!

this person coincidentally has the same initials that most folks around these parts used to abreviate the last part of my old handle (which was Sir_Toejam, for those unfamiliar).

You know, Dave, one of those founding fathers you were so convinced were all of the same worldview as yourself.

Very good.  The conservative Christians often take the quote from his memorial that reads "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man" as proof that he is one of their own.  I find this amusing in much the same way I find politicians using Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA" as a campaign theme song amusing.  Because, in context, the quote means quite the opposite of what they think it does.

The quote was, umm, mined from a letter written to Benjamin Rush and reads, when extended fore and aft, "....the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me...."

Notice also the lack of capitalization of "God". At one time I had an URL for a photo of the letter showing the lack of capitalization, but I cannot seem to find it anymore.

And,by golly, we won't even get into what he did to the New Testament.  Ay yay yay!!!

Date: 2006/06/22 09:17:12, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ June 22 2006,13:53)
 
Quote
Carlson...    
Quote
No. I mean serious historians.  That they come to conclusions you may not like doesn't make them necessarily revisionist.
I'll tell you what.  You start a thread about August or so (whenever we get done with this thread) and David Barton and I will take you on.  This is an important topic to me. Deal?

In the mean time, can you guess who said this: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."?

For bonus points, can you guess who it was said to?

Date: 2006/06/23 11:38:53, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ June 23 2006,11:04)
cj...      
Quote
In the mean time, can you guess who said this: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."?
Jefferson.  To the Danbury Baptist Association.  Now a bonus-bonus question for you ... do you know the context and the intent of the letter?  I'll answer the question for you ...

The Danbury Baptists were concerned that the new constitution was not specific enough in preventing the government from interfering with religion.  They said, "But sir, our constitution of government is not specific ... therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights."  Jefferson's reply to them quoted above satisfied them because it was clear that the "wall of separation" was erected to keep government from intruding into religion, not to keep religion from being practiced in government as is it is erroneously interpreted today.

Now who is the revisionist?  When viewed in conjunction with "director's cut" of the "altar of god" text, it is pretty obvious that when Jefferson talks about a wall of separation, he meant a wall.  Not a door where only one side had the key.  To put this in terms you might understand, Jefferson envisioned a short, not a diode.

The Baptists were a minority sect at the time and were already some-what persecuted by the mainline sects, particulary the Anglicans.  The government interference they feared was a second order affect of the establishment of a state religion, which was certainly a desire of those mainline sects, which the "altar of god" text refers to.  The wall of separation meant to keep religion and government out of each other's business.  And no amount of shoddy scholarship on Barton's part will change that.  

By the way, what do you think of what Jefferson did to the New Testament?

Date: 2006/06/24 08:44:09, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ June 24 2006,11:08)
 Faid...    
Quote
So, dave: If your God came to you, beyond any doubt in your mind, and told you you should kill babies in his name, because that is his will at the moment and he knows better, would you do it dave?
No. I would not.  This is one of those 'have you stopped beating your wife?' questions.  God does not 'come to people' and tell them things these days that I am aware of.  He did that in the days before the Scriptures were completed.  That is no longer necessary.  We have 'Moses and the Prophets' now to quote someone famous (Jesus).  Why do we need God speaking directly to us?

Shhh!  Don't tell Pat Robertson.

Date: 2006/06/26 09:28:56, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ June 26 2006,12:38)
On the one hand, you are talking about the Moral Absolute that "Individual humans are not to kill."  On the other hand you have lawfully instituted, God-ordained governments which are delegated the power by God to kill--capital punishment, war, A-bombs, etc.

Okay, I have to admit some degree of curiousity about this?  Are all governments God-ordained?

Date: 2006/06/27 01:01:37, Link
Author: carlsonjok
[quote=normdoering,June 26 2006,20:44]     
Quote
1) afdave has repeated this claim, starting on page 82 here:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....st=2430

     
Quote
the Documentary Hypothesis or Graf/Wellhausen Theory assumed erroneously that the invention of writing post-dated Moses and so the theory asserts that Genesis was composed by later authors, supposedly made up of 4 documents denoted as J, E, D, and P.


Where afdave might have screwed up is when he said writing post-dated Moses. Maybe he meant to say writing post-dated the events in Genesis, or some events in Genesis?

You are going to have to help me here, Norm.  I'm no fan of Dave.  I think he is wrong on just about everything.  But, I am having trouble seeing how your comment follows from his. His comment says that the Graf/Wellhausen Theory assumed erroneously that the invention of writing post-dated Moses.  Yet you seem to accuse him of holding exactly that belief.  I read the previous post referenced and  I don't see where he is supporting the Graf/Wellhausen Theory that you are saying he is.  I haven't had any coffee yet this morning, so I may just be slow-witted.  But his use of the word "erroneously" leads to a different conclusion than your comment.  Can you illucidate?

Date: 2006/06/27 07:21:20, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ June 27 2006,11:43)
IS ALL GOVERNMENT "GOD-ORDAINED"?
Yes, according to the Apostle Paul in Romans 13.  Note that he wrote this in spite of the fact that he disagreed vigorously with the philosophy and practices of his government (the Roman government actually executed him), nevertheless he believed in obeying it insofar as the government did not violate directs commands of Scripture (i.e. if a government forbade preaching or teaching the Bible, this was an unlawful command and should be disobeyed).  

Well, now you have me thoroughly confused.  So, is what you are a saying Paul believes that we should always obey the government (regardless of whether we agree or not) unless it directs us to disobey a Scriptural commandment, which would presumably include the Decalogue? And if that is correct, then doesn't it follow that Paul would have me refuse an order by my government to violate the Scriptural proscription against killing?

Date: 2006/07/01 07:20:31, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ July 01 2006,11:26)
Deadman...        
Quote
Animal tracks in the coconino sandstone, tsk... How many layers were deposited by " the flood of 5000 BCE" Dave? How could there be animal tracks ...if it was all under water? And by the way, Dave...how DID you construct that chronology?

Question #1:  Easy.  Animal walks in mud.  Leaves tracks.  Mud layer flows over tracks.  Presto!  Buried tracks.  Mud hardens. Voila!  

(Mud defined loosely ... you get my point let's hope)

Word of advice, Dave: Don't go off script.  You don't do improv well. Not well at all.

Earlier, you showed a picture of the Grand Canyon and said it was a "MASSIVE quantities of WATER-LAID rock!"  Your contention, of course, was that it was laid during the global flood.  But, that creates a problem for you.  See, the footprints were found in the coconino sandstone. Now,please look again at the image presented by deadman, which I reproduce here:

You should notice that the cocino sandstone is several layers down.  Now if all these layers were laid down during the single global flood, you have a bit of a problem explaining how the footprints got there when the whole area was underwater.  You see Dave, you didn't answer the question.  You gave a smart aleck answer about the mechanism of how footprints could be made.  But, not how such footprints could be found in an area that was underwater during a Great Flood where the only animals capable of walking were cooped up an an ark.

So, back to the drawing board.  How did those footprints get there while the area was underwater? Did the flood recede long enough for Noah to allow the animals to get off the ark and stretch their legs in Northern Arizona before heading back towards Mount Ararat?    Maybe a transitional species that could breath and walk underwater, like a proto-Aquaman kind? Inquiring minds.....

Date: 2006/07/01 11:39:59, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ July 01 2006,16:03)
Carlson ... Where did you get the idea that all land animals were cooped up in the ark?  Only two of every kind (7 of some) were in the ark.  There were many animals outside trying to escape the rising floodwaters.  It is perfectly plausible for an animal to make footprints in mud, then the footprints got covered up with a new layer of mud.

What is so unbelievable about that?

Okay, I see I need to take this step-by-step.  So let us start again from the beginning.  You agree that you said that the Grand Canyon is made of "MASSIVE quantities of WATER-LAID rock!", correct?  And you propose that this was all laid by the biblical flood, also correct?

So, for the sake of argument, let us assume that the great flood did indeed create the Grand Canyon.  So, can we agree that the layers lower in the canyon were created first, in the early days of the flood, as it were?  Can we also agree then that as you go higher up the canyon walls you will encounter layers that were laid down later in the flood, with the uppermost layers having been laid down last during the waning days of the flood?  This is an important point here and I need you to respond specifically whether you agree with these two comments or not. If we can agree on these points, then I think we can proceed. So, do you agree?

Date: 2006/07/02 07:06:59, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ July 02 2006,07:10)
Carlson...          
Quote
Okay, I see I need to take this step-by-step.  So let us start again from the beginning.  You agree that you said that the Grand Canyon is made of "MASSIVE quantities of WATER-LAID rock!", correct?  And you propose that this was all laid by the biblical flood, also correct?
I think that the majority of the sedimentary rock we see in the Grand Canyon was laid down by the Flood, yes.

Excellent. There is quite a few layers there, so it helps that we understand that you feel the majority were laid down by the flood. Of course, it would be better if you defined what you meant by "majority".  So, can you answer which specific layers you thought were laid down by the flood and which were indigenous.  Words like majority are not very precise.  And since we are talking science here, precision is important.  After all using words like "majority" can allow either of us to shift the goalposts and weasel out.  And I am sure, now that you have me on the ropes, you don't want to give me an out.  
Quote
 
Quote
So, for the sake of argument, let us assume that the great flood did indeed create the Grand Canyon.  So, can we agree that the layers lower in the canyon were created first, in the early days of the flood, as it were? Can we also agree then that as you go higher up the canyon walls you will encounter layers that were laid down later in the flood, with the uppermost layers having been laid down last during the waning days of the flood?  This is an important point here and I need you to respond specifically whether you agree with these two comments or not. If we can agree on these points, then I think we can proceed. So, do you agree?


Creationists believe that the Flood was a volcanic, tectonic, and hydraulic cataclysm of massive proportions with numerous phases including: breakup of subterranean reservoirs, massive rainfall, uplift of land masses with ensuing runoff and heavy erosion, and large episodes of sedimentation and fossilization occurring in waves.  The igneous and metamorphic rocks in the lower portions of the Grand Canyon may be primeval and/or formed during the Flood year.  The sedimentary layers were formed in waves of deposition during the Flood year easily allowing the possibility of mobile land animals to make prints in mud which was not underwater, then be swept away with the next mudflow while their prints were buried.

This wasn't a direct answer, but we can come back to it once we have your answer on which layers were flood created and which weren't. Here is the picture again for reference:

Date: 2006/07/02 10:16:20, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ July 02 2006,13:14)
Carlson ... this is Historical Geology we are talking about here.  Not the same thing as Applied Physics or something where we can arrive at precise mathematical values.

Okay, fair enough. But do you think maybe you can help me narrow it down some?  I count 14 layers that were laid down in a relatively orderly manner and 6 layers that were subject to some significant upheaval.  When you say you believe that the majority were laid down by the flood and when you separately say that you believe there was some significant tectonic activity during the same time, I assume you mean a majority of all 20 layers shown.  Have I understood you correctly?  The followup question really seeks to establish some bounds on what majority means.  Are you thinking a simple majority or something more along the lines of a supermajority?
   
Quote
If we can qualitatively describe a Global Flood scenario and reasonably account for all phenomena then we will be quite happy.

Well, you will need to indulge my obsessive-compulsiveness around this issue, because science is, ultimately, a quantitative endeavour. Qualitative descriptions are certainly adequate for starting a scientific inquiry, but they don't really get you out of the hypothesis phase.  And with nothing more than a hypothesis to look at, it is real hard to separate the geniuses with great insight from the charlatans pulling stuff out of their keester.

Think of the movie "Mr. Mom."  When the Michael Keaton character is asked how he is going to wire the room he was remodelling, his response was "220. 221.  Whatever it takes."  You know right off that the character doesn't know anything about wiring a room. Why?  Because he is mimicking the language of an electrician, but isn't speaking with any degree of precision like a true electrician would.  So, you see, the more precision you can provide, the better basis we have for evaluating your input here.  Words like "majority" and "massive" are quite imprecise and give the impression the person weilding such words is bluffing.  And when people think that, they are going to call the bluff.  That is what is going on here, Dave.  People are calling your bluff. You want to paint a sweeping panoramas, step back and say "There!  Isn't it obvious!"  But professional scientists start with the minutia and build upwards from there.  Brick by laborious brick. So, you need to habla the espanol, if you catch my meaning.

Date: 2006/07/02 13:28:27, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (ericmurphy @ July 02 2006,17:01)
For the strata in the diagram Carlson provided,

In all fairness, I didn't provide it so much as blatantly borrow it from deadman_932.
Quote

in what order the strata were laid down (which isn't always the order they appear in),

Just for my own curiousity, I'd be interested in some discussion of how layers can be out of chronological sequence.  There is an interesting logical quandry with the footprints we are moving slowly towards and I think this would be an interesting mechanism to understand before we get there.  Thanks.

Date: 2006/07/03 02:20:21, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ July 03 2006,07:02)
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE GLOBAL FLOOD
1) Footprints in Coconino sandstone - ANSWERED.  CHECK.

Actually, no. I am still a few steps away from dealing with the footprints.  To recap where we are, you have shared that you believe a majority of the strata shown in the cross section of the Grand Canyon were laid down by the flood.  But, we still have the open question as to how to quantify "majority" and to which layers the "majority" modifier relates to. Specifically does it relate to the 14 relatively orderly layers only, or to all 20 layers, including the 6 at the bottom showing signs of significant upheaval.  Also, by majority, do you mean "one more than half" or something more along the lines of "all but one or two"?
     
Quote
1) A little more on footprints in the Coconino sandstone ... "footprint fossils" are what geologists call "trace fossils" and require rapid burial in order to be preserved.  Does anyone need me to explain why this is? Does anyone need me to explain the implications of RAPID BURIAL?  (Hint: Global Flood)

Well, that is a possibility, but it isn't the only possibility I could conjur up.  So, if you would be good enough to help me see your point, I'd like to take this step-by-step.  I may be a little slow, but I am educable.  So, please indulge me on this.  Can you help me narrow down somewhat which layers in the Grand Canyon cross section were likely created by the flood?

Date: 2006/07/03 02:56:07, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ July 03 2006,07:34)
Q5) Which rocks are sedimentary in the Grand Canyon?
A5) All those above "The Great Unconformity."  The ones below are metamorphic or igneous.

Well, I see some sedimentary below the Great Unconformity, but I think we can work with this anyways.  So, if I understand, everything from the Tapeats Sandstone up was laid down by the flood.  Have I got that right?  I hope so, because this would be a big step forward in our discussion.

If I have that right, then we can focus on upper 14 layers which were laid down in a fairly orderly manner.  This would indicate to me a lack of significant tectonic activity in the area of the Grand Canyon during the flood.  And given the apparent lack of any igneous rock in those upper 14 layers, it seems to indicate a lack of volcanic activity also.   Does this make sense to you, Dave?

Date: 2006/07/03 04:25:09, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ July 03 2006,09:01)
Carlson...    
Quote
So, if I understand, everything from the Tapeats Sandstone up was laid down by the flood.  Have I got that right?
Yes.  That is my understanding of the Global Flood Theory.

Cool!  So we agree that the upper 14 layers were laid down by the flood.  Do we also agree that their orderly appearance in the cross section is indicative of orderly deposit, without any tectonic or volcanic interference?

Date: 2006/07/04 09:55:39, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 04 2006,13:12)
Nonetheless,  Just in case you didn't know, Dave---
Separation of church and state is what the founding fathers wanted for the nation, and I prefer not to allow you or anyone to distort history to make it appear otherwise. Patriotism doesn't consist of wrapping oneself in the flag and pretending that is sufficient disguise for religious fanaticism.  

This does bring to mind that Dave never did address his thoughts on the Jefferson Bible.  For those who may be unfamiliar with the subject, allow me to explain.

As Faid correctly states, most of the leading Founding Fathers were influenced by the Enlightment philosophers including, but not limited to, Locke and Rousseau.  Within that context, the invocation of the natural rights of man as being endowed by their Creator was a deliberate reaction and challenge to the "divine right of kings."  

While there were many participants and influences, a strong case can be made that the three leading, and most influential, political theorists were John Adams, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson.  Certainly all believed in God, but the similarity between their religious beliefs and Daves ends there. In short, they valued reason over revelation.  All three were considered deists, although their beliefs varied.  Adams attended a Congregational church, but self-identified as a unitarian.  Madison was nominally Anglican, although of all the Founding Fathers he fought the hardest to keep religion and government out of each others domain.

Jefferson is special to the modern religious right and they put alot of effort into trying to claim him as one of their own.  It is a tough row to hoe.  Jefferson saw Jesus Christ as a great moral teacher, but specifically rejected the divinity of Christ.  Which brings us around to the Jefferson Bible. Later in life, Jefferson went through the Christian Gospels and expunged all supernatural references.  The resulting text was called "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth."

I dare say that such an act today would be considered by the religious conservatives as an act of heresy.  And, I would guess, would  be a career-ender for a political leader.

EDIT:Corrected several spelling and grammatical errors.

Date: 2006/07/05 06:23:22, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ July 05 2006,10:23)
 
Quote
Jefferson is special to the modern religious right and they put alot of effort into trying to claim them as one of their own.  It is a tough row to hoe.  Jefferson saw Jesus Christ as a great moral teacher, but specifically rejected the divinity of Christ.  Which brings us around to the Jefferson Bible. Later in life, Jefferson went through the Christian Gospels and expunged all supernatural references.  The resulting text was called "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth."

I dare say that such an act today would be considered by the religious conservatives as an act of heresy.  And, I would guess, would  be a career-ender for a political leader.
No one is claiming that he would attend Jerry Falwell's church, or John MacArthur's or Tony Evans'.

I think the name you might want to look for is Joseph Priestley.
 
Quote
 We are just quoting the man and pointing out that he believed in God and he was a promoter of General Christian principles and he acknowledged their source - the Holy Bible.

Well, there is no question that the Bible was a source, but it hardly was the only or even the most influential. Jefferson (like most of the Founding Fathers) read widely and there are myriad influences to his political philosophy. The Enlightenment philosophers were, of course, the most influential, but other influences can be traced back to even ancient Greece, like Epicurius.

Date: 2006/07/05 07:59:23, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (ericmurphy @ July 05 2006,11:40)
And what does this analogy between God, parents, humans, and children have to do with anything? I don't care what your god's motivations were. I care what the evidence supports. The evidence not only doesn't support your dadd-caused global flood; it rules it out of consideration.

This reminds me of something I read not to long ago in "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer" by Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin.

Apparently, there was some sense of guilt running through the scientific community after the successful use of the atomic bomb on Japan for having unleashed such a destructive force.

When asked about this, apparently for a 1948 Time magazine article, Harvard professor Percy Bainbridge was quoted as saying "Scientists aren't responsible for the facts that are in nature.....If anyone should have a sense of sin, it's God. He put the facts there."

Date: 2006/07/18 07:48:24, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (GCT @ July 18 2006,12:11)
DaveTard was the soul of UD.  

Actually, in a Freudian context, Dave was the super-ego of UD.  

Well, okay, in any context.

Date: 2006/08/04 21:04:38, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (ericmurphy @ Aug. 04 2006,23:03)
It's entirely "plausible" that I could have a Klein bicycle, isn't it? I mean, I certainly make enough money to own one, and one would cost a fraction of the bike I actually own.

Klein bikes used to be very expensive. Back in the 1970s and early 1980s, Kleins were handmade with ungodly amounts of time spent on the detailed finish of the welds.  These frames costed upwards of $5000.  Just for the frame.  For context, at this time, you could get top of the line Italian frame with Campy Super Record for $900.  It wasn't until after Klein was bought by Trek did the prices of his bikes come down into the affordable range.
Quote
But where's the evidence that I have one, Dave? Here's the evidence of the bike I actually do own.

Serotta is cool, but Shimano?  A sweet ride like that really deserves Campagnolo.

Date: 2006/08/05 10:29:16, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Bing @ Aug. 05 2006,10:37)
     
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 05 2006,02:04)
Serotta is cool, but Shimano?  A sweet ride like that really deserves Campagnolo.

Oh no, you're not one of those Campagnolo Cultists, are you?

Probably.
   
Quote

7 TdeF wins in a row was good enough for Lance on Shimano, at the DA/Campy Record level I believe that any performance differences are due to the legs and not the components.

Functionally, to be sure. In fact, I'd even suggest that there aren't any signficant differences between gruppos at different price points that aren't drowned out by rider conditioning. But, I prefer the cleaner aesthetics of the Campy Ergopower shifters to the bulbous shape of the Shimano.

Admittedly, I am also something of a traditionalist, having started riding in the early 1980s when Italian steel and Campagnolo Super Record was the thing. Ironically, my first pro bike was a Cilo with the first generation Dura Ace SIS.  My main ride now (although I haven't ridden much in the last 4 years. ??? ) is a Cinelli Supercorsa with Campy 8-speed Chorus.  Nothing real cutting edge, but it sure is purty!

Date: 2006/09/01 00:39:37, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (improvius @ Aug. 31 2006,21:39)
I... I just don't know what to say anymore.

At least they let your comments see the light of day.  I signed up and submitted my first comment at about 8 PM last night:

 
Quote
Jerry says:"As hard as you insist there is no religious implication in ID other than there was someone who did it. Who, what the person did or, how they did it or why are not the province of ID. Is that hard to understand?"

Well, yes it is.  I am struggling to get my arms around ID here and am not succeeding.  As near as I can tell in the short time here, ID seeks to detect design through something called Complex Specified Information. People can apparently assign values of "No CSI. Duh!" and "Alot of CSI. Duh!" by visual inspection, but don't seem to stray away from the extremes and actually calculate CSI on anything that is less than already obvious.  That is, I suppose, a start, but until you get away from the extremes I am struggling to see the explanatory potential.

Now you say that you don't seek to know who the designer is, what processes he used, or what his motivation was.  Okay, fine.  But, if you don't seek the designer or to understand his method or motive, and don't apply CSI in a rigorous way to discover his handiwork, I don't see any paths to new knowledge here.

Never saw the light of day.

Date: 2006/09/01 03:40:29, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (GCT @ Sep. 01 2006,08:34)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 01 2006,05:39)
Never saw the light of day.

It seems to be there now.

And here I'm going away for the long weekend and won't be able to follow the conversation!  Oh, well.

Dumb question:  with moderation, do comments get posted in the order they are submitted,or the order that they are approved?

Date: 2006/09/05 04:35:14, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 04 2006,13:08)
 
Quote
A stalagmite normally grows 0.1 to 0.3 mm per years in moderate climate zones. This means a step of 20cm needed 2,000 years of continual growth to form


Not that yet another method is needed to date teh earth older then 6000 years, but here it is.

So, 2k years = 20cm. Therefore there are no 61cm long stalagmite's then Dave? As they have not yet had time to form, right?
Is that something you'd agree with? If not, why not?

Quite coincidentally, I visited Meramec Caverns in Stanton, MO this weekend.  The tour, which only did a brief flyby of anything that smelled of science, was interesting nonetheless.  Near the end of the tour, we were shown a stalagmite that was 28 feet tall and 500 feet around at it's base.  The only reason it wasn't taller was that it basically ran into ceiling of the chamber it formed in.  I'm not particularly motivated to do the math of how long that would take to form, but at 0.1 to 0.3 mm per year, it must be somewhere around "a whole bunch!"

Stanton is only about a 4-5 hour drive from Kansas City, if anyone (*ahem*) wants to see for themselves.

Date: 2006/09/10 01:39:25, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 09 2006,21:14)
 
Quote
God already HAS "ordered" our governments to kill for certain crimes and in times of war.  Since these are lawful, God ordained "orders", I would obey them if I were in those positions, i.e. the military or the government.


The issue is that it's you  and people like you that get to determine "certain crimes" and "lawful" and in so doing, you have no morals, Dave... your morality is dependent on what others have told you, not on what you THINK is right or wrong of YOURSELF.

Let me put it this way: if tomorrow you woke up and the bible suddenly said " kill all those chinks" you'd do it
To put it another way, what is interesting here is that when Dave was directly if he would obey if God ordered him to kill, he said no.  But, earlier, when asked if he would obey if his government ordered him to kill, he answered yes.  So, it seems he is more willing to believe the voices in someone else's head than the voices in his own.

Date: 2006/09/10 04:58:39, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 10 2006,07:11)
Carlson...    
Quote
To put it another way, what is interesting here is that when Dave was directly if he would obey if God ordered him to kill, he said no.  But, earlier, when asked if he would obey if his government ordered him to kill, he answered yes.  So, it seems he is more willing to believe the voices in someone else's head than the voices in his own.
Again a desperate attempt to twist reality to portray fundies like me as some kind of monster ... pathetic.

Umm, Dave, I was speaking figuratively. It wasn't meant to be taken literally.  I find it ironic, though, that you would reject a command from an infallible diety, while blindly accepting the same command from fallible humans.  It really offers some interesting insights.
Quote
You should not be a sore loser, Carlson.  Take your defeats on your evolutionary theory like a man.  Don't be a wimp and resort to childish tricks like this just because you don't like me for exposing your errors.

Yes, you are right. I really should be stockpiling vaccines and anti-biotics for the coming overthrow of science.  
Quote
Christians are not believing voices in someone's head like the jihadists.

Figurative speech, Dave.  Not to be taken literally. Oh, never mind.
Quote
We have the rule of law here in America and it has its basis in a written document--the Christian Scriptures.

I believe you misspelled Enlightment philosophy and English common law.  After all, only 3 of the 10 commandments are actually codified in federal law. But, one can really find most of Locke and other such thinkers in our system.
Quote
 Personally, I would be in much greater fear if someone like you were president because you have no moral anchor.  Your ethics are not firmly outlined in a book which has been settled for 2000 years.  (Actually over 3000 years if we are talking about the Mosaic code) Your ethics are decided by the whims of the age.  Thankfully though, we have checks and balances in the American government and you could not do too much damage.

You don't know my theology. You don't know my politics. You don't know the causes I believe in. You don't know how or where I spend my time and money. In short, you don't know anything about me, Dave, except that I don't buy into your narrow worldview.  That alone makes me your enemy and someone to fear?  What I find so ironic is that my worldview is clearly a product of Enlightment thinking and, thus, makes me much closer philosophical kin to  Jefferson, Adams, and Washington than you could ever be.

Date: 2006/09/10 15:59:20, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 10 2006,17:02)
Carlson ... you're not my enemy,  but I want as few guys with your philosophy in government as possible, thanks.

The United States has been run by my philosophical kin since 1789. I will gladly admit to being more of a Hamiltonian federalist than a Jeffersonian democrat. But, even such avowed majoritarian democrats like Jefferson and Andrew Jackson recognized the necessity of keeping religion and government as far away from each other as possible.  

In fact, in the modern political landscape, a libertarian like myself finds kindred souls more often in the GOP than the Democratic Party.  Surprised?

Date: 2006/09/11 06:25:30, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 11 2006,10:55)
To the contrary, if you step away from the koolaid and read any number of books (authors) who researched the men and their beliefs, you would find that they did not intend this country or the governmnet to be "Christian or Bible promoting".

We've been through this before.  Dave has found all he needs with David Barton and really has no interest in investigating anything that might point to contrary conclusions.  I pointed him to Gregg Frazer, a literal six-day creationist who comes to a conclusion quite different than Barton's, but I am willing to bet he hasn't sought out Frazer's writings.  Although, in fairness, between alot of business travel and slogging through H.W. Brands biography of Andrew Jackson, neither have I.
 
Quote
The Faiths of the Founding Fathers (Hardcover)
by David L. Holmes

Or "American Gospel" by Jon Meacham.  I haven't read it yet, but it is in line behind "America's Constitution" by Akhil Reed Amar.

Date: 2006/09/11 06:34:29, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (BWE @ Sep. 11 2006,10:59)
Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, Paine, -Not Fundies. Don't know about the rest because those are the only ones I have read works by. But I can go with John Locke or Adam Smith. Not Fundies.


To add a few:

Washington was nominally Anglican, but never took communion. Adams was a unitarian.  Madison was also Anglican, but was the most strident and eloquent of the FF about keeping religion and government apart. Jay was solidly Protestant, but virulently anti Catholic (likely due to his French Hugenuot ancestry).  Gouverneur Morris was not particularly religious and was, frankly, quite the rake.

The Founders saw religion as a means to building good citizens, but bad government.

Date: 2006/09/11 07:11:17, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 11 2006,11:53)
Quote
 Go to Washington, DC and you will see Christianity and Biblical references  carved in stone everywhere you look.  Moses is the central figure in the U.S. House Chamber -- see my post on my blog

Been there.  I actually took a not-available-to-the-public tour of the Supreme Court. Hammurabi can be found recieving his code from the Babylonian Sun God on the south freize of the Courtroom.  Furthermore, Mohammed can be found holding the Koran on the north frieze.

Date: 2006/09/11 07:38:21, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 11 2006,12:12)
GREAT HEROES OF AMERICAN HISTORY WHO PROMOTED THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION

(AND MADE IT A PART OF GOVERNMENT)

....OR NOT
James Madison
 
Quote
What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.

-James Madison from Memorial and Remonstrance

Thomas Jefferson
 
Quote

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

 
Quote

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

 
Quote

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814


And lastly, as member of the New York Provisional Congress, John Jay argued unsuccessfully for a prohibition on Catholics holding office.  For all his contributions to American jurisprudence, Jay isn't they guy you should look to for support.  Even if you are not Catholic.

Date: 2006/09/11 09:14:55, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 11 2006,13:54)
Which frieze shows the FSM? ;)

Probably hiding behind that other great heresy, John Marshall. It has all been downhill since Marbury vs. Madison.  ;)

Date: 2006/09/11 13:54:47, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (BWE @ Sep. 11 2006,13:51)
I'd have to say that it ought to show that the Constitution and declaration of Independence (or the philosophy that underpins the documents??) were essentially an attempt to create a Christian Nation- although that is pretty nebulous.

First off, you could probably not bother spending much time looking at the Declaration of Independence.  It was just that, a declaration of independence from the British Crown. It lays out the case for independence by detailing the injuries suffered by America at the hands of the British.  It really does not speak to the type of government we intended to establish.

There are several mentions of God and Creator, but they need to be taken in context.  The Declaration was mostly written by Thomas Jefferson, an avowed deist.  He used those terms interchangeably with "providence." The subtlety of the usage would probably be lost (or misconstrued) by Dave and lead to a Portugeuse moment.
     
Quote

Undoubtably, there were Christians at the constitutional convention so I guess the debate might hinge around whether their ideas were the ones that ultimately led to the final draft.

So first, I guess we need to establish "who" were the founding fathers and rank them in importance relating to the writing of the doc's. Then we need to try to determine where their philosophical roots came from individually and whether they thought that the US should be a christian Nation.

Maybe then a score card that ranks the relative importance of each and their "christianity" level?

Anyone have any ideas?

Way too complex.  The obvious place to start is the Federalist Papers.  But, beyond that and directly to your point, you are in luck.  James Madison, the key architect of the US Constitution, took copious notes at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. You can find them here. I've seen it at the bookstore and, as notes of the discussion and debate, it is not an easy read.  But, I am led to understand that it is a pretty comprehensive record of the proceedings.

Date: 2006/09/12 02:14:04, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 12 2006,01:21)
maybe he meant "Kinseyan" as in "sexual revolution"?

Actually, I'd prefer to hear Dave take on macroeconomic theory rather than the idea of sexual liberty. Does that make me kinky?

Date: 2006/09/12 04:07:40, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 12 2006,08:40)
 
Quote
maybe he meant "Kinseyan" as in "sexual revolution"?
"Keynesian" not "Kinseyan."  As in John Maynard Keynes.  Don't know if I'll ever get to cover these other myths here.  The Darwinian Myth is the most important one ... hence the enormous time I'm spending on it.

That is a shame really.  I'd love to see you take on macroeconomics.  Keynes advocated governments exercising monetary and fiscal policy to control economic growth. There are two ways to attack Keynes.  One, of course, is to take the Marxist approach that macroeconomic theory is a tool of the class system built on the exploitation of the majority.  The other would be to advocate a hyper-extreme laissez-faire system that forbids government intervention (either active or tacit) in capital markets.

I am pretty sure I know which approach you would take and, of course, I would have to ask you to square your advocacy of unchecked capitalism with Christ's message of social justice (Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.)

You know, if you really think about it, if you want to remake the world, you would have better luck pulling down the economic system rather than attacking bug collectors and mushroom growers.  ;)

Date: 2006/09/14 04:02:43, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 14 2006,08:37)
Somebody posted a link from Wikipedia that ONE manuscript has it as 616 ...    
Quote
The Number of the Beast is a concept from the Book of Revelation of the Christian New Testament. The Number is 666 in modern texts, although 616 and 665 appear instead in at least one ancient source.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast


Do you have any idea how many manuscripts have it as 666?  A lot. This is typical of skeptic thinking ... close your eyes to the massive evidence for one position, but open your eyes to the tiny shred of contrary evidence, then loudly proclaim that your position is correct, then  heap ridicule on your opponent ...  hmmm.

Oh, the irony.

Date: 2006/09/14 07:15:15, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Eric Murphy obfuscates:
 
Quote
Now do you understand, Dave? If I look at Cern's symbol, the only numbers I see other than the "5" in the 50-year commemorative are nines.

Speak for yourself. I see one 6 and two 9's.But them together and you get 699. 6.99 is the price of a package of Pampers diapers.  Pampers is made by none other than Proctor and Gamble. Coincidence?

Don't even get me started on the crop circle in Blaine, Missouri.

Date: 2006/09/14 09:01:01, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 14 2006,13:22)
 
Quote
There are 3 long arms and 2 short arms.


Well, obviously it's a sign of VISHNU then!


"I am become death...the destroyer of worlds"

Date: 2006/09/14 09:32:29, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Seven Popes @ Sep. 14 2006,14:16)
 
Quote
Kali, destroyer of worlds.
.....
Give me that old time religion!

Wow, cool, you are serious!  I was just making an offhand reference to Robert Oppenheimer being reminded of the line from the Bhagavad Gita where Vishnu spoke to the Prince.  

Date: 2006/09/15 04:01:57, Link
Author: carlsonjok
[quote=afdave,Sep. 15 2006,07:16][/quote]
 
Quote
Understanding this is also the key to understanding a favorite quote of skeptics ... the Tripoli Treaty of 1797 which stated ...  
...
 
Quote
The key to understanding this is context.  And of course, skeptics enjoy taking things OUT of context, which is nothing more than lying.  So the context of this treaty is the "Christianity" of Europe which attacked Muslims (Musselmen) during the Crusades and other times.  The treaty was worded in such a way as to give the Muslims great assurance that America is not like those European nations who called themselves "Christian" yet attacked you mercilessly.  The American founders detested government control by "Christian institutions," yet most of them were strong, Protestant Christians themselves

Of course, the President at the time, John Adams, was, by his own admission, a unitarian.
 
Quote
(they were far more "fundy" than me),

More fundamentalist than you? How do you figure.  The Founders were children of the Enlightment and emphasized reason over revelation.  For all your attempts over the last few months, Dave, it is pretty clear that your entire worldview, by virtue of being built on one book, favors revelation over reason.  You don't get much more fundamentalist than that.
 
Quote

showing their Christian committment in numerous ways--from founding colleges at Harvard, Princeton and Yale for the express purpose of training Christian preachers

Umm, the founding of Harvard and Yale in 1636 and 1701 predates the Founding Father's arrival on this planet. And Princeton, while founded in 1746, was established under a royal charter.

Date: 2006/09/15 05:25:31, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 15 2006,09:53)
 
Quote
Umm, the founding of Harvard and Yale in 1636 and 1701 predates the Founding Father's arrival on this planet. And Princeton, while founded in 1746, was established under a royal charter.
Ah ... I see that you think my idea of "founding fathers" is limited to post 1776 personalities?  No, my idea of founding fathers goes all the way back to the Mayflower.

Oh, good googly-moogly, Dave, changing capitalization to shift the goal posts is just plain weak as an explanation.  If you want to talk about the United States being a Christian nation, you have do it in the context of the US Constitution, which superceded everything that preceded it. And the Founding Fathers (note the capital letters) are necessarily those that participated in the forming and passage of the Constitution.  Trolling back to the Mayflower Compact is just plain silly.  You'd have marginally better luck deconstructing the Articles of Confederation and claim universal states rights.

Date: 2006/09/15 05:49:52, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote
I did not say Christian theocracy.  Have you ever read the Declaration?  It mentions the "laws of nature and of nature's God," affirms that "men are created equal," that they are endowed by their "Creator" with unalienable rights and rely on "Divine Providence."  What did you want them to do to convince you?  Quote John 3:16?

Well, yes, I would like you to show me where they did that. Because, you see phrases like "nature's God" and "Divine Providence" are words out of the deist's lexicon. And, quite frankly, we can find myriad examples of them quoting Locke, Hume, and Montesquieu, to name a few.  
       
Quote
As for the constitution, why is it that no mention of Jesus in there means that America is not a Christian nation?  You are clearly ignorant of American history.

Not really. You see, American history is so much more than Barton's hack piece.  So very much more. But, I tell you what.  You have sworn, just today, on your belief in  eyewitness accounts.  Why not do that here? Why don't you deconstruct The Federalist Papers and James Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 for us and show us exactly how it was intended for the United States to be a Christian nation.  You can't get anymore first-hand than that.
 
Quote
Argy ... American history goes back to the Mayflower, not Rome.  This is very basic stuff.

American history, sure.  But we are talking about the history of the United States of America, which is not the same thing.  But, nice try.

Date: 2006/09/15 07:44:12, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 15 2006,12:23)
 
Quote
[quote Have you ever read the Declaration?  It mentions the "laws of nature and of nature's God," affirms that "men are created equal," that they are endowed by their "Creator" with unalienable rights and rely on "Divine Providence."  

Could anyone explain simply how this was held wrt slavery in the USA?

Well, the answer is complicated.  But, I can offer a quick response with respect to the Founders that were slaveholders, such as Washington, Jefferson and Madison.  These men recognized, and to some extent agonized over, the contradiction between their personal slaveholdings and the human rights they espoused.  The problem they faced was that the southern economy, and their personal finances, were built on the back of slave labor.  They acknowledged the problem, but didn't have any solution beyond the abolition of slave trading and gradual emancipation to move away from slavery.  Jefferson in particular, as a lifelong spendthrift and debtor, was particularly bound by the Gordian knot.  

Slavery was, of course, a point of contention at the Constitutional Convention. But, it was essentially deferred into the future in order because it was a non-starter for the southern states and the establishment of a Union was considered paramount to resolving slavery. So, it was punted on down the road.

Date: 2006/09/15 17:54:16, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 12 2006,18:20)
Hey SFBDave, check this out!

Over at TheologyWeb Natural Science, geologist Glenn Morton (the devout Christian and ex-YEC you love to hate) has a new thread about the geological evidence that refutes YEC.

I happen over and read this thread. I found one comment in particular very interesting.  In it Morton says:
Quote
No, I don't mock miracles. I believe in miracles. But, what I dont' feel comfortable with is thinking up a miracle for God to perform everytime I run into a science problem that doesn't fit what I wish to believe. How do I tell such a 'miracle', from one which is real and which God himself attests to? Do I get to tell God what miracles he must do to help my YEC theories out? That seems to place me as the Boss of God. While I might like getting to boss God around, calling down miracle after miracle, doing so means that I am forgetting that I am the creature; he the creator.

Very insightful.  And humble.  A model Christian, if I may be so bold to offer that observation.

Date: 2006/09/18 11:31:04, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 18 2006,16:09)
Gee, who would have ever thought that Ancient Hebrew nomads knew so much about American Indians.

If I am not mistaken, the Mormons believe that the American Indians were one of the lost tribes of Israel. So, there you go.

Date: 2006/09/20 03:10:28, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 20 2006,07:36)
you don't dick about statistics, do you dumbass?

do you know what a linear regression is?

do you even know what a standard deviation is?

In fairness, regression analysis is not part of most engineering programs.  As an industrial engineer, I probably had a half-dozen or more upper level courses that used applied statistics and regression analysis.  But I wouldn't expect an EE to know an R-square from a T-square.

Date: 2006/09/20 06:35:14, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,10:21)
The point, again, is this ... the Minster report only gives us 23 data points ... I see on closer reading, it's not even 23 seperate meteorites.  My chart above shows the probable situation that we really have if we considered many more meteorites.  As you can see, there is no need to do any fancy linear regressions to know that there is no age significance whatsoever to the data.  You can fit lines every which way with both positive and negative slope and with no slope at all.

You can eyeball many lines, but linear regression only provides one answer that best fits the data.  But, tell you what.  Why don't you take the fitted line and all your made-up lines and calculate the least squares sum and r-square.  If you are right, it should be immediately obvious that the fitted line isn't much better than any other.

Now, I do note that JonF has indicated that linear regression provides a reasonable fit, but not at a great enough level of accuracy. But, (correct me if I am wrong, Jon) linear regression on each of these lines ought to provide us enough information to at least compare their relative suitability.

EDIT:  Wait a minute. You put the red dots on the chart yourself?  Never mind.  First, go get yourself some real data then show us how you can fit multiple lines to the same data.

Date: 2006/09/21 10:39:36, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (PeterEvolves @ Sep. 21 2006,15:20)
Don't make us laugh by saying that you are serious about the law. You may be serious about some kind of anti-Enlightenment (your beliefs are antiquated beyond the 18th century) and anti-educational law rooted in a sectarian reading of the Bible (which translation I also wonder). You are serious about your ideology. You are not serious about U.S. law as it is rooted in the Enlightenment and the respect of evidence and reason.

Been there, done that.  Dave rejects the notion that the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers and the nascent United States was derived from Enlightenment thinking. He has found his one book, his bible if you will, in the work of David Barton.  America is a Christian nation, by God, and 200 years of scholarship and the Founders own words, will never convince him otherwise.  That whole discussion is getting boring too.

Now if we want to really liven things up around here, we ought to see if we can get him on about macroeconomic theory. He has already stated that Keynesian economics is a myth and I, for one, would like to see him try to pull down the foundation of modern macroeconomic theory.  Should be good fun.

Date: 2006/09/21 11:24:21, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 21 2006,15:33)
aaaaaaawwwwww......

Guess DT must have figured out he didn't have as slam-dunk a case as he thought.

I don't know.  To me, Dave seems to have this Walter Matthau grumpy-old-man vibe about him.  He can be bull-headed, annoying, and infuriating.  But, he can be strangely endearing sometimes too. Seriously, he could have just called his first comment a little bit of street theatre and moved on.  But he didn't.  He acknowledged Wesley's actions.  Who else over there would have done that?

Date: 2006/09/22 15:17:53, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (lkeithlu @ Sep. 22 2006,18:50)
Does Joel have a REAL job? He seems to have too much time on his hands...

At one time (and maybe still), he was William Dembski's research assistant and co-moderator at UD.  Then one day he made the mistake of saying that the new science standards being pushed in Kansas were really ID in disguise.  Much uproar ensued.  Joel dug himself a hole and tried to dig himself out of it by following that blooper up with another gem that he was Dembski's assistant on theological work and not necessarily the ID movement.  I don't think we saw much of Joel at UD after that.

The poor fellow did end up being fodder for alot of commentary.  Normally, I don't revel in anothers misfortune.  But, the incident did lead to one comment at UD by someone named steveh that was pretty darn funny.

Quote
steveh // Aug 3rd 2006 at 3:26 pm
     
Quote

You shouldn’t be too surprised at the attention you are getting. Many evolutionists did not believe that there was any real ID research going on, then along cames a bona-fide ID research assistant and blew that idea completely out of the water. You must have great, possibly unique, opportunities for seeing how life is at the cutting edge of a new science and I’m sure many would love to hear how you spend a typical day; I take it, that as a lay-man you don’t actually design the experiments, but maybe you take measurements or produce parts for specialised lab equipment, etc.?
Also Dr Demsbki, wouldn’t invite just anyone to modify his blog; He is no fan of boring people and that arguably, makes you interesting by definition.

Pure gold.

Date: 2006/09/27 03:48:21, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ Sep. 27 2006,08:28)
[The have overwhelming forums!

I think overwhelming redundancy is the correct term.

 
Quote
Hi all,

I am Denyse O'Leary, a Toronto-based Canadian journalist. I follow the intelligent design controversy as a major beat. From time to time, I will post news and comment.*

It seems that they just spend their days posting to each others blogs.  Something of a mutual admiration society.

Date: 2006/09/27 15:17:50, Link
Author: carlsonjok
And the hits just keep on coming.
Quote

30. William Dembski // Sep 27th 2006 at 7:59 pm

David H.: It’s a pain to remove people by hand, so I instructed my research assistant to do it. Since he hasn’t gotten around to it yet, I went ahead and did it myself.

Oh, boy. I wouldn't want to be Joel when it comes time for the annual performance appraisal.
     
Quote

I’m frankly surprised that you have problems with my time management inasmuch as you’ve never given any evidence of having read or understood my technical work. Beyond that, what I do in the way of public lecturing and popular work is aimed at recruiting talent to the ID movement. For the record, it’s working!

Indeed, I understand that they have a whole research center at Baylor now.  Pretty sweet.

Date: 2006/09/29 06:13:12, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 29 2006,10:09)
 
Quote
And one final zinger is the erroneous notion that Evolution supports the real world of business, but Creationism does not.


Since I can't recall anything else said recently on this front, surely you aren't representing my "executive summary" analogy (which used an appropriate-for-the-term corporate setting to illustrate increasing levels of understanding in a subject) as "evolution supports the real world of business"?

No, this addresses the fact that "old earth" geology is used quite successfully in the oil and gas industry.  Dave was asked the question regarding whether any such companies were using "young earth" geology to find oil.  Not surprisingly, Dave didn't answer.

Date: 2006/09/29 09:53:24, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 29 2006,14:40)
 
Quote
A Realistic Computational Simulation of Random Mutation Filtered by Natural Selection in Biology
by GilDodgen on September 28th, 2006 · 23 Comments

All computational evolutionary algorithms artificially isolate the effects of random mutation on the underlying machinery: the CPU instruction set, operating system, and algorithmic processes responsible for the replication process.

If the blind-watchmaker thesis is correct for biological evolution, all of these artificial constraints must be eliminated. Every aspect of the simulation, both hardware and software, must be subject to random errors.

Of course, this would result in immediate disaster and the extinction of the CPU, OS, simulation program, and the programmer, who would never get funding for further realistic simulation experiments.


If tard were basball, Gil would be Nolan Ryan. That dude throws some heat.

When I read this epistle of his earlier, I had this image in my mind of him attending a demonstration of a simulation package like Avida and pulling the plug out of the wall and claiming victory ("See, Evolution is a failed theory!!") because the computer and software didn't continue running.  

Date: 2006/09/30 09:04:23, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,13:50)
I think they have simply never considered the Bible.

How can they use the Bible, Dave?  You have yet to give us a method for determining which parts of it are literal and which are figurative.  Are you prepared to do that now?

Date: 2006/10/01 13:04:18, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 01 2006,17:03)
Oh wow.  Here we go again on a "AFDave Witch Hunt".  I guess this will be like those other ones about my career and the Wai wai Indians.  Except this one's about Glenn Morton.  I guess Aftershave and Deadman are bored again.  How many miles will they get out of this one?  We'll see!!

Well, you could cut the whole thing off at the pass by openly discussing your readings of Morton's work and how you respond to the very detailed explanations he gives as to why he renounced his YEC. Or, I suppose, you could continue to claim that you don't know much about him or his work, even though we all now have seen the proof that you have indeed studied Morton's work.

WWJD?

Date: 2006/10/02 06:35:21, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 02 2006,01:08)
"Overwhelming Evidence" just doesn't lend itself to parody or wordplay (as a title, I mean -- the contents are another matter) I spent a few minutes thinking about it and "overpowering excrement" is pretty appropriate, but "OverwhelminglyDense" is still superior to anything I could cobble together.

Overweening Evi-dunce?

Date: 2006/10/02 07:52:51, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 02 2006,12:36)
There is no "ladder of life," Dave. There's a tree of life. Take two leaves at opposite sides of the tree. Which one is further from the roots?

Forgive me, but I am a simple engineer, but do I understand that it is a matter of distance rather than complexity/similarity?  Would a fair metaphor be:

Dave lives in Kansas City. If he hops on I-70W and drives 600 miles he will be pretty close to Denver..  If he drives the same distance on I-70E he will be in Richmond, IN.  The same distance on I-35N takes him to Duluth, MN.  Lastly, 600 miles on I-35S would land him about half way between Dallas-FortWorth and Waco.  Now, no one would confuse Denver for Duluth or rural Indiana for rural Texas, but all are equidistant from Kansas City?

Date: 2006/10/02 08:35:43, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 02 2006,13:17)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 02 2006,11:35)
Overweening Evi-dunce?

Evo-dunce has to be the last part!

Over-whining Evo-Dunce?

I had considered it, but "Evo-dunce" really sounds too much like something that Davison would throw at PT and ATBC.  Got that? Write it down!

Date: 2006/10/08 05:17:04, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 06 2006,22:10)
Carlson (presumably our very own carlsonjok) had a beautiful takedown of uberidiot TRoutMac on OE, which will almost certainly earn him a banning and deleted comment, so I will reproduce it here:

It took a few more posts, but I finally got banned.  I have to give credit where due.  The folks at OE seemed to tolerate alot more dissent than UD. DaveScot would probably have shown me the door a while back. The post that ended up getting me banned was also deleted.  I think it might have been the potboiler comment that was a wee-bit over the line. Had I known this was the end, I would have substituted "actuary" for "accountant" even though it would have probably been a bit too esoteric.

Probably just as well. It is a beautiful day and I have a couple of horses to go ride.
       
Quote
       
Quote
Yes, I realize it's [genetic code] not literally universal, that there are a few exceptions. However, this is quite irrelevant.

Where did those goalposts go? Oh, there they are, another 10 yards back. You said "EVERYTHING alive on this planet regardless of how big or small uses EXACTLY the same DNA molecule." Now you expect me to believe that you weren't using the words "everything" and "exactly" in their literal sense?
       
Quote
I would think that an evolutionary hypothesis would expect to see many varied systems for storing and processing genetic information.

Quoting again, you said "Don't you think the earliest evolution might have produced multiple systems for doing the same thing? Why just one?" So, I guess when you said the number 1, you were speaking figuratively? The presence of 2 or more represents a bit of a problem for your notion of common design, where EVERYTHING uses EXACTLY the same DNA molecule.
       
Quote
The scientific process SHOULD be neutral, but under methodological naturalism, it's NOT. If it was neutral, the possibility of design would not be taken off the table before the evidence is even gathered.

The scientific method doesn't exclude the possibility of design, but it does ask that the design proponents play by the methodological rules that have worked quite well to advance science. And that is the problem here. You can't shoehorn your designer into the scientific method, so you are left with stretching and twisting the method beyond all recognition. What you are seeking, wittingly or not, is a complete overthrow of modern science. I'm sure the astrologers, dowsers, and faith healers would be glad to lend a hand, if you could use one.
       
Quote
But with questions like "What is the origin of life?" or "What is the origin of the universe", the question is beyond the capacity of methodological naturalism to provide an answer. Why? Because it launches you into an endless spiral of antecedent natural phenomena, every one of which can only be explained by another antecedent natural phenomenon.

Classic God-of-the-gaps argument. The fact that science may not have the answers today, does not mean it won't have the answers tomorrow. Or next year. Or next century. You are basing your whole system on the idea that application of the scientific method will never answer these questions. I guess I just have more faith in man's ability to reason empirically than you do.
       
Quote
I have yet to encounter someone who insists on this narrow view of science who has been able to explain to me how they can escape this box. Perhaps you could be the first.

What box? The one that says science must seek natural explanations for natural observations. You can advance your design ideas the same way every other scientist goes about their business: form hypotheses, design and run experiments, analyze results. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
       
Quote
Notice that until now, I have not even used the word "supernatural".

You have so spent much time castigating scientists for only seeking natural causes to natural observations, it really wasn't necessary.
       
Quote
As I've indicated before, one assumption of naturalism is that we have accurately staked out the bounds of "nature", that we've already taken an exhaustive "inventory" of the natural world.

This is a patently false statement. If this were true, then scientists would have folded up their tents and become engineers and lawyers long ago. Yet there are still many working scientists. I suppose, perhaps, they are all writing potboilers that they can sell on their website so they don't have to stoop to becoming accountants.
       
Quote
This is why design theorists reject the rather shallow accusation that they are "invoking the supernatural."

It appears that Behe didn't get the memo before he took the stand at Dover. Dang interoffice mail!
       
Quote
Because to say so implies that we know where to draw that line, and any honest assessment would have to conclude that we may not. The focus is not on whether this designer is "natural" or "supernatural"… rather, the focus is on whether there is a designer at all, regardless of how you categorize it.

The very actions of the ID movement put the lie to this statement. If anyone, for a moment, thought the designer was part of the natural world, there would be no qualms about applying the scientific method to identifying who the designer is and trying to determine what his methods were. But, the ID movement can't get away fast enough from any question of who or how.

Date: 2006/10/09 03:09:40, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,07:50)
one HUGE difference between a Bond novel and the Book of Genesis:  the writer of the Bond novel never claimed it was actual history ... it was labeled fiction from the start.  The writers of Genesis, on the other hand, ALWAYS claimed that their accounts were actual history ...

The "Blair Witch Project" started with the disclaimer that the events depicted were true.  Is it your contention that it was a documentary?

Date: 2006/10/09 06:13:56, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (dhogaza @ Oct. 09 2006,09:09)
DaveTard goes after climatology ...

....and catches JAD in his net

Date: 2006/10/09 07:01:11, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,10:10)
It's because you label mine "religious" and yours as "non-religious" or "scientific" and then wrap yourself in your revisionist idea of the establishment of religion clause.

Actually, I don't have a revisionist interpretation of the establishment clause.  I'm perfectly happy with Thomas Jefferson's.

Date: 2006/10/09 07:27:46, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 09 2006,11:38)
Quite the irony.  In fact, it's the IDers who think that our understanding of nature is complete.  Why else would we need to appeal to the supernatural when we don't have an exhaustive explanation for something?

Patrick is still flailing away at me over there.  Most of the usual blah-blah-blah.  It is probably good that I was banned, because he explains that he has banished the word supernatural from his vocabulary because it raises images of vampires and whatnot.  He then goes on to use the term "unembodied designer."

Unem-whatty now?

Date: 2006/10/09 13:41:30, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 09 2006,18:24)
See what I mean?

:p

I guess that there must really be a unembodied designer.  I mean, seriously, material this good just can't write itself.  QED.

Date: 2006/10/10 09:13:52, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 10 2006,13:42)
 
Quote

Discovery Institute Has Put Over $4 Million Towards Scientific and Academic Research into Evolution and Intelligent Design in the Past Decade

I am confused. I thought ID research was crippled because they couldn't get funds.  Where could I have gotten that idea from?

Date: 2006/10/10 11:11:39, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 10 2006,15:51)
who is this TRoutMac anyway
 
Seems to be keeping it going single handed. That "scientists who disagree with me and believe that DNA is NOT designed" sounds a bit too personal for a graphic artist :)

Every good science website needs a graphic artist*.  In fact, every good science website needs a theme song also.  Sam Chen solved that problem too.

http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe...._enough

He really should copyright that.  Then no one could complain that The Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center at Baylor hasn't published anything.

*  In fairness, I found TroutMacs business website and I really do like his graphic design work.  His philosophy of science...not so much.

Date: 2006/10/11 08:15:47, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2006,12:21)
I was wondering why I find OverwhelmingEvidence so boring. Part of it is, OE is not very popular and there's only a few comments per day. But I think another part of the reason is, OE is a post-Dover event. It's kind of like finding Japanese soldiers in the pacific, still unaware the war is over. They're not a threat, they're just pitiful.

You've been at this longer than I have, so maybe you are a bit more jaded.  But I am curious, albiet morbidly, about where the Grand Canyon discussion is going to go.  Troutie's question about how the Colorado River, who's source is at about 3000 feet above sea level, could carve the Grand Canyon, who's rim is at about 7000 feet above sea level, makes me wonder if he is a closeted YEC.

Date: 2006/10/12 04:45:29, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 12 2006,09:27)
I can't figure out if JAD is mental or what.  But check this out.  

JAD strikes me as being alot like a tired old vaudevillian, always in search of a stage to ply his trade.  When the curtain comes down on one performance, off he goes in search of another venue.  The crowds are smaller and the applause is now more polite than enthusiastic, but it is still an audience.  I guess you could say that this is his calling.  It is what he is prescribed to do.

Date: 2006/10/14 09:38:23, Link
Author: carlsonjok
While I don't remember who exactly has said it, I do seem to recall most folks have said that they only continue to respond to Dave in order to offer sound scientific reasoning to the lurkers. While, I have not necessarily been silent on this thread, I am not necessarily all that different than the lurkers. My science education was limited to what got me through the first year or so of engineering school, which was chemistry and basic physics.  I have learned alot of new things on this thread and I can state, unreservedly, that insults, profane or otherwise, contribute nothing to the persuasiveness of the arguments.  

If you truly remain engaged in the thread in order to help the lurkers, then put aside the profanity, insults, and cute names for Dave, because it doesn't help.

Date: 2006/10/14 12:20:07, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 14 2006,14:56)
When I see the responses to Dave punctuated by words like “stupid” and “air head” they serve to show just how far removed from reality Dave’s arguments lie (intended).


While you and I may be learning alot from this discussion, the real target audience are those lurkers who come here not predisposed to accept scientific reason over biblical literalism.  For those folks, it is important that Dave's arguments and logic are challenged in a direct, understandable and, yes, forceful manner.  But, there is a big difference in attacking the argument and attacking the person.  When one goes from saying "that argument is nonsensical" to saying "you are an idiot", they are playing right into his hands. He'll never win the argument on substance, but by baiting folks into acting with petulance he doesn't have to.  The minute someone in a debate loses control, they have lost. And, Deadman, you may not have really lost control, but to an outsider (even one predisposed to accept your expertise), it sure looks that way.

So, if you feel his arguments are so inane that they don't deserve a civil response, don't respond at all.  But, if you can tear them to shreds without attacking him personally (and it has been done), have at it.  Dave has said as much that your personal derision validates him.  And a certain ex-associate professor from Vermont says the same thing. Think about it.

Date: 2006/10/15 04:10:49, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 15 2006,08:25)
That would be a #5 with a threat of a #6 by a #8.

I'm guessing that he is already banned, although there will be no public announcement of it, since that would prove the point.

Remember Carlos?  Dembski banned him, but was forced to bring him back by popular acclaim of many of the UD regulars.  Carlos, using his new carte blanche, became more forceful in his criticisms (I think it was the GilDodgen-you-gotta-hit-the-computer-with-a-meteor thread) and then stopped posting without so much as a peep about him being banned.  He was, if you will, disappeared.  My guess is MacNeill will get the same treatment.

Date: 2006/10/15 04:17:34, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Meanwhile over at UD, TroutMac is expanding the repertoire of devastating arguments.  In addition to Mount Rushmore and the Rosetta Stone, he now offers up crop circles.

Attention Darwinians!  The end is nigh.  They have a trinity of metaphors that you can't respond to.

Date: 2006/10/18 08:55:45, Link
Author: carlsonjok
MacNeill lays the smack-down on CSI. I wonder if WmD will come out and play?

Date: 2006/10/18 09:14:40, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 18 2006,13:45)
You've got a simplistic view of evolution that's tripping you up further. There simply is no single mating pair of human beings from which all subsequent humans are descended. It just doesn't work that way. And it's also not true (cannot possibly be true) that all possible alleles for all human genes were ever contained in the geneotype of any two humans beings.

Noah's ark would be a bottleneck, genius. You've got eight individuals, which means for any gene you've got a maximum of sixteen alleles. There could be hundreds of alleles for each of those genes, but with only eight individuals, you can have at most sixteen alleles for each gene.

Let me admit up front my ignorance.  I took one biology course in college. I core-dumped all that larnin' on the walk from the biology final to my materials science final.  And, frankly, I haven't been reading this thread that closely as it is becoming painful to watch. But, this confused me and points out that perhaps my understanding of evolution is also cartoonish.

If there are hundreds of alleles for a specific gene, does that mean there must be hundreds/2 common ancestors that are not genetically related to each other?

Date: 2006/10/18 09:50:17, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 18 2006,14:26)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 18 2006,14:14)
If there are hundreds of alleles for a specific gene, does that mean there must be hundreds/2 common ancestors that are not genetically related to each other?

Huh? By "not genetically related", you mean created?

No. I don't mean that.  Not even in the slightest.  
   
Quote

No, it just means that hundreds of mutations have occurred since the last ancestral allele (the coalescent).

I understand, conceptually, random mutation and natural selection and I find it perfectly logical.  I can even understand it as a means of speciation over long periods of time.  But I tend to think of ancestry as individuals growing into populations and this seems to imply something different.  What is tripping me up is the comment that the ark story couldn't possibly be true because it would limit us to 16 alleles.  Let me try it this way.  Today there are 6B or so homo sapiens.  At some point, in the distant past, there were none.  If I was to roll the clock backwards, shouldn't I find a point where there were only a handful of homo sapiens and wouldn't the number of alleles be necessarily limited by that population?  The comment earlier that the ark story can't be true because it would only account for 16 alleles while we know there are far more.

I realize that this is probably way too basic of a question to distract you from the main event here.  So, don't feel obligated to walk me through it, if there is a basic genetic primer somewhere around.  I'm perfectly willing to do my own work.

EDIT:  Okay.  Eric's explanation makes sense.  So, the ark being a bottleneck doesn't refer to the limited number of alleles but rather the time needed to mutate into the diversity of alleles we see today from a "starting point" of 16?

Date: 2006/10/18 10:58:59, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 18 2006,15:45)
(you never did say when it's due to flip over to 6001)

You missed it.  Per the Ussher calculations, the Earth became 6001 on October 3, 1997. It was pretty low key but I am surprised you missed it the year before.  Man, I partied like it was 5999!

Date: 2006/10/18 16:28:03, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Bebbo @ Oct. 18 2006,17:33)

Does anybody archive OE?  

There was a blog post where someone asked if the designer made copy mistakes, referring apparently to genetics.  Old Troutie showed his YEC stripes by going on a rant about the "man from an ape myth."  He pointed out that chimps had 46 chromosomes and humans 48 (or something like that, you know the argument) and asked if any has ever SEEN an organism change it's number of chromosomes like that.  The blog post and Troutie's response have since dropped off the site.

Date: 2006/10/19 08:10:24, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 19 2006,12:30)
[I noticed something had been pulled. Didn't bother looking through my browser cache, because that site is so boring. I wonder if they're going to pull the plug on it, or rename it what it is, "Troutmac Failed High School Science.com"

For the most part, I agree.  But TroutMac is an interesting study.  I get the feeling that there is an angry YEC underneath the surface trying to get out.  We get occasional glimpses of it, but nothing significant.  I keep wondering if it is ever going to come out in a big way.  I thought the blog entry about designer mistakes and his start at a "I ain't no monkey" harangue was going to be it.

Date: 2006/10/19 08:55:05, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (BWE @ Oct. 19 2006,11:05)
I would like to know more about the fish that survived the flood.

If 5000 feet of water laid down 5000 feet of sediment during the so-called Flood, it was more of a global mudslide. So how could any fish, fresh or saltwater, survive?

Date: 2006/10/19 14:18:45, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (jujuquisp @ Oct. 19 2006,18:53)
There's a war going on and you idiots are acting like stoned hippies!  If the other side wins, it is your fault!

But, I thought that if we changed our behavior the terrorists will have already won?

Date: 2006/10/20 01:50:17, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Crabby Appleton @ Oct. 20 2006,02:37)
Hey Davey, why hasn't an archaeologist, anthropologist, biblical scholar or anyone else for that matter, ever found human remains that show the wear of 900 years of living (or 500, or 100)?

It'd be pretty hard to hide that kind of wear and tear on a human skeleton even if they were "genetically rich"! Don't wave your hands or diddle your nose. 'Splain please.

Don't mean to butt in here, but I found this explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeMMyrSAkNo

Hope that helps.

Date: 2006/10/22 05:24:53, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Russell @ Oct. 22 2006,10:02)
More evidence for the "afdave is an impostor" hypothesis: he's here posting on Sunday morning! Does it seem likely that a devoted, spirals-for-eyes, Kool-aid guzzling, christian brainwashee would take time out from corralling the little Hawkinses for some serious church time (suffering the children, if you will)? I think not.

In rebuttal, I would note that he was posting fairly early in the morning.  Since he has 5 children, I find it quite unlikely that he would be attending early service. Not with that many rugrats to wrangle.  I expect that it is more likely that he would be attending Sunday School and late service.  I further submit that his posts were shorter than normal, indicating that he didn't have alot of time on his hands.

Date: 2006/10/23 05:49:23, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 23 2006,10:38)
 
Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 23 2006,11:27)
Another one bites the dust for trying to talk some sense into Dave.  When will we ever learn?

What voices of reason are left there?  Chris Hyland, Carlos, ... anyone else?

That might be the first time in history someone has been banned for his opinion on snowflakes.

Ahh, I say he had it coming.  You should know better than question King Sh*t while visiting Turd Island.

Yeah, well this Marine stormed your mama's beach last night, homo - dt

Date: 2006/10/24 09:58:38, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 24 2006,09:27)
I've often wondered how DT feels about the fact that since he's eventually forced to ban anyone at all intelligent there, the blog he polices is now top heavy with obvious dimwits, most of whom are indeed dumber than he is. I suspect he understands this situation perfectly well and continually wonders why he doesn't get a smarter class of wingnut at UD.

I can't remember.  How did Sargeant Carter feel about having to deal with Gomer for 6 years?

Date: 2006/10/24 18:31:00, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,20:38)
Argy and others ... I will try to get to your information questions tomorrow.

Will one of those questions you'll be addressing is how 5000 ft of water could lay down 5000 feet of sediment?  I hope so, because we've been waiting quite a while for you to address that one.

Date: 2006/10/25 10:39:09, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 25 2006,15:13)
This information theory thing with Dave is interesting.  While I have thought Dave (at times) reflects intelligence, his posts on this topic seem as if he is finding it impossible to grasp the concept.

Well, in fairness, it isn't exactly intuitive.  Without getting too far into my biography, I have spent much time managing business operations and one thing I am fond of saying is that I need information, not data.  For workaday folks, like myself, the word "data" means a pile of numbers and "information" implies meaningful content extracted from the data.  In the context being used here, the distinction is turned on it's ear.

Of course, I did understand the explanation regarding compressibility and why white noise has more information than a recorded speech.  But, then again, I don't have a stake in not going where the discussion is leading either.

Date: 2006/10/26 00:51:11, Link
Author: carlsonjok
So, Dave.  If everyone else here is wrong and you are right, then this causes me no end to confusion.  You see because those here who claim familiarity with information theory have provided a very specific definition of information.  But, you have not provided any rigorous definition of information.  So, if you are going to make any headway in convincing me, then perhaps you could answer me some questions:

 
Quote

What is your definition of information as it applies to biological systems?

How do you measure the quantity of biological information?

What is your definition of specificity as it applies to biological systems?

How do you measure the amount of specificity, to tell if it increased or decreased?


These are really important questions and I don't think you can rightly claim your well deserved victory without them.  Please help.

Date: 2006/10/26 07:41:40, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 26 2006,12:14)
     
Quote (DaveScot @ Oct. 26 2006,11:03)

PhilVaz

There has been debate among the moderators whether to ban you. I defended you. However, given your uninformed comment that ID claims the designer is God I’m going to admit an error and correct it right now. You’re history.

Holy Reformation, Batman!  One of the regulars (jerry) is starting to rebel.

EDIT:  Late the party as usual.   :(

Date: 2006/10/26 08:11:43, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 26 2006,13:06)
I wonder if AFDave's willingness to take on so many losses is a sign of his utter desperation, and thus a sign that he secretly doesn't accept all that he espouses.  Are his ridiculous attempts here just a manifestation of his fear, his knowing that when he dies he will not be rewarded in heaven?  Is it possible that this is a desperate search for any point, just one, that will ease his aching doubts?

Maybe. Maybe not.  I think the recent revelation that he has a meeting at AIG in November has more to do with it.   He may just be building his street cred as a culture warrior.

Date: 2006/10/30 20:44:03, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Meanwhile over at OE, Samuel Chen gets caught quote mining Stephen Jay Gould.

Date: 2006/10/31 04:09:53, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 31 2006,01:43)
Great!  You can start by testing your theory of speciation (kindiation?) using the fossil record.  Now, if your theory is correct, we should be able to look at the fossil record over the last 4500 years and notice (for starters) that the quantity of different species increases dramatically, starting at next-to-nothing for a while, and doubling maybe every 300 years or so.  We should find only a very small number of each kind at around (roughly) 4500-3000 years ago.  We can safely assume that anything we find that dates to right around 4500 years would be some sort of ur-kind, and will give us a very good idea of what was actually on the ark.

So, get to it, Davie!  Pick your dating methodology and tell us whether or not the fossil record supports your hypothesis.  This should be an easy one for you, and it would go a long way towards convincing everyone else here that you're right.

And don't forget that, when you are looking at the fossil record, you have to exclude:

MILLIONS OF DEAD THINGS
BURIED IN ROCK LAYERS
LAID DOWN BY WATER
ALL OVER THE EARTH

because those were laid down by The Flood.  You can only look at the post-Flood part of the fossil record.

Date: 2006/10/31 06:14:57, Link
Author: carlsonjok
afdave,Oct. 31 2006,11:32]
   
Quote
... uh, Carlson, there IS NO "post-Flood" fossil record, to speak of.

Okay.

   
Quote
I think you all have a very strange understanding of what creationists are saying ... let me reiterate very simply ...

Oh, I think I've got nothing on you when it comes to strange understandings, but okay.

   
Quote
1) There IS NO absolute physical dating system available.  People who say there is (RM Dating) are either ignorant or lying, as I have shown quite thoroughly.  Download both threads and you will see ...

I've been here all along and, although you will never believe me, I can say with a great deal of certainty that you didn't.

   
Quote
2) The best dating system we have for historical events is historical records with genealogical tables.  The Bible contains many of these.

So, will these historical records get you from 35,000 kinds to 10 million species in 4500 years?

   
Quote
4) So my approach to the Origins question is to take the historical record of Genesis and see if the evidence from scientific observation, archaeology and outside historical accounts is consistent with it.

Same question.  35,000 ------> 10,000,000. 4,500 years. Go.

When you are done, let me know how 5000 feet of water laid down 5000 feet of sediment.

Date: 2006/10/31 10:53:27, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 31 2006,16:16)
I wonder if the intelligent design science labs and programs are hidden in tractor trailers, like the mobile biological weapons labs Bush told us about.   That would explain why none have ever been discovered.

Well, to give credit where credit is due, they did find chemical weapon artillery shells in Iraq left over from the war with Iran in the 1980s. Come to think of it, ID is sorta the empty shell left over from Edwards vs Aguillard.

Date: 2006/11/02 00:21:36, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Mike PSS @ Nov. 01 2006,23:04)
 
Quote

Let’s Talk About Sex
October 31st, 2006
{snip}
The church’s silence has not only affected sex before marriage – it has found its way into the bedroom. Christian divorce rates are no different than non-Christian ones. In many instances, Christians surpass the lost in rates of divorce.
{snip}

What bugs me the most is outlined above.  The black and white (sorry GoP, in terms of shades of grey in this case); holier than thou; Us vs. Them; I'm Right, Your Wrong; attitude about life in general.

Joel assumes the reasons for divorce to "the lost" will be different than the reasons for divorce for "the gifted" (or whatever he wants to call his cabel).

What was even more interesting was that the first reason he gave for believers getting divorced at greater rates was that "the couple was not truly save."  Basically the No True Scotsman fallacy.

What I found puzzling was the reference in the first sentence of the second paragraph to "improper uses of sex."  I haven't quite figured that out yet.   ;)

Date: 2006/11/02 03:49:42, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Russell @ Nov. 02 2006,09:35)
Let me know when Sanford, or any YEC, publishes in Science, Nature, or any peer-reviewed scientific journal. Till then, I regard his work being hawked by AiG as a sad requiem.

Actually, Sanford's work is being hailed outside evangelical circles. Just look here.

Date: 2006/11/02 04:08:45, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (k.e @ Nov. 02 2006,10:02)
Wow carlsonjok when I said strange ......I didn't meant THAT STRANGE <snicker>

Hey, I report, you decide.  (Inside joke for us 'merkins)

Date: 2006/11/02 05:26:54, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 02 2006,10:28)
Is this the same Dr. John Sanford.....Raelien John Sanford who believes:

Intelligent Design - Message from the Designers

Not to be pedantic, but all the link shows is that the Raelians bestowed an, umm, honorific on Sanford.  This does not necessarily mean that Sanford is a Raelian. Indeed, a quick scan of that website shows that Rael likes to claim all sorts of folks as his own.

Just because Rael claims Sanford doesn't mean that Sanford is a Raelian any more than DaveScot claiming that Ken Miller was an IDer makes that true.

Date: 2006/11/03 05:39:59, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (argystokes @ Nov. 03 2006,11:17)
And the awesome just keeps coming.  MacNeill stops by to bring the pain:

And throws a haymaker that gets both Sal and Wells at the same time....

   
Quote

17. Allen_MacNeill // Nov 3rd 2006 at 11:30 am

Sal, what Myers did was to point out, with page references and quotations, exactly how Wells had distorted Ballard’s quotation. Anyone looking at the page from Wells’s book (pg. 35) can see that Myers’s version of the quote is right there in plain sight. And anyone reading the text can see that Wells’s distorted the meaning of Ballard’s quote for his own purposes.

I think it would be better if, rather than trying to distort the published writings of evolutionary biologists, Wells published the results of his own research. That’s where real science happens: in the field and the lab, with real data and statistical analysis that anyone can review and criticize. Distortion of the works of others, no matter who does it, isn’t science, it’s politics, pure and simple.

I assume that Sal will, on further reflection, correct the errors.  After all, he wouldn't bear false witness, would he?

Date: 2006/11/03 20:17:53, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 03 2006,20:04)
   
Quote
 Tim McGrew:  I’ve apologized to PZ.

 
Quote
Scordova: Sooooo….how about it PZ, are you going to apologize to Dr. Wells...I think a retraction on your part with an apology is in order.

And Sal takes another hit to the chin from someone named Touchstone:
 
Quote
Touchstone // Nov 4th 2006 at 12:05 am

I think it’s quite disingenuous to hide behind “You be the judge”. No one is confused or fooled as to why McGrews allegations received attention (albeit without diligence) here.

When allegations you broadcast or publicize end up being false witness, the right thing to do is be upfront about it: Whoops! Myers was right, we were wrong. I know that hurts for the folks here, but it’s the Moral Thing™.

Lawyering equivocations just make the blunder worse; it matters not if Myers *did* make spurious claims with regard to gastrula stages etc. True or no, it doesn’t change the fact that McGrew’s accusations, as offered, were baseless. The fact that the landscape can be scrounged for some other complaint against Myers doesn’t mitigate the original problem.

Speaking frankly and humbly about this will go much farther in building up the credibility of this blog than pointing to “unanswered queries” as your defence, or worse, hiding behind the skirt of “You be the judge.” McGrew did the right thing (mostly), and UD should, too.

-Touchstone


EDIT:  Beat to the draw again.   :(

Date: 2006/11/06 05:15:37, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (GCT @ Nov. 06 2006,10:23)
I nominate the following:

Don't forget the whole incident where Dave forgot to turn off the dissemvoweler on his way out the door and Denyse's befuddlement at what was going on.

Date: 2006/11/06 13:04:54, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 06 2006,18:13)
I wonder how old 'students' O'leary and TRoutMac are ;)

Troutmac has publicly stated that he is 38 years old:
Quote
I first heard about this site while listening to the "Darwinism or Design" conference which was held a few weeks ago at the Sun Dome in Florida, and I didn't recall anything about high school students in the description I heard. That's why I was surprised when I read the ABOUT section roughly a week after I began posting here. But I promptly posted a comment in response to one of Denyse O'Leary's posts (she also is not a high school student) asking about this issue. I said:

"I'm new to this site, having just learned about it last Friday. Yesterday I was surfing around the site and was surprised to find that in the "About" section, this site is described as being for high school students. I didn't recall seeing anything to indicate that when I signed up. Now, I'm not a high school student and of course neither are you, but naturally I wonder, and would like to ask what you think: Is it "okay" for you and I to post stuff here?"

Now, Mrs. O'Leary didn't reply, but Patrick, a regular poster here, replied in a message titled "Tis Okay" and he said:

"Bill asked a number of us to go here in order to get some meat (content) on this site."

So, to answer your question, I'm 38 years old and just attended my 20 year high school reunion in August. It may be necessary to amend the "About" section of this site if, in fact, adults can participate. When I signed up, there was nothing asking about my age, my education, what high school I attend, my grade, etc.… nothing to make me think this was resticted in any way to high school students.

I guess I would like some clarification on this point as well. Perhaps that'll happen soon.

Thank you for your question.

Date: 2006/11/10 13:52:22, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Here he is counterprotesting Greenpeace

Date: 2006/11/10 22:37:24, Link
Author: carlsonjok
MacNeill is beating the "do some research already" drum again.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1777#comment-75281

 
Quote
So, as soon as ID theorists stop spending all their time writing press releases and participating in debates, and start spending time in the field and in the lab doing actual scientific research, there might be a place in science for what they discover. As long as ID theory remains essentially parasitic on biology and the other sciences, it will never be recognized as science. Interpreting other people’s discoveries in the light of different theoretical models doesn’t cut it. That’s why Nobel prizes are awarded to the people making the discoveries, not to the people who figure out what they mean.


And gets in a little potshot at O'Leary to boot.

 
Quote
Or, to put it in a way a journalist/literature critic might be able to understand, ID currently stands in relationship to science where literary criticism stands in relationship to literature.

Date: 2006/11/12 16:30:30, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Despite being a regular contributor at UD, Tribune7 doesn't seem to understand ID.  He betrays his ignorance in this comment:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1780#comment-75625

 
Quote
The goal should be to find the truth. If God exist, it is beyond bizarre to say He should be ignored.


Hey Tribune7,  ID only seeks to identify design. It makes no attempt whatsoever to identify the designer.  Better luck next time.

Date: 2006/11/15 11:01:19, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 15 2006,10:18)
DT seems to be trying to keep one foot in the "anti-ID is religious oppression" camp to keep the rubes happy, while he's trying just as hard to keep the other foot in the "but ID isn't religion, mind you" camp. It's sort of "ID isn't religion, but you're anti-Christian if you think it is."

I can't help but thinking I've seen this line of reasoning somewhere else before. But, where?  Oh, yeah......



   
Quote

Pee-wee: I wouldn't sell my bike for all the money in the world. Not for a hundred million, billion, trillion dollars!
Francis: Then you're crazy!
Pee-wee: I know you are but what am I?
Francis: You're a nerd!
Pee-wee: I know you are but what am I?
Francis: You're an idiot!
Pee-wee: I know you are but what am I?
Pee-Wee, Francis: I know you are, but what am I? I know you are, but what am I? I know you are, but what am I? I know you are, but what am I? I know you are, but what am I? (Pee-Wee): Infinity!
Francis: No, I'm not.
Francis, Pee-Wee: You are! No way! Knock it off! Cut it out!
Francis: Shut up, Pee-Wee!
Pee-wee: Why don't you make me.
Francis: You make me!
Pee-wee: Because. I don't make monkeys, I just train 'em.
Francis: Pee-Wee listen to reason.
[Pee-Wee cuffs his hand around his ear in a listening motion]
Francis: Pee-Wee!
Pee-wee: Sh! I'm listening to reason.
Francis: Pee-Wee!
Pee-wee: That's my name, don't wear it out.

Date: 2006/11/15 17:57:56, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (k.e @ Nov. 14 2006,23:58)
 
Quote

The scavengers were frogs? Guess it's not easy being green...

You haven't heard of the great green moster?

It eats all in its path.

Actually, I think it tends to reject more of the long flies that go in its direction than it allows to disappear into its maw.  But, candidly, I wouldn't expect someone from down under to understand the eating habits of such a beast found in eastern Massachusetts.

Date: 2006/11/20 10:09:47, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Altabin @ Nov. 20 2006,09:19)
 
Quote
Oh yeah, and a handful of teachers, truckers, and journalists whose careers have been wrecked because they wouldn’t shut up, maybe - plus a few artists and philosophers and others who think that life is more than pampering the body.

I want to know more about the truckers.

Didn't you know the Teamster's were in the pocket of the Evil Darwinist Conspiracy?   Jimmie Hoffa's big mistake was saying that he "didn't come from no munky."

EDIT:  Corrected punctuation.

Date: 2006/11/20 14:00:13, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (BWE @ Nov. 20 2006,11:26)
Oh Dave. Please, please, please, please let me start a new thread or do it on my blog to debate the idea of fundies in history, starting America (tied or untied), coming up with the idea of liberal democracy, individual freedoms and the like.
You already said you would do it. Now all I am asking is that you keep your word.

Pleeeeeaaaaase... :(  ???  :O  :(

Not yet, BWE.  I am finishing up a biography of Thomas Paine and have The Federalist Papers, John Locke's "Two Treatises of Government" and "America's Constitution" by Akhil Amar lined up to tackle. I should be done in a few months and perhaps the discussion of genetics will be wrapping up around that time.

Date: 2006/11/21 14:35:38, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2006,14:21)
From the same thread, Allan MacNeil spanks Tardy thus:
 
Quote
This is freshman biology, Dave. If one of my students had made a statement this egregiously wrong, I would have flunked him or her on the exam.

Ooh! There it is again!  The heavy hand of The Man® keeping the IDist down!

Help! Help! I being repressed!

Date: 2006/11/21 16:57:52, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2006,16:45)
I saved the page after 2 posts..

Vintage tard should be cherished!

Vintage?  You popped the cork on that one right quick.  I'd say it is more like a tardjolais nouveau.

Date: 2006/11/22 06:43:00, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (BWE @ Nov. 22 2006,00:38)
Then I will begin a point by point of Voltaire, Locke, Hume, Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, and Franklin. With each, I will show the relationship of their writings to the enlightenment ideas of the separation of spiritual knowledge from empirical knowledge and aknowledgement of the rights of the individual. Then I will find citations from each (and I will attempt to provide the context for the quotes :) ) which demonstrate that they were quite specifically not fundy. Whenever possible I will provide quotes that suggest their opinions of fundies.

BWE, don't forget James Madison. I would absolutely love to see Dave try to explain "Memorial and Remonstrance."

Date: 2006/11/22 06:52:29, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 22 2006,05:16)
2. Founders:  People who helped set the direction for American government.  Begins with people like William Bradford and the Pilgrims all the way up to the constitutional writers, early presidents, early justices, etc.

Dave, you are trying to move the goalposts before the game even started.  Going back to William Bradford is really quite irrelevant since the Constitution that came out of the 1787 convention was a specific repudiation of everything that came before it, not just the Articles of Confederation.  It was intended to supercede all that.

Besides, if you bring up Bradford, someone will have to bring up Roger Williams.  And I know you don't want to go there, now do you?

Quote

3)  My uncle is a monkey

EDIT: You know, there was an interesting article in last months Smithsonian magazine about bonobos.  If you can get past the parts about their rather randy behavior, it seems to imply that they can develop the ability to communicate relatively complex concepts.  Maybe you should be more accepting of that side of your family.  ;)

Date: 2006/11/22 08:09:57, Link
Author: carlsonjok
[quote=afdave,Nov. 22 2006,07:26][/quote]
Quote
Carlson ...    
Quote
Dave, you are trying to move the goalposts before the game even started.  
No. I am asserting where my goalposts are and have always been.  One cannot have a meaningful discussion about the "Founders of America" without going back all the way to the Pilgrims.

Well, that puts you (and David Barton) on the outside looking in, since the Constitution replaced everything that preceded it.  But, don't forget Roger Williams.  He was the original Barry Lynn.

Quote
PS:  Happy Thanksgiving!  I'm headed to Oklahoma for a few days of Thanksgiving to God for our great country.  I'm going to read to my kids about William Bradford and the Pilgrims and Squanto and Samoset and the First Thanksgiving feast.  How about you?

I intend to finish a biography of Thomas Paine and to start reading The Federalist Papers.  I also intend to spend some time working an APHA mare of mine that isn't breaking at the poll.

I am assuming that you are probably dropping down I-35.  If you want to give your kids some exposure to science that won't impinge on your creationism, you might want to take a diversion at Wichita and hop over to Hutchinson to see the Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center.  It is an absolutely fantastic facility that shows the parallel development of the American and Soviet space programs.  In some respects, I think it is superior to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum (which it is affiliated with).

Date: 2006/11/22 12:39:58, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (BWE @ Nov. 22 2006,11:58)
carlsonjok: Sorry, I will be using Madison extensively. It was an oversight

No problem.  And all I can say in response is that I had completely forgot about John Marshall.  

Brilliant!

Date: 2006/11/22 14:06:35, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (BWE @ Nov. 22 2006,13:46)
Carlsonjok,
His idea about justices sort of threw me a little. They came AFTER the constitution and are not founders. Marbury is important because it established judicial review but I don't see how others really fit in.

For the most part, I agree with you. I could be wrong, but I think he is throwing justices in the mix so that he can reference John Jay, a bona fide Founding Father and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Jay is one of the favorites of the "Christian nation" crowd. Jay once said:

 
Quote
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.


Of course, he didn't consider Catholics as Christians and tried to bar them from holding office, thereby illustrating exactly why FF like Jefferson, Madison, et al wanted a complete separation of church and state.

He may also have a couple of other Justices up his sleeve.  But we can talk of that some other time.

So, if he wants to introduce Jay as the first Chief Justice, it certainly seems fair to introduce Marshall as the most influential.

Date: 2006/11/22 15:06:12, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote
What planet is this about?:

After that multi-paragraph diatribe having nothing to do with the biology of virgin births, where Dave does his best impression of Jack Nicholson (ala "A Few Good Men"), he chastises someone else thusly:
       
Quote

P.Phillips you’re still being moderated and I’m still not approving your comments when they’re overly long and/or too far removed from connection with the thread.

Irony apparently wasn't a weapon in the USMC arsenal.

EDIT: Dagnabit, Richard, don't you have a real job?

Date: 2006/11/22 15:13:43, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 22 2006,15:08)
This is hypocrisy. Your post was meta-irony.

Well, I never claimed to be a autodidact or have a 150 IQ.  I'm just sniping at my intellectual superiors.  It makes me feel good about myself.

Date: 2006/11/23 06:18:14, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (argystokes @ Nov. 23 2006,01:02)
And that picture in the beginning is totally a girl.

No way. It is Danny Bonaducci.

Date: 2006/11/28 07:25:21, Link
Author: carlsonjok
BWE, you are going to be on your own for the most part, since I am in Mexico on business this week.  But, I have complete faith in you, since this is the same weak cut-and-paste job that Dave has used before.  Exactly the same.  Let me get a few quick hits in here, though.
   
Quote
Thomas Jefferson

Dave, what do you think about what Jefferson did to the New Testament?  He specifically rejected the divinity of Christ and excised all mentions of Christ as the son of God, miracles and such from the New Testament.
   
Quote
     

Benjamin Franklin
               
Quote
"In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection. Our prayers, sir were heard, and they were graciously answered . . . I therefore beg leave to move--that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business."

James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, Henry D. Gilpin, editor (Washington: Langtree & O’Sullivan, 1840), Vol. II, p. 984-986, June 28, 1787.

"We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."

James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, Henry D. Gilpin, editor (Washington: Langtree & O’Sullivan, 1840), Vol. II, p. 985, June 28, 1787.


Franklin or Madison, Dave?  If you insist on cutting and pasting, at least have enough care to actually proofread.
But, about Madison.  He was so strident on keeping church and state separate, that he considered military chaplains unconstitutional.  And do you have any cut-and-pastes from wallbuilders.com about "Memorial and Remonstrance?"

       
Quote
John Jay -- First Chief Justice of the United States

You know, of course, that Jay introduced a measure at the New York Convention to ban Catholics from holding public office.  Is that really the type of fellow you want to enlist in your fight against the Establishment Clause?Which sects would you ban from holding office?  Mormons?  Muslims?
       
Quote

The following is a favorite quote of skeptics ... the Tripoli Treaty of 1797 which stated ...            
Quote
...the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen ...
 Skeptics, of course, love this quote and pounce on it while disregarding hundreds of other quotes which support the fact that America is most definitely a Christian nation.

Therein lies your problem, Dave. You, and David Barton, are forced to search around for quotes to support your position.  When looked at from the Founders complete body of work, it is pretty clear what they felt and it wasn't that it was a Christian nation.   Memorial and Remonstrance?
       
Quote
The key to understanding this is context.  And of course, skeptics enjoy taking things OUT of context, which is nothing more than lying.  So the context of this treaty is the "Christianity" of Europe which attacked Muslims (Musselmen) during the Crusades and other times.  The treaty was worded in such a way as to give the Muslims great assurance that America is not like those European nations who called themselves "Christian" yet attacked you mercilessly.  The American founders detested government control by "Christian institutions,"

Nice of you to admit that.
       
Quote

yet most of them were strong, Protestant Christians themselves (they were far more "fundy" than me),

Which ones Dave?  I will grant you Jay was very much a strong Protestant, but that is about it.  Washington was so weak in his religious commitment he never took communion.  Franklin and Jefferson were clearly deists.  Adams was a unitarian.  Madison was Anglican, but is clearly not your friend on this issue, so strident were his beliefs on keeping church and state separate.

     
Quote
So this treaty could really be worded ...            
Quote
...the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian "religion" [of Europe] as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen ...

Can you point to any original source writings by John Adams that supports this interpretation?  I doubt you can.  You are too firmly entrenched in the shoddy scholarship of David Barton and I am willing to bet you won't leave its comfort to explore any of the 200 plus years of scholarly work on any of the Founders to look for it.  But, unless you can provide support in the writings of Adams for this interpretation, I have to assume that you are blowing it out your (and Barton's) butt.  Prove me wrong, if you can.

Date: 2006/11/28 12:56:31, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote

To say that David Barton's scholarship is shoddy displays profound ignorance of the truth.  This man is so good and so careful in documenting the quotes he uses that he has become THE SOURCE for this type of information.

His standards are so high that he has created his own standard, which is higher than traditional academic standards.

     
Quote
Unconfirmed Quotations

by David Barton

(This article has created controversy in some quarters; read the background behind the “Unconfirmed Quotations” article controversy.)

The following quotations have been seen and heard in numerous books, periodicals, editorials, speeches, etc. In our research, we have not previously used a quote that was not documented to a source in a manner that would be acceptable in a scholarly work or a university text. However, we strongly believe that the debates surrounding the Founders are too important to apply solely an academic standard. Therefore, we unilaterally initiated within our own works a standard of documentation that would exceed the academic standard and instead would conform to the superior legal standard (i.e., relying solely on primary or original sources, using best evidence, rather than relying on the writings of attorneys, professors, or historians).

It is only in using this much higher standard that we call the following quotes “unconfirmed”: that is, while the quotes below have been documented in a completely acceptable fashion for academic works, they are currently “unconfirmed” if relying solely on original sources or sources contemporaneous to the life of the actual individual Founder. These original sources for these quotes may still surface (for example, a major primary document from James Madison surfaced as late as 1946), and in fact you will note that we have actually located the original sources for some to the quotes below that originally we listed as unconfirmed. However, with the remaining quotes listed below, we recommend that you refrain from using them until such time that an original primary source may be found, notwithstanding the fact that the quotes below may be documented to a number of contemporary sources.

Talk about an Orwellian explanation.  Dave, let me let you in on a not-too-secret secret.  Even Barton's new standards are not higher than academic standards. While they are certainly more stringent that what he employed previously, they are still rather slipshod in comparison to what real academics use. You see, real academic historians only work from primary sources, not "numerous books, periodicals, editorials, and speeches, etc."  While real historians undoubtedly research such secondary sources, they will trace them back to the primary sources.  And, when real historians are unable to trace such references back to the primary source, the information is excluded from their work.

Barton fails on both counts.  He didn't trace his quotes back to primary sources and when real historians challenged him publicly on this, he had no choice but to acknowledge that primary sources didn't exist for many of his quotes.  While I will give him credit for stating that the quotes are unconfirmed, it is hardly a higher standard than what an academic would do. An intellectually honest academic would have withdrawn such quotes from the body of their work. Barton leaves material that cannot be confirmed as true in his work and only cautions (wink..wink) the reader not to use them.
   
Quote

Carlson--  The Franklin quote is found in the papers of Madison.  Why is that surprising?

Primary sources, Dave, primary sources.  If you go back to Madison's notes from the convention (which can be purchased at Amazon), you would find that Franklin's motion to open the convention sessions with prayer was never passed by the Convention.
   
Quote

I have no reason to dispute what you say about Jefferson and the NT ... but this does not destroy my position that America was founded as a Christian nation, meaning it was founded on the general principles of Chrisitianity (Protestant Christianity we could add).

So, remind me again, where in the Constitution the 10 commandments are?  Oh, heck, I'll make it easier for you. Show me where in any federal law where the 10 commandments are.  I'll bet you can't find more than 3.  Heck, just find the first commandment anywhere in US law.
   
Quote
Carlson...      
Quote
Therein lies your problem, Dave. You, and David Barton, are forced to search around for quotes to support your position.  When looked at from the Founders complete body of work, it is pretty clear what they felt and it wasn't that it was a Christian nation.   Memorial and Remonstrance?
You are utterly mistaken as I will show in the coming weeks.

Oh, goody!
   
Quote
   
Quote
Can you point to any original source writings by John Adams that supports this interpretation?  I doubt you can.  You are too firmly entrenched in the shoddy scholarship of David Barton and I am willing to bet you won't leave its comfort to explore any of the 200 plus years of scholarly work on any of the Founders to look for it.  But, unless you can provide support in the writings of Adams for this interpretation, I have to assume that you are blowing it out your (and Barton's) butt.  Prove me wrong, if you can.
I have already with the quotes given so far and I will continue to do so.

Now you haven't.  You have not shown any primary sourced information from Adams (or Joel Barlow's as BWE points out) own writing to support your interpretation.  Adams was a prolific, perhaps even obsessive, writer. Surely you can scrounge up, in Adams own words, support for your interpretation?

Date: 2006/11/28 21:42:43, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 28 2006,17:48)
 
Quote
The struggle to save the ship will go on for a while, and meanwhile there will even be academic wine-and-cheese parties on the deck. In the end the ship's great firepower and ponderous armor will only help drag it to the bottom. (Dembski)

In this witty allusion to the Titanic, Dembski seems to forget all the low class, expendable, "unwashed masses" (his pet phrase) who were locked in the lower cabins and went down with the ship.

Well, the Titanic was not a warship and thus did not possess great firepower or heavy armor to drag her to the bottom.  A Bismarck metaphor would probably be more appropriate inasmuch as it was a warship and it also allows the allusion to Darwinists as Nazis.  Just saying.

Date: 2006/11/28 21:56:22, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 28 2006,09:14)
As for Jay trying to ban Catholics from public office ... you need to remember the context of the birth of our country.  It was founded as a response and reaction to the Authoritarian regimes of Europe of which the Pope and Catholicism were the origin and source of this form of despotism.  Where do you think the Church of England learned its practice of persecuting non-conformists?  From Rome of course.  Where did the Church of England learn to try to control the government?  From Rome.  The Founders of America did not want Institutional Authoritarian Religious Organizations to control our government.  Thus the push to ban Catholics who at that time had a public sworn allegiance to a foreign power--the Vatican.

This was in no way a repudiation of free (protestant) Christianity, but a repudiation of authoritarianism and totalitarianism in the name of Christ.

I skipped over this before, but I want to come back to it. What you say above is true, but it isn't particularly enlightening.  It isn't much beyond the level of high school history.  I want to explore this in more depth with you, but it will probably involve several exchanges back and forth.  Are you up for that, Dave?  The denouement may be a few days into the future, but it may be helpful to move the discussion along more productively and we can exercise some real scholarship here.

So, my question to you, Dave, is this.  John Jay tried to pass a motion to ban Catholics from holding public office.  We all know it was never passed. With 200+ years of hindsight, Dave, was Jay right?

Date: 2006/11/29 09:32:18, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 29 2006,08:12)
Here's the proof for this assertion from the unparalleled scholarship of David Barton ...

Now here are his footnotes documenting his statements ...

I just have to shake my head and laugh when people like Carlson say that David Barton is a shoddy scholar.  

Dave, thank you for providing the page in question and the associated footnotes. But you may want to stop laughing for a second.  Let me make a couple  observations.  Barton has certainly provided a number of footnotes to back up various assertions of fact. I would note that none of the footnoted statements are in the least bit controversial. I also noticed that the section where Barton provides his interpretation of the meaning of the Treaty of Tripoli (namely the second through the fourth paragraph on page 127), there is not a single footnote referencing either primary sources in the writings of Adams or Barlow nor any secondary sources of scholarship that support his interpretation.

This leads the reader to the conclusion that Barton is providing his own interpretation.  That is fine, historians are in the business of interpreting history, so I won't quibble with the fact that he is making and stating his interpretation.  The problem here is that academic historians that are generally expected to provide primary source support for their interpretation and Barton doesn't do this.  It is certainly good that I can verify where he determined that Washington sent envoys to negotiate with the Barbary pirates and that we eventually paid $525K in ransom, but those facts are not in question.  In contrast, he provides me no place to go in the writings of Adams or any other involved party that would support his interpretation of the meaning.  

I'm sorry, Dave, but that isn't true scholarship.  Footnoting accepted statements of fact is fine, but providing footnoted support for controversial interpretations is where real scholarship takes place. Let me give you an example.

In the editors introduction to my copy of The Federalist Papers, the author discusses two things.  First, how he determined to attribute authorship for the 85 separate essays (which were published under the single name Publius) and how he determined which versions of the essays to use (both Madison and Hamilton separately made changes after the original newspaper publication and prior to their publication in book form.)  These are matters of some weight to serious historians and in the space of this short introduction, the editor provided 100 footnotes.  He didn't footnote that Madison and Hamilton (and Jay) were in fact authors, but he footnoted heavily the discussion of how it was determined which author wrote which essay.

     
Quote

Carlson, you've been duped by the revisionists.  :-)

For my interpretation to be revisionist, it would have to run contrary to the 200+ years of scholarship on the subject.  Unfortunately, Barton is the johnny-come-lately.  That he doesn't provide any footnoted, primary sourced support for his interpretation can only lead the disinterested reader to a different conclusion who the revisionist is.

Date: 2006/11/29 10:25:35, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ogee @ Nov. 29 2006,10:05)
 
Quote (Freelurker @ Nov. 29 2006,00:33)
Dave's professional engineering experience does not give him experience with the question at hand.

There's also the minor issue that DT has no professional engineering experience (or education).  There is no forum on Earth (except UD) where he would be accepted as an expert on design or the practise of engineering.

To be fair, you can go to this site:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html

and search for "Springer, David" as inventor name.  You will find that he is the sole or joint holder of 4 patents:

6,393,586
6,321,262
6,212,631
5,936,608

None seem related to biology.

Date: 2006/11/29 12:54:10, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote
Carlson...   What part of paragraphs 2-4 do you disagree with?  Why?  Were not the practices of "Christian" Europe--i.e. the Crusades--well known among "Musselmen"?  Knowing the context of the treaty, how could you possibly disagree with Barton's interpretation?

Now I realize that you have not read Chapter 2 of Barton's book

My disagreement with Barton is rooted in his fundamental premise.  To that end, you are right that jumping into the Treaty of Tripoli is probably premature. And you are correct also that I haven't read Barton's book and probably won't anytime soon. I have a whole stack of original Founding Fathers and Enlightenment philosophy to read (Founding Grandfathers?).
   
Quote
, but let me assure you that he documents the assertion that "the Founders openly described America as a Christian nation" quite thoroughly from original writings of the Founders.

I doubt that, but let's go with it.  And as long as we are, let's get back to John Jay.  You didn't respond to my question from yesterday.  Please do so now.  If you need a reminder, here it is:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=40353

   
Quote
I also think you need to re-evaluate your idea of a reliable source for quoting the Founders.  I note the fact you did not recognize Madison's writings as an authoritative source for a Franklin quote.

Indeed Madison's notes from the convention are considered an authoritative source of information regarding the deliberations.  I was in error.  But, I note that you did not acknowledge that Franklin's motion was not passed by the Constitutional Convention.  
Why should we consider Franklin's comments authoritative, when they did not result in any official action by the convention?  I am sure I can go to Madison's notes and find contrary comments by other Founders (not now, of course, since I am out of the country).  But, what then? Do we duel with quotes from convention participants or do we work from the official documents prepared by the convention for ratification by the states (and the compelling case for ratification offered in the Federalist Papers?)

Date: 2006/11/29 15:08:08, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote
My quote of Franklin was given simply to demonstrate a clear statement of a prominent Founder--Franklin--who was a "Christian fundy" in the sense that he believed in the General Principles of Christianity and he believed that prayer and other general Christian practices accepted by most "brands of Christians" SHOULD be a part of public life.

I think we have a definitional issue that we need to clear up here first.  How do you define Christian?  Above you seem to imply it is acceptance of the general principles.  Is that it, or does being a Christian require the acceptance of the divinity of Christ?
 
Quote
 
Quote
So, my question to you, Dave, is this.  John Jay tried to pass a motion to ban Catholics from holding public office.  We all know it was never passed. With 200+ years of hindsight, Dave, was Jay right?
It's hard to judge in hindsight because we are not there in his context.  But I would say that IF (IF IF IF) a candidate for public office has a sworn allegiance to a foreign power (Vatican, Secret Society, what have you) which cannot be subordinated to his oath to defend the US Constitution, then yes, he should be barred from federal office.

Well, that is all well and good, and you may be surprised for me to say I agree. But, Dave, you didn't answer the question.  I was not asking about any particular candidates fitness for office.  I was asking whether you thought Jay was right about banning all Catholics, regardless of their allegiances, from holding public offices.

Side question:  Do you consider Skull and Bones a secret society?  ;)

Date: 2006/11/29 22:00:53, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote

Carlson...    
Quote
I was asking whether you thought Jay was right about banning all Catholics, regardless of their allegiances, from holding public offices.
I cannot judge his specific case because I do not know all the facts.

Wait a minute.  You practically gave a dissertation on the "context" of the Treaty of Tripoli, but don't have any understanding of the context of John Jay's attempt to ban Catholics from holding office?  Even though they come from the same wellspring of church-state philosophy?  You are perfectly willing to enlist Jay in your quest to make the US into a Christian nation, but run for cover when you are asked to offer an opinion on Jay's bigotry towards Catholics.  

Here is the problem, Dave.  You can't offer up a quote from Jay unless you are willing to explain the context of it.  And to explain the context of Jay's quotes, you need to explain it in light of Jay's bigotry towards non-Protestants. Further, you need to elucidate why such bigotry is not a clear repudiation of the concept of freedom of conscience that the bulk of the Founders espoused.  Are you willing to do that?  If Barton doesn't have anything ready to cut and paste, don't be afraid to wander of the res and offer your own thoughts. I promise I will be civil (unlike some of the other people around here ;) .)

We can still try to deal with Franklin, but first we do still need to clear up your definition of Christian and if being a Christian requires acceptance of the divinity of Christ.

Quote
 
Quote
Side question:  Do you consider Skull and Bones a secret society?
Yes I do.

2004 must have been a bummer of a Presidential election for you, huh?

Date: 2006/11/30 09:54:55, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 30 2006,08:56)
Carlson...      
Quote
Wait a minute.  You practically gave a dissertation on the "context" of the Treaty of Tripoli, but don't have any understanding of the context of John Jay's attempt to ban Catholics from holding office?  Even though they come from the same wellspring of church-state philosophy?  You are perfectly willing to enlist Jay in your quest to make the US into a Christian nation, but run for cover when you are asked to offer an opinion on Jay's bigotry towards Catholics.  

Here is the problem, Dave.  You can't offer up a quote from Jay unless you are willing to explain the context of it.  And to explain the context of Jay's quotes, you need to explain it in light of Jay's bigotry towards non-Protestants. Further, you need to elucidate why such bigotry is not a clear repudiation of the concept of freedom of conscience that the bulk of the Founders espoused.  Are you willing to do that?  If Barton doesn't have anything ready to cut and paste, don't be afraid to wander of the res and offer your own thoughts. I promise I will be civil (unlike some of the other people around here ;) .)
Show me why I should be interested in what Jay thought about Catholics.  

Because it is exactly the type of bigotry exhibited by Jay (*) that the Founders sought to forestall by keeping church and state completely separate.  So, unless you can articulate reasoning to the contrary, by embracing Jay in your quest to prove this is a Christian nation, you are embracing his bigotry.  So, I am trying to give you a chance to escape that problem.  Why should we give any credence to Jay's opinion, when his "Christian nation" does not allow complete freedom of religion?
 
Quote

My purpose here is to show that the Founders made America a Christian nation.  And my purpose is to help restore that lost understanding in the minds of the general public.

Your definition of a Christian (offered in an another post) is sufficiently broad that it is practically useless. Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson all specifically questioned and/or rejected the divinity of Christ.  Claiming them as Christians is a bit of a stretch.  But it gets worse. As we have seen already, only 3 of the 10 commandments can be found in American law and those three are also common across any number of different belief systems.  In short, your definition could allow you to claim a Buddhist as a Christian.  But, I am a bit short on time. I have work to do, a plane to catch, and given the weather at home it is unclear I will make it much further than Houston.  :(

So, let me ask a different question that I would like you to think over and respond to.  Don't feel obligated to respond right away.  Take your time.  You said yesterday, in the discussion of the Treaty of Tripoli that the United States was a Christian nation, but did not have a Christian government.  Do you wish to have a Christian government?  If yes, explain how it would be different than the government we have now. If no, then what is the point of all this Christian nation effort if there is no practical difference to the government we have now.
 
Quote

Carlson...      
Quote
2004 must have been a bummer of a Presidential election for you, huh?
Politics is a constant choice among multiple evils.  You just take the choices you are given and decide which would be worse.  My philosophy is that Government is a Necessary Evil.  Let's minimize it as much as possible.

On that I agree completely, although I expect that I am much more the libertarian than you are.

(*) Lest anyone think I am down on John Jay, I am not.  Like all the Founding Fathers, he was human.  He had his faults, but still made significant contributions.  Dave and I certainly don't agree on what some of those contributions may be.  And, to a certain extent, Jay's anti-Catholicism is somewhat understandable given his French Huguenot ancestry.

Date: 2006/12/01 00:04:59, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Dave, it appears you could use a little break from genetics and I am, unfortunately, stranded here at IAH for the night, so what say we do a little history?
   
Quote
   
Quote
Carlson...        
Quote
 
Show me why I should be interested in what Jay thought about Catholics.  

Because it is exactly the type of bigotry exhibited by Jay (*) that the Founders sought to forestall by keeping church and state completely separate.  So, unless you can articulate reasoning to the contrary, by embracing Jay in your quest to prove this is a Christian nation, you are embracing his bigotry.  So, I am trying to give you a chance to escape that problem.  Why should we give any credence to Jay's opinion, when his "Christian nation" does not allow complete freedom of religion?

I do not know if it was bigotry or not.  If it is true (as some have claimed) that many Catholics placed loyalty to the Vatican ABOVE loyalty to the US Constitution, then I would agree with Jay.  If not, then I would have opposed Jay in this.  My guess is that Jay's position had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with LOYALTY to one's country.

Your guess would be wrong and I even gave you a big ole clue as to where Jay's bigotry came from.  It was anti-Catholic bigotry, period.  All Catholics, not just those who might have given first allegiance to the RCC.  Every last one of them.  And, I might add, you still haven't answered the question.  I can't say I blame you.  You are staring at another Portuguese moment if you were to answer it.  No worries, guy.  We can move on to (hopefully) more productive fields.
     
Quote
Carlson ...        
Quote

But it gets worse. As we have seen already, only 3 of the 10 commandments can be found in American law and those three are also common across any number of different belief systems.  

That's because you are looking for EXPLICIT citations of the 10 commandments in the Constitution.  Obviously, this cannot be found.  I have never claimed that it can.

No, I am not looking for that at all.  I am perfectly capable of dealing with abstractions.  So, if you can point to anywhere in US law where the commandments are codified, even if they are not literally transcribed. I will grant you "Thou shalt not (kill, steal, bear false witness)"  Those are, after all, endemic to most belief systems.  But, can you offer up any of the other 7?  Don't limit yourself to the Constitution.  You are free to use the entire body of American law.
       
Quote
Quote  
In short, your definition could allow you to claim a Buddhist as a Christian.
Not true at all.

You'll need to explain in a little more detail.  You've already stated that acceptance of Christ's divinity is not necessary for you to count someone as a Christian.  So, by what criteria do you include diests and unitarians, but exclude Buddhists?  
     
Quote
Carlson ...        
Quote
 
You said yesterday, in the discussion of the Treaty of Tripoli that the United States was a Christian nation, but did not have a Christian government.  Do you wish to have a Christian government?  If yes, explain how it would be different than the government we have now. If no, then what is the point of all this Christian nation effort if there is no practical difference to the government we have now.

I wish to RETURN to a government which more closely resembles our Original Government, which our Christian Founders gave us.  Among my political action items are ...

DAVE'S POLITICAL GOALS FOR AMERICA
1) Reduce the size and power of government.  Government is a necessary evil.  It is necessary.  And it can be quite evil especially if it is too big.  Let's make it as small as possible.  Power corrupts.  And absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Okay, cool.
     
Quote

2) Get the government out of the welfare business.  Government at both the state and federal levels redistributes wealth at a level never dreamed of by the Founders.  Private citizens get handouts.  Special interest groups get handouts.  School districts get handouts.  Universities get handouts.  Companies get handouts.  Everyone gets handouts.  It's ridiculous.

I tend to agree.  Churches get handouts too.  If you agree that we should end the tax deduction for contributions to churches and the Office of Faith Based Initiatives, I believe we can close this deal today.
     
Quote

3) Get government out of the Education business.  Abolish the DOE.  We don't need it.  Let colleges, universities and public schools stand on their own two feet if they can.  Stop taxing my property to pay for the overpriced public school that I don't even want.  If people want that public school, let them pay for it voluntarily.  I have a much more efficient means of educating my children.  It's called Abeka DVD.

And what of the working poor who can't afford the private education to help their children aspire to better?  Do you feel no obligation to them, the least of these my brethren?
     
Quote

4) Abolish the Federal Reserve and restore the US Treasury to it's rightful role in controlling our money.  Quit paying interest to the Fed for them printing money for us.  Print it ourselves and save the interest.

Uh, boy. There have been several successful attempts in US History to abolish the independent central bank.  All precipitated financial chaos.  But, okay, lets go with this for a moment.  What you are advocating is turning control of monetary policy over to the elected government.  Please reconcile this with your statement that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Why do you think we should trust the politicians to control the purse strings?  They already spend like drunken sailors and you want to give them the controls of the printing press?  

Side question:  Do you understand why the Fed loans money at interest?  Your statement implies you don't, but I'll give you a chance to disabuse me of that notion.
     
Quote

5) Get rid of this revisionist interpretation of Separation of Church and State once and for all.  Do we have freedom of religion or not?  We used to.  Until the revisionist judges abolished prayer and Bible reading in public life.

Umm, judges have abolished no such thing.  Individual citizens have always been, and continue to be, free to do such things. The problem comes in when you ask the government to endorse such acts. There is no question that, in an effort to avoid lawsuits, government officials have wrongly infringed on peoples rights under the Free Exercise Clause, but that can also be remedied through the courts. Hells bells, the ACLU has defended street preachers and Christians in free exercise cases, for goodness sake. And successfully, I might add.
     
Quote

6) Accomplish massive tort reform.  We have far too many people suing one another for everything under the sun.

Says the man threatening to sic lawyers at other forum participants.  (chuckle)

I am not unsympathetic, mind you.  My wife is an attorney that does a lot of work for a large, local company.  She tells me about some of the stuff that comes across her desk.  But, we are a nation of laws. How should we resolve disputes, if not through the courts?  And how do we ensure access to the courts for all citizens regardless of financial means (again, the least of these my brethren)?
     
Quote

7) Impeach judges who violate their oaths of office.

That takes place now.  Are the names Alcee Hastings and Roy Moore familiar to you?
     
Quote

8) Quit telling Christians they can't pray in school, write book reports about Mary & Joseph, etc. etc.

Umm, again, they can do such things now. But, also again, asking the government to provide endorsement is problematic.  If you want to pursue this line of discussion, please take more care in differentiating Establishment Clause from Free Exercise Clause.  You are muddling the two.
     
Quote

9) In short, stick to the basics of good government based on the general principles of Christianity--honor your parents, marriage is a man and a woman, don't kill, don't steal, don't commit adultery, don't bear false witness, don't covet, etc.  Do a good job of enforcing the basics and leave it at that.

10)  Recognize that America was founded as a Christian nation, so quit trying to change that, i.e. we swear in Congressmen on BIBLES, not the Koran, thank you very much.  It's fine if you want to read the Koran and be a Muslim and build a mosque and what have you.  It's NOT fine to insist that you be allowed to be sworn in with a copy of the Koran instead of the Bible in America.  What next?  Should we allow a neo-Nazi congressman to be sworn in using "Mein Kampf"?   ...  

Which brings us to the $64,000 question. Would you say that any politician that does not swear the oath on a Christian Bible should not be able to hold office?

Date: 2006/12/01 12:39:51, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 01 2006,08:38)
Carlson ...    
Quote
Your guess would be wrong and I even gave you a big ole clue as to where Jay's bigotry came from.  It was anti-Catholic bigotry, period.  All Catholics, not just those who might have given first allegiance to the RCC.  
And what evidence would you offer to show that this fear was not due to the widespread concern over misplaced allegiance observed within the Catholic hierarchy?  Remember the history of Protestantism and the Catholic Counter Reformation which opposed it.  This was heavy stuff back then and prominent in people's minds.  How many countries did the Jesuits get officially kicked out of back then?

The proof that the fear wasn't widespread is found in the simple fact that the motion was DOA at the convention.  It didn't pass.  QED.

BTW, I'm feeling a little unloved here.  After I spent all that time on the post and this is the only response I get out of you?  Would it help if I was more provocative?

Date: 2006/12/01 13:05:38, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 01 2006,12:36)
I'm not sure how much street cred you're going to earn with "Seeing Specified Complexity points to a purpose."

Well, you've got to run it through gizoogle first.

Try this.

"Weed-smokin' Specified Complexity points ta a purpose".

Word.

Date: 2006/12/01 17:42:26, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 01 2006,15:43)
Carlson, I haven't forgotten about you ... but you know I'm going to ask for proof that there was no debate on the Jay vs. Catholics topic, right?

Dave, whether there was debate or not is quite irrelevant.  There is debate on every subject under the sun and the constitutional conventions were no exception.  What is relevant was what came out of the convention.  And the movement to ban Catholics from holding office was stillborn.  There is nothing left to discuss.

So, let's move on.  And I'd like to step away from the Founders for a moment. I am really curious about your plan to eliminate the Fed and why you think we can trust politicians can do a better job of setting monetary policy than a independent central banker (and your thoughts on why the Fed charges interest.)

I am also interested in your answer to the question I posed at the end of my post last night.
 
Quote

Would you say that any politician that does not swear the oath on a Christian Bible should not be able to hold office?


EDIT: Cleaned up spelling and grammatical errors.

Date: 2006/12/01 19:54:45, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (phonon @ Dec. 01 2006,18:27)
BTW, carlonjok, I love the gizoogle link! I'll have fun with that for days!

I am anxiously awaiting Joel Borofsky's next essay on teen culture over at Stop Lying to Us so that I can run it through gizoogle.

Date: 2006/12/02 07:42:09, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Davescot seems to be jumping on the Christian Nation bandwagon with his latest contribution at UD:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1826

 
Quote

In memory of the 1st anniversary of Judge Jones’ enforcement of an impenetrable wall of separation between church and state I present to you 45 holes in the wall.


Unfortunately, this essay isn't up to Dave's normal level of scholarship.  Ya see, the Preamble doesn't mean all that much when it comes to constitutions, the good stuff comes after the preamble.

For example, in my state of Oklahoma (*) we find this little nugget:
 
Quote

SECTION II-5
Public money or property - Use for sectarian purposes.

No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.

And, in Texas, where Dave lives, we find this:
 
Quote

Section 7 - APPROPRIATIONS FOR SECTARIAN PURPOSES

No money shall be appropriated, or drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of any sect, or religious society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the State be appropriated for any such purposes.


(*) Hey Dave, how are the Longhorns chances in the Big 12 Championship tonight?  Oh, wait.  They aren't playing.  Boomer Sooner!

Date: 2006/12/03 07:55:25, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (jeannot @ Dec. 03 2006,05:44)
I think the only way to keep this tread going is to ask one question at a time to Dave, and wait until he answers.

I think it probably is time for something like this, but I seem to recall that someone suggested similar oh-so-long ago when Dave was only here about a month.  I am not sure how exactly to enforce it. This forum is, by its nature, free-wheeling and chaotic.  Both sides pull the discussion off on tangents.  

 
Quote

Therefore, I propose we stop every currently open "debate" and begin with the first question that Dave should have adressed from the start : HOW DO YOU FALSIFY YOUR HYPOTHESIS ?"

Fine by me.  I suppose I will miss the debates on Amerian History, the one area where I can actually contribute.  But, I suppose I can go back to lurking.  After all, it is in the name of science!

Date: 2006/12/04 13:23:38, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 04 2006,11:35)
[BWE ...      
Quote
And then, after chuckling over your oustanding effort, something dawned on me. You are arguing that the US was founded on the notion that one group should be in control over others.
you think I'm going to disagree, don't you?  Well, I'm not.  You are right.  I DO think one group was in control at America's founding and I think one group should still be in control.  Who is that?  People who subscribe to the General Principles of Christianity based upon the Christian Scriptures, i.e. the Bible.  Notice that I didn't say they have to be Christians.  We don't need to ask them if they've been born again or baptized before we allow them to serve. They can be Atheists or Muslims or Catholics or what have you, but if they want to serve in government, I want them to agree with the General Principles of Christianity based on the Bible -- God created all things, God created mankind, God created marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, 10 commandments, teachings of Christ, etc.

Well, it is certainly gracious of you to allow non-Christians to hold office.  Very gracious, indeed.  But, I am confused by something. How exactly is a non-Christian supposed to adhere to the first commandment?
 
Quote

So yes, I think they should take their oaths on the Bible, not the Koran or some other book.  

To pose the question again (hopefully, the third time is the charm), would you say that any politician that does not swear the oath on a Christian Bible should not be able to hold office?

Date: 2006/12/04 16:36:12, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (BWE @ Dec. 04 2006,15:38)
Federalist 10.

Federalist 10 - An extensive republic a remedy for mischiefs of faction

Dang it.  I'm only up through 6.  Now, I'm going to have to ignore my wife in order to catch up. Oh, wait:
             
Quote

A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source.

BWE continues....
   
Quote

Plus all literature pertaining to liberal democracy.

Scanning Locke's "A Letter Concerning Toleration" I find this:
           
Quote

Another more secret evil, but more dangerous to the commonwealth, is when men arrogate to themselves, and to those of their own sect, some peculiar prerogative, covered over with a specious show of deceitful words, but in effect opposite to the civil rights of the community.

More BWE....
     
Quote

Actually,plus all literature relating to the founding of our country.

Akhil Amar has some interesting things to say about oaths of office in his book "America's Constitution: A Biography."  But, we can save that one for later.   ;)

And a parting shot....
   
Quote

Fuck.

Careful now. Remember the lurkers.

Won't somebody please think of the lurkers!  

Date: 2006/12/04 19:02:38, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (BWE @ Dec. 04 2006,18:22)
Carlsonjok,

I was looking forward to the debate. In hindsight, I entertained unfounded optimism regarding our very nice AFDave. It appears he and I have quite different approaches to the idea of "debate". Although I am sure that he means well and is a very nice person, I think that I may be harboring negative emotions toward him. This factor, among others, is inhibiting our relationship. I take full responsibility.

Going over enlightenment philosophy and the people and conditions leading to the US Constitution sounded like fun. I am sorry that Dave and I won't be able to continue.

Well, to be perfectly truthful, I was pretty much struck dumb by Dave's comment.  Most folks in the Christian nation crowd have enough understanding of the controversial nature of their position to make sure that their statements, as Locke so eloquently put it, are "covered over with a specious show of deceitful words."  For Dave to come out and say what he did was, to put it as gently as I can, ill-advised.

I am pretty much at the same place you are.  It is not possible to have a meaningful exchange with Dave on the topic.  Much like the sciency topics, he found his holy book in David Barton and has no interest in any of the 200 years of scholarship that contradicts it. The phrase that keeps coming up in my mind is that he is quite comfortable in the reconstructionist ghetto that Barton and others have created for him. Nothing, but nothing, will budge him from it.  

It is a shame really.  He writes well enough that, liberated from his shackles, I really think he could contribute to a rollicking debate.  As it is, he'll just continue to fall back on his Francis Scott Key banner graphic, cut-and-pastes from Barton and avoid any tough questions.  I may respond here and there if he comes up with any new material or actually responds to any of the questions I've thrown out there. But, be assured that has more to do with my own ego than any notion that there is resolution in the future. ;)

Date: 2006/12/06 12:50:45, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 06 2006,10:50)
BWE ... "Davey, please, please, please debate me on Christianity and the Founding of America."
AFD ... "OK. Here. (Makes statement)"
BWE ... (Blows a gasket) (Your an idiot, etc.) (Carlson and Steve agree)

Dave, I said no such thing. In fact, I have implied the exact opposite publicly and stated it more explicitly in private messages to other forum participants.  My statement had nothing to do with my opinion of your intellectual skills. It did have to do with my perception of your apparent unwillingness to approach any of the material here with any semblance of curiousity.  You only emerge from your worldview to do battle, not to test your assumptions and, perhaps, learn things that challenge that worldview.
   
Quote

AFD ... (Cites similar statement from John Jay) "If I'm an idiot, is John Jay also an idiot?"
BWE ... (Cites nebulous statement from Jay)
AFD ... "How does this make me an idiot, but not him?"

Context, Dave, context.  Jay was stating his personal opinion.  You are trying to conflate that into the entire basis of American government.  The fact of the matter is, regardless of what John Jay felt, he did not convince either the 1787 Constitutional Convention or the New York state constitutional convention of the "truth" of his opinion.  Indeed, the output of both conventions, which were enshrined, respectively, as the US Constitution and the New York State Constitution are clear repudiations of Jay's opinion.  Both guaranteed freedom of religion and no religious tests for public office.  

So, no, Jay wasn't an idiot.  But on this issue, he was wrong and the two aforementioned documents are living testament to the differing wisdom of the age.  So the only response to the evidence offered by the Jay statements is "so what."  It has no force of law.  It is meaningless historical trivia.

Your Washington quote is similarly dismissed. Washington was speaking to the Delaware Indians about thier need to assimilate into the predominant culture.  It says nothing about the basis of our government.  Again, so what?
   
Quote

BWE ... (Deafening silence)

Is this your idea of fair debate?

Well, no it isn't, but not for the reasons you think.  American history is so much richer than you can possibly believe.  I have done extensive reading about the Founding Fathers and, every book I read leads me to new areas to explore.  Reading about them has made me want to read their own writings.  Those writings are leading me to Enlightenment philosophy.  There is fertile ground to read about Oliver Cromwell, the Glorious Revolution, Epicurius and other ancient Greek philosophers, and so much more.  In short, serious scholarship on the subject of American democracy opens up worlds unimagined to the initiate.

But, Dave, all you are coming to the table with is, for lack of a better word, a cardboard version of American history served up to you by David Barton.  I honestly believe that you could understand all the aforementioned topics and more.   It isn't that you can't, it is that you won't.  I'll understand if you'd rather focus on overthrowing modern science.  No hard feelings.  But, if you ever want to debate American democracy you gotta do more than phone it in with your mouse poised over Wallbuilders.  Sorry.

Date: 2006/12/06 14:13:42, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 06 2006,13:36)
Carlson ...            
Quote
Context, Dave, context.  Jay was stating his personal opinion.
Yes.  And I was too.  Did you note how many times I said "I think" in my statement?

Ah, but Jay apparently knew when he was licked. He didn't persist in trying to engrain his opinions regarding who was fit to govern upon the nation.  You are not similarly chagrined.
   
Quote

Carlson...            
Quote
But, Dave, all you are coming to the table with is, for lack of a better word, a cardboard version of American history served up to you by David Barton.  I honestly believe that you could understand all the aforementioned topics and more.

It is not a "cardboard" version as I will show you unless you are too afraid even to look at the evidence.  My opinion is that you rely on revisionist sources for your version of American history.  I believe David Barton is one of the few writers who corrects those revisionists by going back to the writings of the Founders themselves.

If you are afraid to hear quotes from the Founders themselves dated in their lifetimes, or very near their lifetimes by sources very close to them (which is what Barton provides), then you are very close minded.

Afraid, not hardly.  The word that comes to mind is bored.  Dave, American history cannot be encapsulated by trolling around for quotes to offer up triumphantly sans context.  It is so much more complex.  If you want to discuss the influence of Locke and Montesqui on Madison, I'm your man.  If you want to dicuss the Presidential oath of office in the shadow of Englands 1689 Act Establishing the Coronation Oath, I'm in. Heck, if you want to talk about the differences between the republicans and federalists and who, ultimately, influenced the nation more,  I'll bite (if for no other reason that it would get us back to the central bank question.)
      
Quote

You have been given several such quotes already.  One of them--the Franklin quote--you chided me (and Barton) as follows ...              
Quote
Franklin or Madison, Dave?  If you insist on cutting and pasting, at least have enough care to actually proofread.
... you later admitted you were wrong, but now you want to try to say that I am somehow close minded simply because I rely on him to supply me with some excellent documented quotes, of which the one above is an excellent example which you yourself admit.

I admitted that I was incorrect regarding the attribution. I did not admit that it was an excellent example. In fact, I seem to recall telling you that Franklin's entreaty was not acted upon by the convention. I also seem to recall dredging up a few Franklin quotes to throw back at you that I chose to drop since it wasn't contributing to a substantive discussion.
     
Quote

How can you consider yourself to be open-minded when I allow you to use any source you want to, but you disallow Barton?

I didn't disallow it. I just don't fetishize it like you seem to do.  You see, there is a clear asymmetry here that can't be solved.  Until you are willing to tackle The Federalist, Locke, and other foundational documents, you aren't bringing enough to the table to hold my interest. If that opens me up to charges of being fickle, so be it.  Guilty as charged.
     
Quote

What kind of fairness is that?  Why would you not at least hear the quotes that Barton provides, then refute them on the merits of your objections?  I have demonstrated many times at this forum that I am willing to publicly retract my statements when shown that they are wrong.

That isn't debate, that is whack-a-mole.

Date: 2006/12/06 14:20:39, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (BWE @ Dec. 06 2006,13:39)
The history of the enlightenment is fascinating and has threads reaching into most other western philosophical thought. My current reading includes "On Liberty" By John Stuart Mill which I highly recommend if you're into it.

Getting into philosophy is new to me.  I suspect I will move through Locke fairly slowly, but I'll definitely add it to the list.
 
Quote

I do appologize for, as Dave puts it, "Blowing a gasket" earlier but after the scanned pages with sources not available etc. and then the statement that america was designed to be run by one group, the reply wrote itself.

Sort of like an artist liberating the sculpture from the stone?  ;)

EDIT:  Fixed a grammatical error.

Date: 2006/12/06 22:14:21, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (k.e @ Dec. 06 2006,21:04)
Good graphic Russell.

Ironically, I was thinking it was a pretty bad graphic.  Washington, on the right, was generally inscrutable politically, but tended to act per the federalist orthodoxy.  Lincoln, on the left, was a truly great man, but his Republican Party was drawn and quartered by Nixon's southern strategy of the late 1960s.

That someone would think that either Washington or Lincoln would find common cause with George Bush is a bit of a stretch.

Date: 2006/12/07 12:13:30, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 07 2006,11:58)
Ellis    
Quote
Your “prediction” can never really be fulfilled. Even if the scientists who perform the experiments come up with multiple plausible ways in which life could have formed, you can always claim that it all points to ID because they had to intelligently design the experimental conditions and we can never really know if those conditions existed billions of years ago. Catch-22, anyone?

DaveScot    
Quote
Ellis

So if we say something can falsify ID and it happens you just know we’ll somehow renege on what we said.

You’re out of here. Buh bye.

The funny thing about that is that Ellis was just paraphrasing the argument offered in this UD entry that was written by none other than...........DaveScot!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1610

How dare anyone use Dave's own words against him!!!!

Date: 2006/12/07 13:29:07, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 07 2006,13:18)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 07 2006,12:13)
How dare anyone use Dave's own words against him!!!!

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.  A foolish inconsistency is the province of big Texas-sized minds like Davey's.

Off-topic, but I finally got an iPod and downloaded all my music onto it. I was rediscovering stuff that I hadn't listened to in years when I came across the Austin Lounge Lizards, the bluegrass answer to Weird Al or the Barenaked Ladies.  One of their hallmark songs is "Stupid Texas Song", which pokes fun of Texan's apparent obsession with size.  

http://www.austinlizards.com/stupid_texas_song.html

No specific mention of IQs, but there might be a few that fit.  Javison would certainly think so.

Date: 2006/12/08 07:14:49, Link
Author: carlsonjok
If anyone with expertise in dating techniques is getting bored with AFDave, over at OE Troutmac has stated:
Quote

There is NO WAY to prove how old or young the Earth is.

Now, let me attempt to back that up. Sure, I know about all the dating methods… all of the "clocks". But I also know this: All of those methods give different ages, and all of those methods are based upon unprovable assumptions. And I also know that some "clocks" indicate a young Earth.

Troutmac is a graphic designer, not an engineer.  So, I would wager that he would approach the argument from an entirely different perspective than Dave.  It might be refreshing to see the issue from that perspective.

Plus, they manage to close down the only thread that had any activity because someone named Hawks wouldn't play their game.

Date: 2006/12/11 09:47:58, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (BWE @ Dec. 10 2006,02:04)
I guess I expected more of a reaction to this one.
Did it slip by unnoticed or am I just allowing my overinflated ego too much credit?

If you mean pinning Dave down on his definition of a Christian, yes, you do give yourself too much credit. ;)

I tried to nail him down on a week or more ago on the specific criteria by which he included unitarians and diests, but excluded other sects. He never answered.

Date: 2006/12/13 09:52:53, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 12 2006,22:52)
 
Quote
It’s DR. Dembski, not MR. Dembski. Dr. Dembski has TWO PhDs...


"Mr." is always socially correct for a male possessing a Ph.D., but nevertheless perhaps we should start calling him Dr. Dr. Dembski.

What?  Am I the only one that thought of this:



"It's Dr. Evil, I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called "mister," thank you very much."

Date: 2006/12/13 11:15:51, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,07:21)
I'm rather well known now and you can be sure that if you shut me down here, I will broadcast the story far and wide through every channel available to me that    
Quote
ATBC and Wesley Elsberry used to be open-minded, but they are no more.  They shut down one of their most popular threads, hosted by what one of their prominent members described as "a consistent, intractable, stereotypical, honest-to-god, Young Earth Creationist" because they didn't want science to look bad.


Is that what you want?

I recall that you said if you were shut down here, you would open up comments at your blog.  Why not do so anyways?  Since you are so well known, inviting those you disagree with to post on your blog would only serve to burnish your fame by showing your Christian magnanimity, open mindedness, and confidence in your position.

Date: 2006/12/17 06:03:49, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,22:43)
BWE ... you sound like you think I'm done with Christianity and America ... boy are you gonna be surprised!  What happened to our friend, Carlson?

Still here. I drop in once a day or so just to see if you have said anything interesting.

Date: 2006/12/17 09:55:10, Link
Author: carlsonjok
WmAD:    "I'm doing it for the children."

Date: 2006/12/17 10:31:18, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Jehu:
 
Quote

If they make a big deal out of this, it will only succeed in painting Darwinists as a bunch of curmudgeonly old men who can’t bend but break under the weight of new ideas – and evidence.

You want to see the evidence for ID?  Sure thing.  Here, pull my finger.

Date: 2006/12/20 13:20:40, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Here is an interesting story that reminded me of a recent UD discussion:

Virgin Komodo dragon is expecting

Date: 2006/12/21 15:40:48, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 21 2006,15:24)
From Dave's latest:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1895

[edit - it's a tardlicious .BMP that we can't post]

WTF? is it tenuous tard art week at UD or something?

The first question that comes to mind is whether he or his wife has the subscription to MAD magazine.

Date: 2006/12/21 20:21:46, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Born and raised in Rochester NY.  I have been in Norman, OK for 10 years now after short stints in Boynton Beach, FL and Reading, PA and a longer stop in Columbus OH.

Date: 2006/12/22 13:36:40, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 22 2006,12:05)
Dembski seems upset:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1898

Meanwhile, commenter Scott channels Cartman.

Quote

Forrest needs to sit down, shut-it and then get back in the kitchen and fix me a chicken pot-pie.

…did i say that out loud?

Date: 2006/12/22 17:51:08, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 22 2006,17:31)
I liked this post:        
Quote
Anyways, let’s see Mrs. Forrest take on Dr. Dembski - yea right. I think she’s smart enough to just rewrite history from her computer than to go toe to toe w/ the WmADizzle.

Comment by jpark320 — December 22, 2006 @ 5:25 pm

Oh, yeah, the DIZZLE. Yo, those guys are off da hook.

I was saving Gizoogle for Joel's next essay on teen culture, but the Research Assistant seems to be busy in the lab (yet another hat tip to steveh. I still laugh about that comment).  So, since WmAD is throwing down challenges left and right today, perhaps we should give his challenge to Barbara Forrest that Snoop touch.

Date: 2006/12/22 19:12:44, Link
Author: carlsonjok
In the continuing saga on the Flash Animation front of the Culture War, poor jb pleads again for sanity:
   
Quote

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

To which, General Dembski responds:
   
Quote

Sometimes the best way to love people is to give them strong medicine.

You think this is what he has in mind?

http://www.beanogas.com/DiscoverBeano.aspx

Date: 2006/12/24 06:44:25, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Chapman 08 @ Dec. 23 2006,20:10)
Why Chapman would say he needs an ID advisor is because he is running against the threat of of Communism in America, and Communism is based on the Evolutionary worldview.  (It was Marx who stated this, the idea is not Chapman's own invention as some believe.)

Welcome. I am curious about the statement I quoted above.  Communism is a far left-wing political ideology.  I have also heard evolution blamed for Hitler, who was a fascist.  Fascism, though, is a far right-wing ideology.  I have also seen evolution, when over-generalized as survival of the fittest, presented as the basis of the capitalist system, where the actions of markets determine survival.

So, it seems we evolution being blamed for several very different ideologies. Surely, evolution isn't to blame for all of them.  We can put this aside if you'd rather deal with evolution as biology first.  No worries.

Date: 2006/12/25 19:13:48, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 25 2006,16:16)
Quote (Russell @ Dec. 25 2006,14:18)
To quote anti-tax crusading hero Grover Norquist:      
Quote
"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
Personally, I have trouble reconciling this with their professed patriotism and reverence for the U.S. constitution.

Actually, Norquist  (who is a Reconstructionist) is being a bit evasive here.  He doesn't want to get government off our backs.  He wants to get government into our bedrooms.

Not to be contrary, but I am not aware of Grover Norquist having any Christian bona fides. He is pretty much a one trick pony with Americans for Tax Reform. Indeed his outreach to American Muslim communities, as described in the aforementioned Wikipedia bio would make him rather suspect amongst the Reconstructionist set.

Date: 2006/12/26 15:12:41, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 26 2006,15:01)
 
Quote (Faid @ Dec. 26 2006,15:41)
Besides: What if, as our technology advances, we finally create genetically modified cats that are born with a toast on their backs? What will you say then?

the cat would land in a back-bend.


Ah, but shouldn't you Darwinists be able to produce a "dat" where the dog half was a daschund and the cat half had toast on it's back?  There is no way it could do a backbend like that with those stumpy little legs.

Date: 2006/12/28 11:02:18, Link
Author: carlsonjok
I'm a 41 year old supply chain manager in the electronics industry.  My hobbies are bicycle riding, horseback riding, and reading, although since I bought a rundown horse property four years ago I have done precious little of any of them.  My music tastes are all over the place.  In terms of number of songs on my iPod, the top artists are Metallica, Allison Krauss and Union Station, The Rolling Stones, Willie Nelson, Dwight Yoakam, and Emmylou Harris.  But even that doesn't really even capture how utterly wierd my tastes are.

Date: 2006/12/29 12:49:29, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,09:55)
K.e ... the only thing I will bother reading from you about Christianity in America is quotes from Founders or court cases from the founding era, complete with original (not secondary) sources.  If you cannot supply those, then you're wasting your time.  I will not read your biased revisionist speculators.

Date: 2006/12/29 13:49:55, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 29 2006,13:35)
More UD fun.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1912

   
Quote
ID — The Board Game
by William Dembski on December 29th, 2006 · 2 Comments
You know you’ve arrived when you’re the topic of a board game (look for “ID — The Movie” next).

Actually, the ID movie trailer has just been released and shows the ID explanation for how birds were designed from dinosaurs and how the dinosaurs became extinct. Good stuff.

Date: 2006/12/30 06:42:34, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 30 2006,06:23)
 
Quote
In 2004, Answers in Genesis of Kentucky (AiG-US) saw $10,423,222 in revenue.

In 2005, their revenue dropped to $5,429,923--a nearly 50% decline.

Link
Explain this davey please, in light of the ever growing numbers of people coming over to YEC that you recently claimed (must I get a perma?).

This would seem to contradict the charts you posted recently on AIG? Is somebody lying somewhere?

Believe it or not, the latest AIG Shareholders meeting is up on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf8rdytBtDM

Date: 2006/12/30 11:05:23, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,09:05)
I would point you to the ECFA (Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability) for the straight scoop on AIG finances.  I know of no huge revenue drops.  To my knowledge, their revenues have been increasing steadily for a number of years.

Dave, ECFA seems to act as an external auditor for churches and ministries, not unlike you see in the financial statements of publicly traded for-profit companies.  It is important to note that such auditors charge is to validate the accuracy of financial statements vis-a-vis the actual financial transactions of the organization and conformance with generally accepted accounting practices.  These auditors do not make any representations regarding the financial viability of the organization.  A company going into bankruptcy can get a clean bill of health from such auditors provided their accounting practices are legit and their financial statements accurate.

In other words, the drop in revenue that AIG has reported to the IRS is not something that EFCA, provided they are acting in this role, would comment on.

EDIT: Corrected minor grammar errors

Date: 2006/12/31 06:09:39, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2006,02:29)
 
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,23:51)
Steve Story will be ashamed of you.  He likes the science establishment to look good.

And looking back at the 10,000 posts of AFDave threads, the science establishment looks fine.

(big snip)

It's really not contributing anything to the board, however, so it would be nice if AFDave would shift this mess to his own blog.

Normally, I'd be against closing a thread as not to create a martyr, but at this point, I have to agree.  When I realized that Dave neither possesses nor seeks to possess a detailed knowledge of any subject, I lost interest pretty quick.  Debating Bartlett's Book of Semi-Famous Quotations was....well....boring.  Even now, I generally don't even read his posts, but do read those responding to him.  Sorting the wheat from the chaff, if you will.

The last time this subject came up he said that if you closed him down, he would take it to his own blog.  Well, he has had plenty of time to hone his patter.  It is time to take it to prime time. Now that I have lived to see him actually get one thing right, I can move on.  I doubt I'll give him any traffic over there.

Date: 2006/12/31 06:24:48, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 31 2006,05:12)
Meanwhile, over at overwhelmingevidence

And even the moderator admits that the bannation policy is 100% one sided - if you are Trouty or any other ID supporter you can stay, but to be anti-ID you must be a student???

Someone seems to be trying to acquire some new grist for the ATBC mill.
   
Quote
To be clear, evolution supporters/ID detractors are allowed on this site but they should be students and they definitely must be contributing to the discussion in a way that will benefit the students who use this site.

Understood, but the challenges that are being directed to supporters of evolution involve a level of expertise best addressed by professional scientists, rather than even the most precocious high school student. And since those types of participants are not consistent with your vision of this site, another forum is probably better suited for addressing such challenges.

If ATBC is too far into hostile territory, perhaps Alan Fox could be prevailed upon to set up a thread at his blog.

For some reason, I doubt that they will venture outside the cloister.

Date: 2006/12/31 11:55:51, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2006,11:38)
   
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 31 2006,12:24)
The only, single, reason I can see for allowing this thread to continue and Davey to remain is that we are not UD. We are not Davetard and his crew of pseudointellectual pirates on His Dembkiness's Censor-Ship.

There's no confusion between us and the vicious censors at UD. AFDave's original thread got over 6,000 posts. This one's around 4700 so far. To close down AFDave now, after over 10,000 posts, wouldn't be any more censorious than PZ's banning of Charlie Wagner after three years of idiotic comments.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating banning Dave. I think banning should only be reserved for the most disruptive and/or profane of individuals. I don't see him rising to that level.  But, I am of the opinion that the thread has outlived its usefulness.  8 months has been plenty of time for Dave to lay out his case for the UCGH.  He hasn't gotten very far into the hypotheses and the subject matter that is behind him is littered with unanswered questions, any of which are hypotheses killers.

My suggestion is to publish the final list of unanswered questions, then shut 'er down.  If Dave feels strongly that the dialogue needs to continue, then he needs to exhibit a little pride of ownership and move it to his blog.

EDIT:  Nevermind!

Date: 2006/12/31 20:03:16, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (lkeithlu @ Dec. 31 2006,20:00)
I had to pinch myself after reading that. Surely I am dreaming. I never knew that depth of ignorance was possible in this century. Pathetic.

I have this nagging feeling that futuyma and hblavatsky are both trolls.

It's a troll-off!

Date: 2007/01/01 21:30:47, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 01 2007,15:42)
(Also, "What would we see if Uncommonly Denyse was shrunk to the size of a paramecium?)

A black hole?

Date: 2007/01/03 13:27:47, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 03 2007,13:10)
 
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,10:53)
   
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 03 2007,10:38)
I do believe the Bible is a reliable record of man’s experience with and understanding of the Judeo/Christian God.  I believe it is reliable mostly because the canon was not settled until the 17th century and that meant the books that were eventually canonized had, over hundreds of years, become known throughout the church as those that best represented their faith.

You may believe that but your belief is not biblical.  II Timothy 3:16 states, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God".

If you think Doc Scary gets all his bible info from Da Da Vinci code, boy are you in for a surprise!

You know, this thread was boring from the git-go and I was about to leave it behind.  But, I think I'll stay around a bit and watch ole Scary take this fellow to school.

EDIT:  And now Heddle, a working physicist, shows up.  Dave, you may want to buckle your seatbelt.  you are about to experience some turbulence.

Date: 2007/01/03 14:57:24, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Let me apologize up front for using up a precious post, now that we are down into double digits.  But, this just tickled me when I read it.

Y'all may recall that Dave was firmly against Representative-elect Keith Ellison swearing the oath of office for the US House on a copy of the Koran.  Well, this little tidbit from today's Washington Post says that Ellison will be taking the oath on Thomas Jefferson's personal copy of the Koran.

Date: 2007/01/03 18:02:07, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Malum Regnat @ Jan. 03 2007,16:46)
Isn't it interesting how much more interested AFDave has become in saving our souls since Dave #2 started posting.

Reminds me of the old joke about going fishing with Baptists.   If you go fishing with one Baptist, he will drink all of your beer.  If you go fishing with two Baptists, they won't drink any of your beer.

Date: 2007/01/04 05:26:33, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Malum Regnat @ Jan. 03 2007,20:33)
 
Quote (Russell @ Jan. 03 2007,04:36)
Lodi is "civilization"?
Yikes. What does that say about Oklahoma and Kansas?

Everything is relative.  It might help if I explain that in Oklahoma we lived in a wide spot in the road named Goultry (Pop. App. 300) the highway through town was the only street that was paved.

(snip)

I offer my condolences to anyone on the board who has actually been in either town.

I've never been to Goultry, but have been up in the area several times.  I bought hay in Carrier this summer, which is only about 10 miles from Goultry.  You must not have made it to town much.  You were only a half hour from Enid which, while not exactly very cosmopolitan, does have a few more amenities.

Date: 2007/01/04 18:14:57, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 04 2007,17:48)
It's nothing personal, and he's not being banned for misbehavior, it's just in everyone's best interests that we start seeing other people.

What?  This board doesn't have a "friend with privileges" setting?

Date: 2007/01/05 10:19:20, Link
Author: carlsonjok
After two days of no new posts, apparently UD was experiencing some DTB (Deadly Tard Buildup).  In the Emerald Wasp comments, Patrick laments:
   
Quote
Heh, funny. Instead of providing an answer they start religion-based attacks. What is it with Darwinists and bringing religion up all the time, anyway?

Seven minutes later, Columbo provides this interesting analysis (snipped a bit for content):
   
Quote
Well, of course there is a reasonable rejoinder in Christian theology along the lines that the wise Creator designed useful contrivances in nature which were later corrupted by an evil will. The Creator (God) permitted certain corruptions only, such as would stand as useful illustrations for His highest (earthly) creation - mankind - so that they might learn from nature lessons they would not willingly receive from His explicit revelation - the Bible.

If we would but apply a small fraction of that blessed gift - imagination - to the world of nature, we might be enlightened as to our awful, anesthetized condition, and seek Him who loves us and made us for His good pleasure.

So, there you have it.  The emerald wasp is a morality play.

Date: 2007/01/05 15:29:41, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 05 2007,15:05)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 05 2007,14:48)
Borne            
Quote
Btw, under NDT, why shouldn’t there be many such human-sized (or bigger) bugs? If NDT were true we should see huge insects just as much as huge mammals! It’s 'easy' for evolution we are told! Their 'fitness' for survival would likely be greater than ours.

And under NDT, there should be ice cream geysers! And ponies with wings to fly us to the clouds! And carebears!

Well, the tenets of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism do include a beer volcano.

Date: 2007/01/06 07:43:26, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 06 2007,07:21)
Scary ...        
Quote
"Let not those who seek you be ashamed because of me."  You may want to consider that verse--it's in the Psalms.  I am embarrassed because you consider yourself a Christian.  Your level of dishonesty and denial demonstrates a level of immaturity that is embarrassing.

I am willing to help work to make your thread more accessable so others won't be led astray by your ignorance and dishonesty.

You can try to use your "but you're still my friends" and "I just hope you come to know the creator in 2007" crap but the reality is you have so polluted this board that you cannot have any credible witness.
Implication? ... "I'm a far better representative of Christ than you are, Dave" ??  

"Yet my avatar says ..."

"Jesus rose from the dead ... and all I got was this lousy avatar!"  ????  Helllllooooo???

Do you not realize that the Resurrection of Jesus literally changed the world?  I mean literally?  Do you not realize that Christianity would have been a non-starter were it not for the Resurrection?  Do you not realize that because of the Resurrection, a "minor sect of Judaism" in a remote corner of the vast Roman Empire, ended up conquering that empire with the Truth and with Love, not with the sword?  Do you not realize that the Resurrection was the pivotal event that made possible all the glories of Western Civilization which you now enjoy?

And yet, you have the gall to make light of the Resurrection with your avatar and pretend that "all you got was this lousy avatar" ??

You got far more, my friend ... I guess you just don't realize it.

Dave, if you had shown even a slight amount of interest in learning about the people who post here,  you wouldn't be so presumptuous to lecture ScaryFacts about what Christianity means.  It isn't my place to educate you on the trajectory of his life.  Suffice it to say that he has shared a fair amount of himself here.  He isn't the godless evolutionist you seem to think we all are.  Far from it.

But, I suppose this is a fitting epitaph for your efforts here.  An effort that was born from, and never (umm) evolved beyond, personal vanity.

Date: 2007/01/09 15:39:13, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (dhogaza @ Jan. 09 2007,15:33)
Contract work in extremely hot technologies will $1,000 on a sustained basis?  Not that I know of.

Having seen my employer bring in retirees for short term work related to some arcane project they worked on during their employment, it may be that Dell brought him back to do some work on a flat fee contract.  He then proceeded to get the work done in such time that it worked out to $1000 per hour.

Date: 2007/01/09 18:23:02, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2007,18:02)
Can someone get me an RSS feed of OE? I just can't keep up!

 
Quote
Recent comments
A matter of discernment.

2 days 8 hours ago
Throwing Helena to the Wolves

6 days 3 hours ago
Wolf

6 days 5 hours ago
Possible Interpretations

1 week 4 hours ago
Fossil Record

1 week 5 hours ago
Science vs. Religion

1 week 5 hours ago
Truth is truth

1 week 14 hours ago
ID ATHEISTS

1 week 21 hours ago
It will be great to have ID

1 week 1 day ago
ID in the UK

1 week 1 day ago

These guys ought to be ashamed. When you consider what a disembodied telic entity can do in 6 days, you'd think they could come up with more than two comments in the same time.

Date: 2007/01/10 16:02:31, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Faid @ Jan. 10 2007,15:44)
Sooo your worldview predicts that the "Day of the Lord" will gradually come in a billion years or so?

("not slack concerning his promise" indeed...)

Incredible. I wonder if your friends know...  :D

OMG!  Nobody tell Jack Van Impe.  He has been predicting the imminent Armaggedon going on fifty years now. He'll have to look for new work.

Date: 2007/01/11 07:08:34, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 11 2007,06:19)
The POPE speaks:
     
Quote
18. William Dembski  // Jan 11th 2007 at 1:06 am

apollo230: The point is not to spare Barbara or me stress, but to disabuse people that Barbara is misleading. Also, you might leave it between God and me just how much of the peace of Christ I am experiencing — I frankly don’t see you in a position to judge that. And finally, you might want to consider how the theme of warfare and conflict plays out in the Old and New Testaments — did Christ have the peace of God when he drove the money changers out of the temple? And doesn’t Jeremiah remonstrate with those “who say Peace, Peace, but there is no peace”?

Comment by William Dembski — January 11, 2007 @ 1:06 am


"Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter."


Date: 2007/01/13 11:34:20, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Am I the first to notice the UD video game?

If you ask me it really belongs over at OE for all those wacky teenagers.

EDIT:  The link above just goes to the UD homepage, but you can find the game link on the far right hand side at the bottom of the page.

Date: 2007/01/15 13:43:53, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 15 2007,13:32)
6 ah, ID art.



You idiots kind of gave away the game right there, didn't you?

Dude, that is so, like, last century. ID inspired art has moved forward since then.

Date: 2007/01/18 11:28:31, Link
Author: carlsonjok
So, I dropped in over at Dawkin's place to see how the new AFDave thread is shaping up. What can I say other than it reminds me of this song.

Guys, when Steve said we needed to start seeing other people, he meant as in not each other!

Date: 2007/01/18 12:23:54, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 18 2007,09:48)
More on-topic: that thread is puttering along nicely now.  Is it my imagination, or is it all YEC all the time at UD these days?  They can't talk about anything without bringing in the Flood.  Any pretence, even, that it's not about religion has fallen away.  (Yet, the next time someone in the media uses the term "creationist" to refer to ID,  you can bet everyone will be jumping up and down and asking where journalists get these ideas from).

We didn't have to wait too long for Michaels7 to oblige:
 
Quote

24

Michaels7

01/18/2007

1:01 pm
Haha… it is weird, it is hilarious and that’s just it. They’re grasping at straws trying to turn it into a knock against ID as Creationism.


Psst.  Ixnay on the oodflay. Pass it on.

Date: 2007/01/20 06:46:12, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 20 2007,04:08)
I think OE is being overrun by trolls. there a silent group of you guys who've decided to troll the place into the ground?

Just going to make an observation here.  Shortly after someone here outed the user 'Helena Blavatsky' as a troll, she stopped posting.  Further, after all the conversations a few days ago about whether citizenbob was a troll, he stopped posting.

You might want to consider that Patrick, OE blog czar, may be reading ATBC and purging the suspicious characters.  

PS. No, it isn't me. Trolling isn't my style.

Date: 2007/01/21 10:12:14, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 21 2007,09:31)
 
Quote
Ph.D.s in Obfuscation — Or, Simple Truths Denied
GilDodgen

In another forum, Denyse wrote:

Bear with a simple lay hack here a moment: Why must we know a designer’s intentions in order to detect design?

If the fire marshall’s office suspects arson, do the investigators worry much about WHY?

Surely they investigate, confirm their finding, and turn the information over to other authorities and interested parties, without having the least idea why someone torched the joint.

ALL they need to be sure of is that the joint did not torch itself, via natural causes.

The observation Denyse makes is so obvious that one would need a Ph.D. in obfuscation not to see it. Common sense is not so common, at least among those with a foundational commitment to materialism.


Mother of God, this dead horse again. I thought I smelled something. Is it really necessary to remind Gil that arson investigation is dis-analogous with ID in that we ALREADY KNOW A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE AGENTS WHO COMMIT ARSON, and that knowledge informs the inferences of arson investigation?  Holy shit.

Not too long ago, Gil called evolution the "real" science-stopper.  Yet here, he seems perfectly intent to call it a day after detecting design.

Date: 2007/01/21 20:45:37, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 21 2007,18:32)
Dave moves quickly to protect Tardtopia from reality:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1982#comment-86621


   
Quote

steveh is no longer with us

Well, on that note, let me offer another hat tip to steveh for my all-time favorite culture war moment.  
This goes back to the summer when Joel Borofsky made the egregious mistake of commenting that the Kansas "teach the controversy" standards were just ID in disguise.   After the evilutionists jumped all over it, Joel had a post at UD that tried (lamely) to repair the damage. In the comment section, steveh wrote the following:
 
Quote

You shouldn’t be too surprised at the attention you are getting. Many evolutionists did not believe that there was any real ID research going on, then along cames a bona-fide ID research assistant and blew that idea completely out of the water. You must have great, possibly unique, opportunities for seeing how life is at the cutting edge of a new science and I’m sure many would love to hear how you spend a typical day; I take it, that as a lay-man you don’t actually design the experiments, but maybe you take measurements or produce parts for specialised lab equipment, etc.?
Also Dr Demsbki, wouldn’t invite just anyone to modify his blog; He is no fan of boring people and that arguably, makes you interesting by definition.

Bravo, Steve!!

Date: 2007/01/24 08:46:55, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 24 2007,08:39)
So Jim Webb, who DID see combat, is now supposed to 'apologize' to Dave tard, who didn't.

Much like Bush attacking Kerry on his war record.

Bravo, Dave.

In all fairness, using Vietnam as a  baseline, I have more faith in the current administration to manage Iraq than I do Jim Webb.  

After all, to paraphrase something I read elsewhere, Bush and Cheney had an exit strategy for Vietnam.  Webb obviously didn't.

Date: 2007/01/24 15:25:18, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 24 2007,15:03)
the TARD LIBERTATION FRONT might be thinking of a coup..

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1990#comment-87172

   
Quote
13

DaveScot

01/24/2007

3:48 pm
Mike

I knew I should have limited comments to just those who’ve served in my beloved corps. Frankly, if you haven’t served in the military yourself I don’t think you deserve an opinion. Put that in your bunched up panties and sit on them.


Oh how I'll laugh when BLipey twats him.

Well, it all has disappeared down the memory hole and comments have been shut off.  Here is the comment that got Dave all torqued.
 
Quote

Mike Dunford

I’ve been trying to cool off since I read this, but I think I’m as cool as I’m going to get:
 
Quote

In order to have an effective force in fighting guerilla and urban wars in Arab countries we need actual combat veterans seasoned in that type of warfare leading the unseasoned troops. Use your head, Jim. Now we have an effective force led by NCOs who know how to survive urban and guerilla wars in Arab countries. And Bush managed to build that force without losing 58,000 American lives as were sacrificed in Vietnam but rather limited the losses to 3,000. Use your head for something other than a place to put your hat, Jim. We needed a veteran ground combat force for the Middle Eastern theater. Now we have one. Now what happened to Russia in Afghanistan won’t happen to us.

OK. My wife’s in the box right now, and you’re suggesting that having troops out there is good because it gives us a better combat force? A lot of people have said a lot of really thoughtless and assinine things about the Iraq war, but that one just takes the cake. It’s dumb so many different ways that it’s really, really hard to figure out where to start.

1) Even if I assume, for the sake of argument, that everything else is correct, we were already involved in a guerilla war when the Iraq war started. Believe it or not, but there really are troops in Afghanistan, and they are really - still - involved in regular and frequent combat ops. There just aren’t as many of them and they aren’t getting blown up as frequently. Actually, I’ve heard from quite a few people who have been deployed in both locations (including my wife) that they saw much more combat in Afghanistan than in Iraq.

2) When we started this war, as you point out, there weren’t a lot of combat veterans in the force. Strangely, that didn’t seem to have much of an adverse effect on how they did at the start.

3) A #### of a lot of the troops over there right now are 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th tour vets. Yet there doesn’t seem to have been much of an increase in success, and certainly not much of a decrease in casualties, after the point when combat vets became common in deploying units.

4) The force right now is in a #### of a lot worse shape than it was three years ago. Pretty much everyone in the army who is career combat arms and enlisted prior to 03 has gone out more than once already. Many (particularly in the aviation community) are on 3rd or 4th tours. Divorce rates are up, and a lot of good people who ordinarily would have stayed in for 20+ are getting out with 15 or more years in - sacrificing pensions - because their marriages will be destroyed if they have to go out yet again. That’s why we’ve seen active duty 4-stars out in front of congress recently, begging for more troops and warning about long-term problems.

So try using your own head, would you?

EDIT: Added attribution.

Date: 2007/01/24 15:42:05, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 24 2007,15:36)
Mike Dunford's point by point debunking is class. Dave is probably comfort eating right now.

An amazingly quick transformation from:

to:


EDIT: Repointed URL for second image.

Date: 2007/01/25 13:48:35, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 25 2007,06:12)
Dave:
   
Quote
You know that secret listserv you've been talking about on ATBC that Heddle got kicked off of? I'm on that list and write to it a couple times every day. ... I was added to it shortly after Heddle was removed.


Dave, once more:
   
Quote
I wrote either here or to a private listserv in the past...


Dave, again:
     
Quote
On a listserve which shall remain nameless...


Still Dave:
     
Quote
after several months of being a member on an underground ID listserv

Dave, are you, like, on a secret listserve or something?

And now a message for the members of the secret listserv!



BESURETODRINKYOUROVALTINE

Date: 2007/01/27 16:43:20, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 27 2007,16:14)
Some of the people at OE and UD are in the "Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center." Now, I've got a vague familiarity with undergrad research. I won a department award one year for some research on octo-trichlorosilane monolayers, and have a tiny publication about tuning surface energies in polymer blends, and a member of the group gave an APS March Meeting talk (partly) on some gold nanoparticle research I did. Nothing impressive whatsoever, just standard fare undergrad research.

So, let's see what projects the Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research guys are doing.

Seems to be a natural stepping stone from Discovery Toys to Discovery Institute.

Date: 2007/01/30 12:24:23, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 30 2007,12:08)
Woah...

Some heavy duty ID researh science type stuff:

http://www.thedesignmatrix.com/content/let-there-be-light/

Your bravado is futile.

Behold! Your end is nigh!

EDIT: Dang rules of grammar!

Date: 2007/02/03 06:37:57, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 02 2007,22:20)
Dave pauses a LONG time, trying to decide if this is flattery or sarcasm.  Can't decide.  (Me neither)

Well, he did finally respond and it contains a gem of a comment:
   
Quote

It’s not that DCA (or ID) is wrong, both are untested

ID is untested? I am shocked!  Shocked, I say! I would have thought that before Behe and Dembski wrote all those books, the hypothesis must have undergone the rigorous scrutiny needed for it to topple the prevailing theory.

Hey, wait a minute.  Isn't Dave a self-made Dell-made millionaire?  Maybe he could finance those DCA trials. Put his considerable wealth where his considerable mouth is.

Date: 2007/02/03 07:33:40, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Meanwhile over at OE, Troutmac gets introduced to the very same Davescot:

http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe....ent-971
 
Quote

 
Quote

Now, what I wanna know is this… I can figure that out and I'm not even college educated. So why can't Barbara Forrest or any of these other numbskulls with a list of educational credentials as long as my arm figure it out? It's as plain as the nose on your face. They're chasing their tails. It's absolutely insane!!


Well, perhaps those tens of thousands of working scientists see something that you are overlooking. It takes a long time, maybe even decades, and a lot of confirming research for a new scientific theory to enter the mainstream. ID has yet to make that walk. After all, according to ID researcher David Springer, ID is still untested:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2019#comment-89258

I wonder how long it will last before it gets flushed to the memory hole?  At least it stayed around long enough to make my morning.

Date: 2007/02/03 15:21:03, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 03 2007,14:00)
DeAr  MRs. Dave Scot Dembski:
I herd you was financing science tests about some cancer thing, so I have a new kind of motor you might could be intrested in.
It takes ordnary water and makes cars run, and its mine cause I got the pattent on it. If you sent me money, I would sell it to you and you can fight the big OIL compnies that been keeping me in hiding all these years, since you are scientists.
                  Thank you kindly, Cletus J. TroutMac

Dude, you have got it all wrong.  Big Oil are the good guys.  They are the only thing standing between us and the global-warming-anistas.

Date: 2007/02/03 15:49:03, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (phonon @ Feb. 03 2007,11:44)
Hey, I think it has been a record month for UD.
http://www.business-opportunities.biz/project....g-worth
It's worth $124,198.80
Any takers?

Hey, that is way cool.  Let's try some others:

Pharyngula:  Your blog, scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/, is worth $1,212,631.92

Panda's Thumb:  Your blog, www.pandasthumb.org, is worth $541,958.40

JanieBelle:  Your blog, udoj.wordpress.com/, is worth $20,323.44

Kristine:  Your blog, amused-muse.blogspot.com, is worth $15,242.58

Denyse: Your blog, mindfulhack.blogspot.com/, is worth $2,258.16

OE:  Your blog, www.overwhelmingevidence.com, is worth $0.00

Date: 2007/02/06 14:58:10, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Dopderbeck on global warming:
 
Quote
dopderbeck: How can we be so arrogant as to think that we know what “natural levels” are? This just begs the question, again, of whether mankind is or is not part of nature, does it not?

C’mon Troutmac. We can be pretty darn sure what levels of CO2 plants need to flourish; and we can be pretty darn sure that such levels exist without human input, particularly that plants predate significant human contribution to global CO2 levels by at least millions of years. Your suggestion that cutting human CO2 emissions will somehow harm plant life is patently absurd.

I see two problems with Dopderbeck's reply:

1.  Troutmac is a confessed YEC, so any argument from millions-of-years-ism just ain't gonna fly.

2.  He is speaking articulately in opposition to Dave and, thus, is likely about to meet the banning stick.

I planted some life in your mother last night, homo.  You are outta here - DS

Date: 2007/02/06 19:15:11, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 06 2007,18:58)
Anyone who managed to persuade Troutmac to inhabit a thread here and respond to questions would have my eternal gratitude.

It is funny you should mention that.  Yesterday, there was a flurry of activity over at OE. Troutmac was strutting about demonstrating the next killer argument that is going to end materialism.  Not surprisingly, a couple of folks were pummeling him but good.  One of the antagonists challenged him to come here, if he thought his argument was so good, and try it out in front of working scientists. His response was to say he would never come to such a den of intolerance and denial, or something like that.

So, I wouldn't count on seeing Troutmac outside the cloister.

Continuing, he went off on a tangent about the designer being personal and eternal.  He was challenged about his scientific proof for this, since ID is only about design detection.  And, if memory serves, there was a potshot about that leading light of the ID movement, JAD, thinking the designer was dead. Shortly thereafter, and before I could capture the exchange, there was a flurry of comment deletions and a public banning.  A classic moment lost down the memory hole.   :(

Date: 2007/02/08 09:46:40, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Poor DaveScot.  First, he was betrayed by Judge Jones. Now, he is being stabbed in the back by George W. Bush hisself:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070207-5.html

Date: 2007/02/09 07:13:25, Link
Author: carlsonjok
NEWSFLASH:  Theologian critiques scientist!

Date: 2007/02/09 15:15:48, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 09 2007,15:07)
" Davey, tell me"
" What?"
" Like you've done before."
" Like what?"
" About them- about the mushrooms. Come on Davey, tell me like you've done before! Please-please-please."


points for those who know the name of my favorite author from whence this comes, and the name of the book (meh, it's an easy one).

Far too easy.

John Steinbeck  "Of Mice and Men"

Date: 2007/02/10 16:37:47, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 10 2007,16:05)
   JoeG        
Quote
I just refuse to follow you down a one-way, dead-end street.

Zachriel        
Quote
You are not required to participate in any such discussion. But, in order to follow my argument, you’ll have to, well, follow my argument. If it reaches a dead-end, that will be clear soon enough. My argument begins with a definition of a particular pattern, Pattern X.

This reminds me of a, probably apocryphal, story about Vince Lombardi.  After a game where his team played particulary bad, he called a meeting.  Standing in front of his team, he held up a ball and began, "Gentlemen.  This is a football.  Stop me if I am going to fast."

Date: 2007/02/13 13:32:32, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 13 2007,13:25)
So.... Is this... The Worst Day Ever To Be DaveTard?

I don't even want to speculate, however I would note that:
Quote

 5.  The Day he predicted Victory in Dover.

is immortalized in the Epilogue of "Monkey Girl."  So, in addition to being enshrined in the Patent Office, he is now immortalized in the Library of Congress.

Date: 2007/02/14 05:31:13, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Dave indulges in some Extreme Wingnuttery:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2070

It links to an animation that is, apparently, intended to drum up support for a war with Iran.  

Now, I tend to agree that radical Islam is a major problem, but this animation starts with profound ignorance and proceeds from there.  In the short time I watched it, I caught several major problems.

1.  It goes from the assumption that Iran is some monolithic nation.  The truth is that Iran has a large and restive youth that is more interested in Western culture and (dare I say it?) materialism than revolutionary Islam.

2.  It tries to wrap Saudi Arabia and Iran up in one big ball is if Islam is also monolithic.  Anyone with even a basic understanding of the region should know better than that.  Indeed, there is a whole school of thought that the violence in Iraq right now is not so much an internal civil war as it is the front line in a regional sectarian struggle as the entrenched Sunni power centers are fighting what they perceive as Shia ascendancy.  That and the fact that Iranians aren't even Arabic. They are Persian.

3.  It says colleges like Harvard and Georgetown (read "liberal" between the lines) are taking large sums of money from the Saudis.  That may very well be true, but it ignores who is deepest in the Saudi pockets, which is the current administration.

Date: 2007/02/14 13:51:22, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 14 2007,13:39)
This should be good:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2070#comment-91355

Momo Husain :

       
Quote
9

mohammed.husain

02/14/2007

2:20 pm
I’m a little shocked by the islamophobia on this website. I suspect that Mr. Borne has very little interaction with the indigenous Muslim community in America and/or has very few friends that are practicing Muslims. Perhaps you should find a practicing Muslim and talk to him/her with an open mind, rather than continuing on centuries old hostility and misunderstanding.





Samir Na...Naga....Nagana-post-here-anymore! - ds

Date: 2007/02/14 15:01:15, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Dave responds to Mohamed Husain:

Quote
On the freedom loving of Muslims in general, do you believe that women should be equal in every way to men under the law? If not, then you’re giving lip service to freedom while trying to deny it to fully half the world’s population. I’ve known a lot of families who fled Iran in the late 1970’s and almost every one of the men were misogynous by western standards. The really alarming part of that is these were the Muslims who least agreed with the Islamic revolution and fled the country because they a) they were able to flee and b) they didn’t want to live under strict Islamic law.


Thank goodness we Americans have shed our misogyny.

Wait a minute!  Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary?  Someone help me out here. Why does that sound familiar?

Date: 2007/02/14 16:28:50, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (dhogaza @ Feb. 14 2007,16:12)
DaveScot is a very sick man ...
       
Quote
Islam is a disease and people like me are the cure. Asking me to approach it with humility is like asking me to approach cancer with humility. Not a chance.


Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I have two pictures of Dave and I can't decide which is correct.

   or    

Date: 2007/02/14 18:56:50, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Dave:
Quote
Iran’s lucky the U.S. had a reborn Christian pansy in office at the time or it would have been subject to the full fury of our wrath for what was an act of war against us. Embassies in the civilized world are sovereign soil and are supposed to be defended by their hosts with everything at their disposal. You’re deluded, Mohammed. You’re in denial and I’m calling you to the carpet on it.

#### straight!  Reagan sure showed them after they killed 241 Marines in that bombing in Lebanon.

Oh, wait........never mind.

Date: 2007/02/19 15:12:21, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Based on the success of The Wedge Strategy and The Vise Strategy, we now bring you

The Merchandising Strategy

I think this is my favorite:

Date: 2007/02/20 07:50:37, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 20 2007,07:24)
 
Quote (argystokes @ Feb. 20 2007,01:27)
recently wrote a piece for the Think (The Royal Institute of Philosophy) on the current state of intelligent design.

It's dead.

Dead, dead, dead.

If ID is dead, how do you explain this:

The ID Beer Stein

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.  QED

Date: 2007/02/20 17:05:58, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 20 2007,16:44)
DaveScot's latest thread seems to conflict with some of his earlier comments, for instance  here and here.

I believe it was Emerson that said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."  Clearly you lesser mortals cannot comprehend how fast his mind can change.

Date: 2007/02/20 23:01:02, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Feb. 20 2007,22:29)
Steve...    
Quote
Surprise surprise. AFDave started an unnecessary new thread at RichardDawkins.net, and the moderators intervened.
I wonder how long it will take Steve to figure out that I didn't start the new thread.  

It lists "afdave1" as the author of the topic "Afdave1's New Topic".  Are you saying that is some other afdave1?

Ay yay yay!

Date: 2007/02/20 23:16:28, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Apparently, He is an old vaudvillean:
Quote

Me:
Can I call you God or should I call you Mr. God
God:
Just don't call me late for dinner.

Hmm....Let me test that hypothesis:
   
Quote

Me:
Who is on first?
God:
What's on second?

Okay, so far so good. Let's test further.

 
Quote

Me:
who is on second?
God:
George Washington.
Me:
who is on third?
God:
George Washington.
Me:
I thought George Washington was on second?
God:
Whatever gave you that idea?
Me:
You said so.
God:
I say a lot of silly things.

I guess why we know now why he gave up the footlights for the Dial-a-Prayer gig

Date: 2007/02/21 10:45:43, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 21 2007,10:26)
I asked DS yesterday if he thought plate tectonics was a theory or hypothesis, since no one has ever seen S. American touching Africa.  Strangely enough, my post never appeared.   :p

A new cause celeb at the floating command center?

Date: 2007/02/21 14:39:14, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 21 2007,14:11)
A Glimpse Inside The Tardster's Brain... And Pants!

I got this link from a KS Biologist who identified himself as a long-time lurker that has just applied for posting privaleges.  I say welcome!  

I suggested the New Guy let us professional Tardscientists handle it from here...

Is there any other advice we can give him? Will he need a Full Frontal Scrub after being this close to the Virgin Tard?

Can he survive the excessive Tardicity?

You know, since I am struggling with a diet myself, I cannot help viewing Dave a little more sympathetically after reading that.  To see him admit his vulnerability and encourage others makes him seem half human.

I am half human, homo! - ds

PS Dave, I know you are reading this. Hominy in chili?  That is just unnatural.  Hominy is supposed to be ground up and served for breakfast with liberal amounts of butter and pepper (and maybe a little cream gravy). Anything else is an abomination to the Intelligent Designers master plan.

Date: 2007/02/22 11:16:37, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Amadan @ Feb. 22 2007,10:50)
Rebuffed, rejected, and no longer welcome to nuzzle at the hairy teat of Intelligent Design that is UD, I slope dejectedly, like a newly minted drunk to the gutter, into this forlorn forum.

Dude, you rule!  One of the funniest moments recently was when Patrick quoted one of you UD comments over at OE.  He even managed to include True Athiests Reject Darwinism.

It was a thing of beauty. Unfortunately, I can no longer locate that comment. They must have wised up finally.

Date: 2007/02/23 06:03:05, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 22 2007,23:52)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-and-the-arts/

     
Quote
22 February 2007
ID and the Arts
William Dembski
Just as Darwinism has inveigled itself into every aspect of life, so is ID: www.idarts.org.



Typo? IDfarts.org?

Well, they really slipped this time.  Protestations to the contrary, they have finally let slip who they think the Designer is.

http://www.arn.org/_idarts/wordpress/?p=4

It is The Alien as played by David Morse.  And here all this time, you thought it was the biblical God.

Date: 2007/02/27 14:07:50, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (ofro @ Feb. 27 2007,13:40)
In case you haven’t seen the latest version of evolutionary theory yet:
<img src=" http://images.ucomics.com/comics/nq/2007/nq070225.gif" border="0">

Well, that pretty much falsifies the "think" part of Reciprocating Bill's Think and Poof Hypothesis.  Therefore we need a new synthesis incorporating this new information.  My suggestion is that we will need to develop the Poof and Stuff Hypothesis.  

Do I have any empirical data to back up the "Stuff" part of the hypotheses? Of course not. But we can have a mascot that looks way cooler on a t-shirt than a bacterial flagellum.  



Move over ID!  There is a new merchandising strategy origin-of-life hypotheses in town!

Date: 2007/02/27 18:38:20, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 27 2007,17:55)

   
Quote

Poof and Stuff Hypothesis


Scientific Think-Poof theory postulates that Thinks are initiated by Rodins - about which we know little. The feline in the cartoon is filling in for a Rodin, not a Think.  

In the fanciful and amusing scenario depicted therein, Think-Structures have been pre-compiled within the computer for simultaneous poofactualization into Thing-Structures.  Metathingorganization is apparent in the sequential poofactualization of these Thing-Structures (organisms). Indeed, we may speculate that the cat has triggered a Frontloaded sequential saltationist poofactualization of preplanned Thing-Structures, and that the intent of the cartoon is to subtly convey the compatibility of Think-Poof theory with Front Loading.

Isn't that obvious?


I suppose, but try putting that on a t-shirt or a coffee mug.  Come back when you got a real gimmick hypothesis.

Date: 2007/02/27 18:45:34, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 27 2007,18:28)
I am starting to read "Monkey Girl" by Edward Humes, and not liking it much so far.  Humes is WAY too easy on the creos and the "fair and balanced" thing so far.

Then you probably aren't going to like his treatment of Bill Buckingham.  Hume makes it clear that Buckingham is the main antagonist, but gives him something of a partial bye because of his Oxycontin addiction.

Overall, I really like "Monkey Girl."  It was a good weekend read. My only criticism was that Hume identified Bill O'Reilly as a CNN commentator (twice) and he made a minor error in quoting DaveScot's now infamous gloat over the appointment of Judge Jones to the case.  Hume quoted Dave as saying that Jones was "appointed by GW himself", where Dave actually used the word "hisself."  Overall, minor quibbles.

Date: 2007/03/02 06:00:49, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 01 2007,20:31)
 
Quote
Turkey's First ID Conference
GilDodg'em

... about a dozen local mayors sent telegraphs of congratulations...

Next:  ID Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Turkmenistan.

Here is an interesting quote from Gil:
 
Quote
Apparently the atmosphere concerning ID in Turkey is not nearly as hostile as it is here in the U.S.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't an honest to goodness Muslim show up over at UD a short time ago and promptly get chased out with pitchforks and torches?

Date: 2007/03/03 07:23:46, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Jake @ Mar. 03 2007,06:07)
 
Quote
Funniest post on OE yet.

I'll withhold further comment.


Thats amazing! How many genuine posters do people reckon there are? Id say about 15 at UD and perhaps 5 at OE? More? less?

Well, since the parody is virtually indistinguishable from the genuine article, it is hard to tell.  At OE, all we know for sure is that Patrick, Sam Chen, and Troutmac are for real.  Everyone else falls into the "maybe" category.  There was a flurry of activity there last week, but then there was a significant purge and I have to wonder if some real ID supporters got caught up in the bloodletting.

Date: 2007/03/03 16:51:12, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 03 2007,16:11)
What about "sudden appearance theory"? I think that's going to be the new crap phrase in the new crap edition of Of Panda Crap and People Poo.

Well, as it stands now, Panda Redux is a floater.

Date: 2007/03/04 14:09:38, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Bwahaha!  Denyse O'Leary complains that the airing of a special about Jesus' tomb right around Easter is some materialist conspiracy against Christians.  Why else would they do it at this time of the year she asks. And someone calls her on it.
Quote
So - if the warfare thesis is incorrect, why is the Discovery Channel fronting this stuff?

Teaching the controversy?

Date: 2007/03/05 15:32:40, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 05 2007,14:32)
Can we have a collection to buy Ekstasis a sarcasm detector?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....t-96101
           
Quote
36

Ekstasis

03/05/2007

2:44 pm
rrf says “Why not present both sides and let the students decide?”

Sure, and should that not apply to ID vs NDE as well? Present both sides, and let the students decide. Are you in favor of this? If not, why?

Ekstasis gets an answer.

 
Quote
37

rrf

03/05/2007

3:40 pm
Extasis, considering how much biolgy we’be been able to learn from computer programmers, is it such an odd notion to be able to learn some theology from a filmmaker?

Date: 2007/03/07 03:33:32, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 07 2007,00:38)
     
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Mar. 07 2007,01:19)
     
Quote
Jerry Falwell said 9/11 was God's retribution for the evil in America.
So he thought it was a justifiable act then?

I don't know if they've thought that thoroughly about it. I think it's just backwards reasoning. The liberals must be at fault for everything, therefore they somehow caused 9/11. That kind of conclusion-based reasoning is very common.

This reminds me of something that happened recently on another discussion group I belong to. One poster was talking about John Dean's book "Conservatives without Conscience" and referenced work by Robert Altemeyer on the authoritarian personality.  He quoted an extended passage from Altemeyers book, that I reproduce here (bolding mine):
     
Quote

Sitting in the jury room of the Port Angeles, Washington court house in 1989, Mary Wegmann might have felt she had suddenly been transferred to a parallel universe in some Twilight Zone story. For certain fellow-jury members seemed to have attended a different trial than the one she had just witnessed. They could not remember some pieces of evidence, they invented evidence that did not exist, and they steadily made erroneous inferences from the material that everyone could agree on. Encountering my research as she was later developing her Ph.D. dissertation project, she suspected the people who "got it wrong" had been mainly high RWAs (Right Wing Authoritarian). So she recruited a sample of adults from the Clallam County jury list, and a group of students from Peninsula College and gave them various memory and inference tests. For example, they listened to a tape of two lawyers debating a school segregation case on a McNeil/Lehrer News Hour program. Wegmann found High RWAs indeed had more trouble remembering details of the material they'd encountered, and they made more incorrect inferences on a reasoning test than others usually did. Overall, the authoritarians had lots of trouble simply thinking straight.

Intrigued, I gave the inferences test that Mary Wegmann had used to two large samples of students at my university. In both studies high RWAs went down in flames more than others did. They particularly had trouble figuring out that an inference or deduction was wrong. To illustrate, suppose they had gotten the following syllogism:

All fish live in the sea.
Sharks live in the sea..
Therefore, sharks are fish.

The conclusion does not follow, but high RWAs would be more likely to say the reasoning is correct than most people would. If you ask them why it seems right, they would likely tell you, "Because sharks are fish." In other words, they thought the reasoning was sound because they agreed with the last statement. If the conclusion is right, they figure, then the reasoning must have been right. Or to put it another way, they don't "get it" that the reasoning matters--especially on a reasoning test.

This is not only "Illogical, Captain," as Mr. Spock would say, it's quite dangerous, because it shows that if authoritarian followers like the conclusion, the logic involved is pretty irrelevant. The reasoning should justify the conclusion, but for a lot of high RWAs, the conclusion validates the reasoning. Such is the basis of many a prejudice, and many a Big Lie that comes to be accepted.

Interestingly, on the discussion group there is one individual who probably falls into the category of right wing authoritarian (which does not encompass the entirety of the right end of the political spectrum) who spent a good part of two days arguing that there is no other conclusion that could be drawn except that shark are fish.  He was completely impervious to the suggestion that you could state that there was insufficient information to draw a conclusion.

Date: 2007/03/07 13:38:00, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 07 2007,13:02)
 
Quote
I believe that Coulter is purposely being mean just to make people mad.  She does not believe that Edwards is gay it's just an opportunity to use a taboo term.  There's very little connection between Edwards and being gay, probably none, but that term is in the news these days so she used it.  Nothing more than that.  By reading anything more into it and getting offended is where the humor comes in.

Look, the point is, if the people around this woman really cared about her, they would set some boundaries for her, because she's becoming a freak show just like Michael Jackson. Stating that one is sick of this kind of discourse and behavior is at least a start.

I'm tired of the recriminations. I'm dog-tired of this sniping. I grew up among people who just sniped at each other - little kids who just hurled the same language that Coulter does (news flash! She's not original!) and sneered at everything, and had no curiosity, and are now drinking themselves to death in that stupid small town I came from. It's not funny, and it's not glamorous, and it's all related to the anti-intellectual atmosphere pervading this country.

I left my small town, only to find the same atmosphere all over America. It's time somebody called everyone on it. We're acting like a nation of pre-teens.



Huh-Huh-Huh. She said 'discourse'.  Huh-Huh-Huh.

Date: 2007/03/07 18:05:17, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Holy Smokes!  Denyse is clearly not with the program:
     
Quote

I sign contracts with publishers and they - quite rightly, in return for putting up with me - expect me to do what I promised, eventually.

I would love to be a fly on the wall at her next performance review:  
     
Quote
"Well, Denyse, let's take a look at the UD Dimensions of Effectiveness, shall we?

Incomprehensibility of communication?  Far exceeds expectations.

Demonization of real scientists?  Far exceeds again.  Good job!

Acts as Instrument of Grace?  Met Expectations.  Between you and me, you'll need to utilize a little more flatulence to pull up your rating on that one.

Participation in the Glorious Cultural Revolution against Random, Materialist Atheism?  Exceeds expectations.  

Publication record?    Uh-oh.  You actually published something?  Oh, dear.  Not good. Not good at all.  If you wish to remain a valued member of the organization, you are going to have to learn to avoid that.

Date: 2007/03/08 08:39:38, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 08 2007,08:27)
...they are not considered palatable in any case.

Isn't that really a matter of custom and preference?

WARNING:  Not work safe.  To say the least.

Date: 2007/03/08 13:44:34, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ichthyic @ Mar. 08 2007,13:33)
I'll take nonsensical stream-of-conscious ramblings for 400.00 Alex.

Not to be contrary, but with some appropriate punctuation, BWE monologue could be parsed into sentences that could be said in a corporate environment with a straight face and, at least, some level of sense to it.*

It reminds me of something that I experienced as a young department manager back in the go-go days of the late 20th century.  I was talking to some engineers about a project and, for some reason I cannot recall, we started talking about a retirement notice for some executive.  The notice, written by that executive's superior read "we will miss her thought leadership on customer centricity."  I asked (rhetorically, I thought) what the heck that meant.  Without missing a beat, one of the engineers replied "It means she won't be missed."

*  Not by me, mind you.

Date: 2007/03/09 09:45:48, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Oh, man.  Joseph goes off-script:
Quote

The main problem is that anti-IDists seem to think that ID is ONLY about detecting design.

Joseph, meet DaveScot:
Quote

The definition I pointed you to clearly states ID is the science of design detection. It is not about determining design methods.

Date: 2007/03/09 16:18:31, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 09 2007,16:05)
Funny thing is if you search  for a random chunk of his article you find a totally different article (single hit) that apparently is          
Quote
From Beaumont CollegeAlumni News
Effective Treatments “Decades Away” Prof. McKeown Shocks Audience
By Max Thaler

It may be even better than that.  I wonder if the Beaumont College being referred to is this one that has been defunct for 40 years or perhaps this fine institution offering programs in aromatherapy and crystal therapy.

Date: 2007/03/13 12:09:22, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 13 2007,10:43)
It's getting ugly over at Teleological Blog. Now, Joseph is claiming that being human is not hereditary.

Actually, he may be on to something. If being human was something hereditable, then how to you explain THIS!



Hey, there was a sighting in Austin!  I am going to be so bold as to predict that if lean, mean, killing machine DaveScot would be able to catch this creature, he could bring down Darwinism in a nano-second!

Date: 2007/03/13 12:33:26, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 13 2007,10:29)
Richard, bring the wine (2001 will be OK if you can't get 1990).

Off topic, but I was curious if there is a guide to rating various vintages. I am probably not considered a serious oenophile, but I do love a good bottle of wine.  And I am particularly fond of Bordeaux.  I cracked open an 1989 Prieure-Lichine Margaux for some friends a few months ago and it was probably the best bottle of wine I have ever had. I'd love to put away a few more good Bordeauxs away and the local store has a reasonably priced 2001 Margaux in stock (can't recall the vintner) that I was thinking of buying if it was a good vintage.

Date: 2007/03/13 13:07:00, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 13 2007,11:50)
 
Quote
I'd love to put away a few more good Bordeauxs away


Do you mean this in the sense I would use it in "putting away" a good steak? If you are laying down wine, the older and dearer it is, the more careful you need to be about how it has been previously stored, and that the cork has remained intact. Careless storage has ruined many a good bottle of wine. If you can get Languedoc wines in the States, you should definitely try them. Good quality at a fraction of the price of Claret and mainly made to be drunk young [/plug]

Sorry.  I meant put away as in laying them down for a while.  I mostly just drink table wine, or 4-5 year old American vintages, so I only have three bottles in long term storage.  I'd love to add a few more, but don't have enough knowledge of the various vintages to know which to look for.

Unfortunately, in Oklahoma, there aren't many high end wine shops and the current laws don't allow it shipped in to individual consumers.  The one shop I go to doesn't have alot of high end labels, but I will look for Languedoc.  I do recall that they did stock Red Bicyclette, but I suspect that isn't what you had in mind.

Date: 2007/03/16 09:53:03, Link
Author: carlsonjok
It is often said here that the ID movement has gotten to the point where the genuine article is virtually indistinguisable from parody. Will it please the court to recognize the Plaintiffs Exhibit No 1968.  

In this exhibit, we have a known ID proponent arguing that the theory of evolution must be a theory of abiogenesis:
   
Quote
Consider the title chosen for Darwin's famous book… "Origin of Species." I would suppose that the first form of life to appear on this planet was some species of something.

And a bit later:
   
Quote
What this all boils down to is that essentially there can be no difference between the phrases "origin of species" and "origin of life." If you explain the origin of species, you will have explained the origin of life. So, to defend Darwinism by asserting that it's not a theory about the origin of life seems rather absurd.

Okay, seriously.  Which one of you guys stole TRoutMac's password and posted this?

Date: 2007/03/21 13:55:21, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 21 2007,13:16)
UD jumps Fonzie who's jumping the shark:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....urrency

Reda the whole thing.. but I like this bit:

   
Quote
Which brings up the reason I keep posting juicy bigotted and racist quotes by Darwin and his disciples here at UD. While the intellectual community may know them, the general public does not. Suppose the public decided that every time it accepted a “Darwin” (a 10-pound note) in payment or in change for a purchase, it was implicitly endorsing those terrible quotes? People would likely say, “No thanks, I’d rather have two fivers. I don’t take money that praises racists and bigots — and neither should you.”

I have to wonder if Dembski, as an American, refuses to use the $20 bill, but rather says "No thanks, I'd rather have two tens." The twenty features Andrew Jackson, a slaveholder. Granted, Jackson was probably a more benevolent master than most of his peers, but a master he remained.  In contrast, the ten features Alexander Hamilton who was an abolitionist before such a thing was considered trendy.

EDIT:  Probably not.  If our departed friend AFDave is any indication, the right-wingers never forgave Hamilton for that whole national bank thing.

Date: 2007/03/22 13:55:17, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 22 2007,13:13)
They need a few more snappy science sounding phrases:

Spurious Inanity?
Vainglorious Assurity?
Guided Recursive Design Modification?

Trinitarian Actuated Recursive Design?

Date: 2007/03/22 15:19:40, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 22 2007,14:06)
Watching comic-book guy brag that he was a REMF Marine 40 years ago was entertaining the first 13 times...

For what it is worth, it is my recollection that all Marines are expected to trained as a combat infantryman and be combat ready regardless of their specific assignment.  I don't think that is necessarily true of the other branches of service.

Date: 2007/03/22 15:24:41, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 22 2007,14:14)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 22 2007,12:55)
  Trinitarian Actuated Recursive Design?

Telic Actuated Recursive Design?

Much better.  The use of 'Trinitarian' shrinks the size of the tent.  'Telic' is much more inclusive of non-Christian ID supports. And we know how much the ID guys support diversity.

Date: 2007/03/22 15:39:21, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 22 2007,15:32)
Davetard is still a combat infantryman. He serves under General Mills.

He's still a jarhead. Too bad it's a jar of peanut butter.

Thanks...I'm here all week...

If you think you are so darn funny, then I suggest the following wardrobe for the 10 PM set:

Date: 2007/03/23 13:15:15, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 23 2007,12:55)
Kristine,Mar. 22 2007,23:29] Cruel, but effective (and if we teach ID in schools, boobies won't be cruel to each other anymore?).  

Kristine - Thanks for the lead-in!  Did you REALLY think that this would get past your fellow sharp-eyed posters?

BOOBIES!  BOOBIES!  BOOBIES !


Umm, J-Dog, forgive my impertinence, but I think you got your attribution wrong.  Weren't you actually meaning to refer to this post?

Date: 2007/03/23 16:39:53, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 23 2007,14:07)
And as far as public humilation goes, you can see ID's very public humilation every day by visiting:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/

Actually, I think the new anti-troll measures taken over at OE have had the desired result.

Quote

Recent comments

I've never had a problem
2 days 2 hours ago

An Article on Wikipedia
2 days 5 hours ago

How do we refute this?
3 days 1 hour ago

Just saying that something
3 days 3 hours ago

No more trolls, thanks
3 days 6 hours ago

DNA by Design
3 days 17 hours ago

but how it got here is why we're here
3 days 17 hours ago

I'd like to know some
3 days 19 hours ago

Biologic
3 days 22 hours ago

Homeschool? Avoid activist judge's
3 days 23 hours ago

Date: 2007/03/26 12:22:11, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (wintermute @ Mar. 26 2007,12:08)
Shorter DaveScot:

"Animals live longer, if they're raised in a sterile, germ-free environment, therefore the Garden of Eden must be true!"

 
Quote
This got me thinking about evolution vs. design. The animals raised germ-free could not have evolved in the natural world without exposure to bacteria but they could have been designed for GF life. The fact that they live twice as long in a GF environment when eating a diet that is nutritionally complete except for being sterile seems to be favorable evidence that animals were created in and for a germ-free world.

Can this be interpreted to mean that a diet high in Cheesy-Poofs is an abomination to the Intelligent Designer?

Date: 2007/03/27 13:52:24, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 27 2007,13:35)
I have lifted the hex.

Next time it's a plague of frogs.

Frogs?  How about a plague of cane toads?



Apparently one the size of a small dog has been found in Darwin, Australia.  See here for the story.

Date: 2007/03/28 06:08:35, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 28 2007,00:32)
 
Quote (k.e @ Mar. 27 2007,18:54)
RTH I blame you for this outbreak of back slapping particularly your own!

Guilty, but I'm worth it.

Well, now he will be darn near insufferable around here.  Red State Rabble doffs it's cap in  his direction. Pat Hayes summarizes thusly:
 
Quote

Certainly the list was specified. Was it the complexity that made the task so daunting?

Date: 2007/03/28 09:30:51, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 28 2007,09:14)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 28 2007,05:08)
  [Well, now he will be darn near insufferable around here.  Red State Rabble doffs it's cap in  his direction.

Don't worry, Louis and I are doing our best to keep Richard humble.

:)

Well, it appears you may be getting some help from an unexpected quarter:

Quote

Antievolution.org Discussion Board welcomes our newest member Ftk making a total of 1170 registered members.

Date: 2007/03/29 15:46:50, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 29 2007,15:35)
One of the "facts" he taught to children (via AIG propaganda) was that poodles did not evolve like other dogs, no sir, they are the result of god's curse.  Seriously.  God cursed their DNA or somesuch nonsense.  Got to love those facts taught by creepy christchun creationists!

Actually, I think he got that one right.  I mean, seriously:



If that ain't evil incarnate, I don't know what is.

With that haircut, dollar to doughnuts they are homos, too - DS

Date: 2007/03/29 16:32:05, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 29 2007,16:20)
Which origins 'theory' is true?

Let popularity decide..it's close:

Actually, it is not close at all.

Repent, ye sinner! Or this will be your fate!

Date: 2007/03/30 11:32:00, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 30 2007,11:23)
You can tell that Dembski's flunkies are getting nervous:
   
Quote
60
Patrick
03/30/2007
9:33 am
Not sure why anyone is bothering talking to this guy…


A PIXIE, EH? ISN'T THAT SOME KIND OF HOMO? YOUR OUTTA HERE.-DT

I presume you are making a design inference that Patrick wasn't asking why anyone is talking to Joseph?  Can we see your math?

Date: 2007/03/31 08:49:30, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Mar. 31 2007,08:32)
 
Quote
I cannot walk one mile, or dig one foot deep in my back yard without seeing “obvious” evidence of a great prehistoric flood
   
Quote
Quick, sage, better let AFDave know about your "obvious" evidence of a global flood
He didn't say global flood. Maybe he just meant a great prehistoric flood in his backyard.

Sounds like the work of Professor Chaos and General Disarray.



Explanation:  In the South Park episode when Butters takes on the identity of Professor Chaos, he acts on a threat to flood the world by turning on a garden hose.

Date: 2007/04/02 14:56:42, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 02 2007,15:47)
So I asked a question on an ID friendly blog...

http://thesciphishow.com/forums/index.php?topic=114.0

I applied the filter to your comment and found that it was the product of a random process, acting without purpose or direction, and exhibited none of the hallmarks of being produced by intelligence.  It was clearly the product of one monkey sitting at one typewriter for about 5 minutes - ds





P.S.  Homo

Date: 2007/04/02 20:23:17, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,19:36)
I have no intention of discussing anything of a serious nature here as it is quite clear that none of you are interested in the facts.  You're clearly into attack, ridicule and spin.

Actually, the folks here are more than willing to discuss science on whatever subject you choose and in whatever level of detail you would like.  But, I would respectfully suggest that coming in here and going on about how we are all bad and you would certainly never engage such nasty people in an adult conversation isn't likely to lead to anyone engaging with you in a meaningful way. Reap, sow, yadda, yadda.

There are real working scientists here who now more about the various subjects than you and I can ever imagine.  If you want to learn more about what they do and how it is relevant to the whole debate, you should give them the benefit of the doubt and start a conversation like the adults that we all are. I am willing to bet that if you come into a conversation in that manner, it will be reciprocated in kind.  However, if your goal here is to stir up a hornets nest, act like scientists have nothing to teach you about science, and then go back to your own blog and talk about how nasty all those foulmouthed scientists were to you (bless their hearts!), then your sweet-sounding obstinance is the right way to go.

Look at it this way. You have nothing to lose by trying to start an adult conversation. Perhaps, you could learn alot about who these people are and the cool things they do as scientists. Or perhaps, they will give you good reason to go back and talk about what asses they are.  Either way, it looks like a win-win for you.

-3, -24

Date: 2007/04/06 12:14:57, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Building on their fondness for scatological instruments of grace:

C.R.A.P. - Creationist Reality or Another Parody?

F.A.R.T. - Found Another Realistic Troll?

Date: 2007/04/06 16:18:42, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Kristine @ April 06 2007,16:23)
Naturally, I adore all of your ideas but I think this one's a winner.

F.A.R.T. - Found Another Realistic Troll (or Tard) is a good one for defining one outcome of the process.

How about this for another outcome:

Street Theater Union Performer Identifying Design

I am The Acronyminator!  U.U.A.A!

Date: 2007/04/07 10:20:46, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,11:04)
I wouldn't even be here if I hadn't been lured in --  I'm thinkin' you people are out recruiting creationists to munch on, and you send Richard out to find some poor unsuspecting target to lure back into the den.  Now, I find myself attracted to the lure and can't get back out again.

Yup, you found us out. Richard is our honeypot. Or, more accurately, was our honeypot until you outed him.  Now we are SOL until we can find a new one.  I suppose we could send k.e. out again, but he was never all that successful since he doesn't understand the difference between mysterious and downright incomprehensible.
   
Quote

[ps...Kristine, sorry if my last post sounded snippy.  I certainly ~don't~ want you as my enemy.  We gals gotta stick together.  Girl power and all that.  

Girl power?  Okay, I nickname thee "Fundie Spice"

Date: 2007/04/09 13:49:15, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (J-Dog @ April 09 2007,14:16)
Quote (Louis @ April 09 2007,13:11)
That way we can at least have a more intellectual discussion than the hilarious, but ultimately frivolous pseudoflirtation.

Louis

Not if DaveTard shows her his new tool.. I mean his new jet-ski when she visits him...

On the subject of which, I am eagerly awaiting Dave's comment on the weekly diet weigh-in.  I wonder what manly exercise he did during the last week to help him lose weight?  My Monday isn't complete until I've "seen" him swaggering around at FtK's with his tummy sucked in, telling us about all the power tools he used.  Arrgh, Arrgh, Arrgh!

Date: 2007/04/10 22:26:57, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (2ndclass @ April 10 2007,20:21)
Salvador:  
Quote
To be fair, the stupidity of the Dover creationists was not part of the Wedge strategy. No self-respecting Wedgie would bungle public relations and legal strategy that badly. The Discovery Institute advised against Dover, and Dembski sued the Dover legal team for mega bucks. The boneheads in Dover were self-appointed ambassadors of ID, not the real thing. They were not true defenders of the Wedge.

Does "self-respecting Wedgie" sound oxymoronic to anyone besides me?

Wait a minute.  Did he really say Dembski sued the Dover legal team, as in the Thomas More Law Center?  Can that be right?

Date: 2007/04/11 07:44:30, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 11 2007,08:05)
However, a comment from Fross cuts to the chase (methinks Fross is not long for UD!)
     
Quote

two words:

Lee Strobel.

Let’s assume these guys want a purely scientific debate. Having Lee Strobel on the bill makes it look like a religious seminar aimed at trying to make their views seem scientific. The guy is 100% a Christian apologist and a strict Bible literalist.

Erm, Fross, it's your side that's organised this debate!

Oh, Fross went off script a couple times yesterday. Check out this comment (in part):
 
Quote

Would something like dog breeding be considered ID? (and therefore something like eugenics?)

Date: 2007/04/11 11:23:48, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 11 2007,12:03)
One of our local Baptist ministers has a website where he posts his turgid musings on similar topics.
 
Quote
Every day when we get up, we depend on God’s immutability whether we recognize that or not. When we walk outside and the sun is shining, we can only walk and the sun can only shine because God has not changed.

Q: How many lightbulbs does it take to change God?

A: Only one, but he really has to want to change.

Date: 2007/04/12 15:52:31, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 12 2007,16:27)
 
Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,15:00)
ROTL...

Nope, that's definitely post-snake.  See those cave kiddo’s in the car?  Dead give away, buddy.

Ah, equating Sin and Sex. Classic.

Remind me why could sperm and egg not fuse before the fall?

There is an old saying that if the only tool you have is a hammer, all of your problems look like nails. This describes you, oldman.  You assume, as a scientist, that every question has a scientific answer. In this case you are wrong, wrong, wrong.  This is not a matter of science, but of history.

Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in Genesis 3:6, while the first bambino didn't come along until Genesis 4:1.  You should also consider that, friendly dinosaur aside, the presence of clothing is a dead giveaway that this picture is post serpent.  QED

Date: 2007/04/13 07:53:09, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,08:37)
I've NEVER posted under any name other than Ftk (Forthekids).  I'm most certainly not Diana.

You should be flattered.  I think it is a reference to Roman mythology.

Date: 2007/04/14 13:31:05, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,11:38)
Hmmm...there must be a few DI guys that check in here every once in a great while to see what Elsberry is up to...

[ANY OF YOU DI GUYS WANNA PAY ME TO MIX IT UP WITH THESE NASTY 'OL DARWINISTS??????]

There was a DI Fellow (with a capital F) that showed up here for a short period. His name was Cornelius Hunter.   He didn't stick around very long when he was asked a bunch of detailed question exposing the vacuity of his "science."

Good times.

 
Quote

Actually, that's a pretty funny accusation, Oldguy.  The DI guys would probably be more comfortable having me disappear from the Internet due to the fact that I'm nothin' other than a layperson.  I probably do them more harm than good.

After watching Hunter flop around, I sincerely doubt you could do them any more damage then they do themselves.  It isn't that they always shoot themselves in the foot that surprises me so much as the rapidity with which they reload.

Date: 2007/04/16 16:23:02, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 16 2007,17:02)
       
Quote (Ftk @ April 16 2007,15:58)
 Ya know why I don't discuss anything of depth with you guys?  As predicted, I knew you'd twist anything I say to work for you.

Someone needs to show me where I said anything about supporting abstinence "only" classes.  I would never support such a thing.  That's crazy.

it sounds like you accept the findings of the study.
Why bother to spend taxpayer $$ on something proven not to work?
edit: And if I'm twisting your words you can defend yourself here! It's, I suppose, up to me now to find a quote of you where you say "only". I'm not going to look.

You don't need to go look.  I'm going to step in here and state that I specifically recall FtK stating that she supported sex education including information about birth control.
       
Quote

And while it may be true you have in fact (and you fully realize this as your "ace") never promoted abstinence "only" classes you have in fact promoted abstinence+something else. I'm asking you why bother to promote something that does not work+something that does work when you could spend all of your available $$ on the latter?
Or to put it another way, why promote abstinence at all if it's proven not to work?

I am not sure what exactly you are going for here. It seems you are making the assumption that since abstinence-only sex education doesn't work, that any discussion of abstinence in sex education is wasted time. Is that really what you are saying?
     
Quote

Is it your contention that promotion of abstinence is effective in the presence of, say, good sex education? How do you separate out the effects and prove abstinence promotion works at all? Do we just take your word for it?

Just wondering!

Oldman, are you spoiling for a fight?  It sure looks like it to me.  What exactly are you hoping to get out of this?

Date: 2007/04/16 16:42:55, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 16 2007,17:28)
carlsonjok, are you suggesting that it may have a combinatorial benefit even though in isolation it has none? The study (small sample that it is) suggest that it is just as useless when used with real sex ed.

I'm mainly suggesting that FtK is not entirely unwarranted in her statement that she can't hardly say anything without someone trying to use it to bait her into a fight.  While I am not particularly fond of her avoidance of simple questions like "10,000 vs 4.5 billion", I do see an awful lot of extrapolation of what little she does say.

But, to your question, sex, as exuberantly joyous as it is, is not without consequences.  Some of which are, obviously, life-altering.  I think sex education should include discussion of that fact and should encourage teenagers to make intelligent choices. One of which is holding off until such a time as they can better deal with the consequences.

Date: 2007/04/17 10:59:46, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 17 2007,10:50)
OE: No posts this week so far.


You seem to have forgotten that OE is the zany site for the young hipster crowd.  They wouldn't have any interest in some dusty old battle.  The correct graphic is:



Much more better.

Date: 2007/04/18 19:23:14, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (ecw @ April 18 2007,17:17)
Since I have a Bachelor of Architectural Engineering I also would have liked to have seen more choices offered.  I did “ace” my physics class, if that makes any difference.  Does that qualify me as a “wana be scientist”?

Dude, consider yourself a scientist. Heck, I did and I have a BS in Industrial Engineering and a MS in Business Management.

Date: 2007/04/19 12:51:34, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ichthyic @ April 19 2007,12:34)
   
Quote (snoeman @ April 19 2007,07:55)
   Do you develop extra rows of teeth once you become an icthyologist?  :)

not only that, but you get teeth on your tongue, too!

Don't get many second dates, do ya?

Date: 2007/04/20 05:43:10, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (blipey @ April 19 2007,23:31)
I find it odd that you'd like "to protect me" from stupidity, but don't have the same impulse as far as DaveScot is concerned.  Or do you not consider what he said stupid?  Even if it was only to provoke?  Which begs, "Why would you let him provoke us if you did not intend for us to reply?"  You'd think that not publishing his comment would've been a better way to stop a conflict.

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

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

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

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

Date: 2007/04/20 14:25:22, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ichthyic @ April 20 2007,14:03)
Quote
And with nearly 700 replies, I'd say she's getting the better of you.


don't be an idiot.  please.

of course we recognize she's TRYING to be a tease, but if you knew anything about her posting history, you also should know she's easy to play.

the more she posts and runs away, the more it becomes clear just what she stands for, and it sure as he11 ain't "the kids".

I shouldn't even have to spell this out at this point.

Nor should I have to explain the application of the idiom "gilding the lily" to interactions with a tow-headed haus frau from Topeka with a slightly neurotic obsession to get in the last word.  After (now) over 700 replies, do you think we haven't quite made that case yet?

Just asking........

Date: 2007/04/20 17:26:09, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ichthyic @ April 20 2007,14:46)
ask AFDave the same question.

how many replies in that thread?

2000?

more?

Well, I suppose the number of posts it takes to make a point all depends on who your target market is.  If it is AFD or TfK, I think the number is somewhere in the neighborhood of never. For most everyone else, probably far less.

But, since this whole thread is apparently consensual and mutually enjoyable, I withdraw my objection.  Feel free to continue doing what y'all are doing. I'll just hang out over on the UD thread where the tard is a bit more varied.   ;)

Date: 2007/04/23 19:00:31, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Kristine @ April 23 2007,17:48)
And BURN RICHARD HE'S A WARLOCK.  :)

You mean like Uncle Arthur on Bewitched?


The resemblance is uncanny.

And for my next trick, I'm going to make you disappear, homo! - ds

Date: 2007/04/24 13:21:34, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 24 2007,13:04)
EDIT: Jack Daniels is an OK drink and should be drunk neat. However it should not be included in a discusion about single malts....Heretics! "BURN THOSE WITCHES/WARLOKS!"

Eh.  If you are going to talk about American whiskey, surely you can do better than Old Number 7. My personal suggestion is Labrot & Graham Woodford Reserve bourbon.

By the way, who let FtK wander off the ranch? She found her way over to the ancient forest thread and now I am going to have to cut her from the herd over there and bring her back.

Date: 2007/04/24 13:32:27, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,12:14)
I'm only here to correct serious misconceptions about my position that people seem to like to bring to this forum.

In fairness to your antagonists, you haven't actually taken a position on anything, so it isn't clear what there is to mis-conceive.  So, since this thread is supposed to be about an ancient rain forest discovered in an Illinois mine, will you take a position with regards to said discovery or do I need to.........

Date: 2007/04/24 16:40:58, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Louis @ April 24 2007,16:26)
P.S. I introduced Mr Elliot to the joys of a Tequila Suicide. Snort the salt, shoot the tequila, squeeze the lemon into your eye.

This reminds me of when I used to travel to Mexico on business. There was a little thing known as a bandera:  a shot glass of tequila (Don Julio preferrably), a shot glass of sangrita, and a shot glass of lime juice.  I did a few, but generally stuck with michelada con Indio.

Unfortunately, I don't believe they import Indio into the States.

Date: 2007/04/24 18:03:54, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Louis @ April 24 2007,17:49)
I guess it must go hand in hand with thinking the world is both 10000 and 4600000000 years old at the same time.....

To paraphrase Jack Benny, the world is 10,000 years old with 4,599,990,000 years experience.

Date: 2007/04/25 10:25:14, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 25 2007,09:52)
*Which does annoy me do you not have diesel cars in America?

Well, yes and no. Early attempts at diesel automobiles were plagued by poor reliability, which poisoned the well with regards to diesels.  For what it is worth, I drive a diesel. It is a pickup truck, which may not exactly count as being green amongst the Hollywood set. But, as I regularly pull substantial loads, I don't think a Prius would quite do.

Added in edit:  Inhofe is one of my senators.  Of the two, he is the more sane.

Date: 2007/04/25 10:59:42, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (improvius @ April 25 2007,10:42)
As I understand it, the main problem is the quality of the diesel fuel that we have over here.  It's been terrible - very high in sulfur.  But we should now be getting low-sulfur diesel availability, so diesel engines could become more popular.

I am probably being pedantic, but low sulfur diesel (with an allowable sulfur emission level of 500 ppm) has been the standard for road use for some time now.  We are in the midst of a transition to ultra-low sulfur deisel (15 ppm) right now with all road diesel slated to by ULSD by 2010, with all use by 2014.

Date: 2007/04/25 11:59:54, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 25 2007,11:42)
Phhh...

Just a colt handguns were a great leveller in the wild west, rophynol is a great leveller in the dating scene.

:angry:

Ha Ha.  This is you:

Date: 2007/04/25 12:25:14, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 25 2007,12:02)
HAR HAR THIS IS YOU.


To paraphrase Winston Churchill - There is something about the outside of a emu that is good for the inside of a man.

Date: 2007/04/25 19:19:39, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ April 25 2007,19:11)
Blipey, Louis, I'm all about getting some beers. I elect you all members of the After the Bar Closes Varsity Drinking Team. We need a good name. Or mascot. Or whatever.



EDIT:Here's your mascot, homos - ds

Date: 2007/04/26 05:23:31, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (blipey @ April 26 2007,02:38)
DaveTard is a weak excuse for a human being.

Well, it looks as if DaveTard is going to duck our meeting after all.  What a pussy.  There's a nice pic of him though, with his dogs, and a nice Texas size, 13 mpg truck.

How dare you malign a perfectly good pickup truck!  That is a diesel and under normal, unloaded driving conditions will get over 20 mpg.

Date: 2007/04/26 08:47:45, Link
Author: carlsonjok
George Murphy gets in a parting shot.

The punchline:
   
Quote
I don’t think you guys realize how insular your discussions are. This blog as a whole reminds me of a bunch of kids playing D & D. It may be a fun & harmless way to spend a Saturday afternoon, but it’s kind of sad if they think that it has anything to do with the real world.


Come here, George, and deal with this ancient multi-hued dragon.

Date: 2007/04/26 13:17:38, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (fusilier @ April 26 2007,12:01)
WRT DT's pickemup, that vintage Dodge is not anywhere near 6'5" to the roofline.  Look at those wheels, again; they're stock 15" rims.  The roof height is about 6 foot even.

I drive a Dodge 2500 also and my stands 6 foot even at the roof line.  However, mine is not 4x4, while Dave's is.  Not sure how much that adds.

Date: 2007/04/26 19:45:29, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ April 26 2007,19:02)
Drinking a Smithwick's ale right now. I've gotta say, I'm not impressed.

Well, I'm having a few of these tonight:

I tend to prefer Vienna lagers or unfiltered wheat beers (with an occasional stout thrown in), but this one is actually pretty good.

Date: 2007/04/29 19:24:02, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Henry J @ April 29 2007,16:16)
Hmm, so how to stem the flow of puns, and nip this thing in the bud?

HAR HAR. THIS IS YOU:

Date: 2007/04/30 13:27:16, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 30 2007,12:47)
My standard libertarian joke: a libertarian is (a) a Republican who doesn't believe in god, (b) a Republican who smokes pot.

The joke I've heard is that libertarians are pro-choice on every issue.  Which has an element of truth since they tend to follow the low economic control of the Republicans with the low social control of the Democrats.

Date: 2007/05/02 05:54:09, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (blipey @ May 02 2007,01:22)
Joel Barofsky's "Stop Lying to Us"

I find that it is always helpful to gizoogle Joel's posts to make them more real to the young 'uns.  The entry about boasting was greatly improved by the gizoogle treatment. Observe.

What was, in the original:
 
Quote
So, by all means boast. Just make sure you are boasting in God and His Son Jesus Christ through whom helpless sinners have received reconciliation.

Has been improved to:
 
Quote
So, by all means boast . Slap your mutha fuckin self. Jizzay makes sure you is boast'n in God n His Son Jesus Christ through whizzom helpless motherfucka have received reconcilizzles ya feelin' me?.

Word!

Date: 2007/05/09 06:43:30, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 09 2007,00:19)
Richard rejoice!  The Server is your friend.  Trust the Server:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/religio....d-state

Unfortunately, I think we can add American History to the list of subjects that DaveScot is not well versed in.  He says:
 
Quote
So you see, when Jefferson and a few other founders talked about a wall of separation they were only talking about a wall between federal government and churches.

To which it is a trivial matter to point to James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance", written in 1785 in response to a bill in the Virginia Assembly for the financial support of religious teaching.  The bill was shelved and the assembly, instead, passed Jefferson's "Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom", which was originally written in 1779.

Date: 2007/05/09 08:04:51, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,07:52)
I just don't understand why one makes the choice to be a Christian when they reject the NT as literal and, in fact, believe that some of what is written comes from an active imagination on the part of the writers.  

It's as though they claim to be something that they completely disagree with.

You might find some insight in this statement, made by a person who shall remain nameless.
Quote
I chose non-denominational Protestantism. It makes a great working basis for civil and productive society, the overhead is minimal (ask to be saved and you are saved), I was saved as a child so there’s nothing more that needs doing (once saved always saved), it’s a common religion where I live so its easy to fit in, and so there’s really no downside unless some other religion is right but I don’t have enough evidence to make that determination. Pascal’s Wager to the letter.

Date: 2007/05/09 11:22:25, Link
Author: carlsonjok
NEWSFLASH:  IDer quote mines Thomas Jefferson.  Angryoldfatman takes from the Jefferson Memorial:
     
Quote
Right around Tom’s head:

I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

The quote was taken from a letter written by Jefferson to Benjamin Rush in 1800, in response to the fact that the Philadelphia clergy were attacking Jefferson as an unbeliever.  The entire relevant paragraph from the letter is as follows:
   
Quote
I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten.  On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of.  I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected.  I do not know that it would reconcile the _genus irritabile vatum_ who are all in arms against me.  Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened.  The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists.  The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison,
for they are men of truth.

PS.  It isn't exactly a quote mine as the text angryoldfatman is the entirety of what is on the Jefferson Memorial. However,  it is ripped from the context of Jefferson's rail against the clergy.

PPS.  The X.Y.Z. plot referred to is a reference to the affair in which 3 French agents attempted to persuade the American delegation in Paris (Gerry, Marshall, and Pinckney) that they were required to provide a bribe (douceur) to Talleyrand as a precondition to opening negotiations.  The delegation steadfastly refused and (eventually) Marshall and Pinckney returned home.

Date: 2007/05/10 15:46:24, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ftk @ May 10 2007,15:19)
No, I don't see anything in my sentence that implied that *I* have been discussing science here.

So, why then do you expect *us* (or more precisely, Wesley) to discuss religion?

I think that some folks here are unduly harsh with you.  I've said it before and I'm saying it again now. But, here is the thing. Unlike your blog, you don't control the conversation here.  And if you expect folks to engage honestly in answering your questions, then it behooves you to extend to them the same courtesy.  Golden Rule and all that. That is how it works in an open forum.  You can't dictate the terms of the conversation, so stop trying.  If you aren't willing to provide the level of response that you seem to demand of others, then perhaps this isn't the best forum for you.

Date: 2007/05/11 06:47:40, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 11 2007,05:55)
So, I ask you one more time. If "science" has proved that the conclusions in the article you linked to are incorrect, why would you then not believe it? Only because it now no longer agrees with your previous belief?

So you are happy to use "science" when it's in your favor, but when it goes the other way it's unreliable?

PREDICTION:

FtK:  You materialists do the same thing by ignoring the science of intelligent design!

One or all of Oldman, Albatrossity, and Arden:  What science of intelligent design? Show us, because we have been asking for years and haven't seen it yet.

FtK:  I'm too busy right now.   Is your Jesus white and have a beard?

Lenny:  (ahem)  My pizza delivery boy says this doesn't prove what you think it does. Why should I believe you instead of him?  (snicker) (giggle)

RTH:  Hey! Is this a flagellum in my pocket or am I just glad to see you!

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Date: 2007/05/11 13:28:48, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ftk @ May 11 2007,13:17)
I don't think that people must reject evolution to be a Christian.  What I'm saying is that some of them have a difficult explaining why it is that they are a Christian.  

From what I can tell, TE's vary in their interpretation of what a Christian is.  

Do you expect theistic evolutionists to subscribe to a universal theology?  The contributors at UD are hardly monolithic.  Sal subscribes to a literal interpretation of Genesis, Dembski apparently doesn't share the notion that 6 days are meant literally, Denyse is Roman Catholic, and DaveScot is the saved agnostic.

Let me ask you a question. I am going out on a limb a bit here. Is the church you currently attend the same denomination that you or your husband grew up in?

Date: 2007/05/11 14:08:19, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ftk @ May 11 2007,13:49)
 
     
Quote
Let me ask you a question. I am going out on a limb a bit here. Is the church you currently attend the same denomination that you or your husband grew up in?


Nope.  Hubby changed denomination when we got married, and more recently we changed denomination again.  The whole denomination dealy doesn't mean much to me.  Granted there are little things that cause bickering amongst denominations, but I think much of it is senseless.  

Good for you. It has been my observation that few people ever leave the denomination they were born into.  Fewer still change their entire belief system.  So, you may consider if so many theistic evolutionists self-identify as Christian maybe it is because they were born into Christian families and feel at home in Christian churches.  
       
Quote
We attend a non-denominational church in Topeka at present.   My Mom was a tad dissapointed, seems my brother and I have broken the Lutheran tradition within my Mom's side of the family.

See what I mean?
       
Quote
Whatever...gotta go with what feels right and seems to jive with what one reads in scripture.

Far out.  Like gnarly.

EDIT: Changed "never" to "ever".  Changes the context a big.

Date: 2007/05/11 15:06:48, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ftk @ May 11 2007,14:17)
     
Quote
So, you may consider if so many theistic evolutionists self-identify as Christian maybe it is because they were born into Christian families and feel at home in Christian churches.  


Well, I have considered this, but what this tells me is that they wouldn't actually be "Christian", they would be agnostics who feel at home in the Christian community.  So, why not just say that?  

Can I be so bold to presume that your definition of a Christian is one who accepts the divine nature of Christ and the various miracles that go along with that? There is probably a wide variety of beliefs among theistic evolutionists on this point.  It is up to such participants to speak for their own beliefs in that regard.  However, I will generalize a bit, so long as you understand that my comments don't necessarily apply to anyone here in particular.

First, your use of the term agnostic is inappropriate. Agnostics believe it is not possible to know whether there is a God and I would struggle to apply that label to theistic evolutionists.  If I understand what you are trying to say, a more appropriate term would be deist.  A deist is one who accepts the existence of God based on reason and nature, but generally reject the supernatural (i.e. miracles).  I would guess that most theistic evolutionists are probably deists, although obviously not all. Since Ken Miller is Catholic, I have to presume that he accepts the divine nature of Christ, but chooses to believe that such status (and the attendant miracles), while real, fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry.

That said, to your question as to why don't they just say what they are?  Well, consider how a less brassy dame then yourself might have reacted to thought of their mother's disapproval over leaving the Lutheran Church.  Go back to my earlier statement that few people ever leave the denomination they were born into and it is a rare person indeed that changes to a different religion altogether.  I submit that a persons religious identification is mostly a matter of birth and upbringing rather than intense comparative study.  When one's familial and social circles are built around such identification, wouldn't you agree there is strong incentive to not make waves by setting yourself apart?
   
Quote

Kind of like DaveScot.  From what I understand, his wife is Catholic and he attends various church get togethers with her, and I'd bet he's been to church with her from time to time.  But, he's honest enough to say he's not buying it.  He's agnostic, yet has no problem being around the Catholic community.

See what I'm getting at?

No, I don't see what you are getting at.  My wife is born-again.  I'm an agnostic with deist leanings.  We manage to get along just fine.  Why shouldn't we?  

Date: 2007/05/11 15:24:30, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ftk @ May 11 2007,15:19)
 
Quote
No, I don't see what you are getting at.  My wife is born-again.  I'm an agnostic with deist leanings.  We manage to get along just fine.  Why shouldn't we?  


In a hurry, so I can only get to this part.  Hopefully, come back to the rest later.

I'm not saying that an agnostic and a Christian or an atheist and a Christian couldn't manage to "get along".  I'm saying that if one does lean toward agnosticism, why not just admit it and say that they enjoy the community of the Christian church but don't buy the whole shebang?

Because most groups of people, churches included, are extremely insular.  To identify oneself as different invites ostracism.

Date: 2007/05/12 20:08:59, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 12 2007,16:10)
Lucky Kristine...


Don't let on you're a witch, or they'll use you as an anchor.

No, they wouldn't.  Witches float because they weigh the same as a duck.



No wonder they kicked you out of Merry Old England, not knowing that and all.  Shame it was us Americans that got stuck with you.

Date: 2007/05/12 20:33:10, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 12 2007,20:25)
ITS CARLSONJOK. LOOK AT HIS RUBBISH ICON THINGY.

WOOPTY DOO. YE HAR.

As one of my old cyclist friends said after seeing a picture of me on horseback:  "Hey, look! A horse with two asses!"*
Quote

HE'S JUST TRYING TO LUCK LIKE G.W.BUSH.

There is not a horse to be found on G.W. Bush's Texas ranch.  Seriously.  No cattle either. Least not since he stopped leasing land to a real rancher.

* Which isn't nearly as cool as a monkey with 4 asses.

Date: 2007/05/12 20:47:50, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (someotherguy @ May 12 2007,15:21)
FWIW (ie., little), I'd read it.

I'd read it as well. Especially if you named it The Panda's Pathetic Pollex.

Date: 2007/05/13 07:11:22, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 13 2007,07:03)
I think we should somehow take the ID lesson plan request to UD - after all, they want to teach it too! So let's hear what they want to teach. Maybe I'll bother to make an account and ask them.

Maybe not.

Lesson plan?  You underestimate their ambition.  As it is, I have found evidence that they have an entire semester long class under development.  Indeed, I have found, and surrepitiously photographed, the syllabus.

Date: 2007/05/13 10:18:19, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ May 13 2007,09:40)
Granville Sewell is a tard    
Quote

This makes me very, very angry.



And you won't like Granville Sewell when he's angry...

Indeed, he might use his Pew-36 explosive space modulator on you.

Date: 2007/05/20 13:05:46, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 20 2007,12:55)
But...but...Steve, it screams design [to them].

Indeed, let's see some random, purposeless process do this:



Q.E.D.

Date: 2007/05/21 10:06:21, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 21 2007,09:38)
This just in, I have managed to uncover a photo of Richard and FTK together, proving that they do in fact, uh, 'know' each other:


OMG.  Does that mean that this is also RTH?

Date: 2007/05/21 12:29:04, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 21 2007,12:04)
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME AND YOU IS THAT BACK IN THE DAY OF DAIL UP INTERWEBS (WHICH I HELPED CREATE) WHEN TEH PICTURE WAS DOWNLOADING LINE BY LINE WHEN IT GOT TO THE SPECIAL BIT I'D BE LIKE "OH-MY-DESIGNER-NO! ITS A FRIGGIN LADYBOY" AND TURN OFF MY VISUAL DISPLAY UNIT IN DISGUST AND DO SOME PUSH UPS WHICH ARE EASY FOR ME BECUASE I'M A V- SHAPED POLYMORPH.

HAR HAR HAR.  I'LL BET ONE OF THESE GUYS IS YOU.

BOTTOM, I'LL BET.   HOMO.

Date: 2007/05/23 17:44:38, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 23 2007,17:09)
Quote (argystokes @ May 23 2007,17:02)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 23 2007,14:54)
 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 23 2007,16:32)
I didn't learn what I did to kowtow to lowing cattle such as you, asshole.

At which point Glen continues to kowtow to my lowing.

Hard to believe, isn't it?
I love it so!
Glen could have won the sextuple bovine award, with just a little more care!

You betcha. Even so, he gave me quite a hiding, (although prodded) catching me as he did on the horns of his ruminations.  It would behoove me to be more careful in the future, so as not to be corralled again.

I hate to horn in, but please don't steer the conversation in that direction again.

Date: 2007/05/23 17:55:56, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 23 2007,17:49)
Quote (carlsonjok @ May 23 2007,17:44)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 23 2007,17:09)
 
Quote (argystokes @ May 23 2007,17:02)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 23 2007,14:54)
   
Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 23 2007,16:32)
I didn't learn what I did to kowtow to lowing cattle such as you, asshole.

At which point Glen continues to kowtow to my lowing.

Hard to believe, isn't it?
I love it so!
Glen could have won the sextuple bovine award, with just a little more care!

You betcha. Even so, he gave me quite a hiding, (although prodded) catching me as he did on the horns of his ruminations.  It would behoove me to be more careful in the future, so as not to be corralled again.

I hate to horn in, but please don't steer the conversation in that direction again.

I used "horns" already. You get points for "steer," though.

Well, you don't have to get all hoofy with me.

Date: 2007/05/24 15:24:20, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 24 2007,15:11)
You're right, Glen. We're just not cool enough for you. You're too real for us assholes. So go away and let us assholes think about what we've done, in hopes that someday we'll be as awesome as you, as we go around screaming abuse on the internet.

Are you done yet, Arden?  There is good eatins down over yonder hill.

Date: 2007/05/25 11:34:46, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 25 2007,11:03)
I'm a big FCIPH  fan.

Please, enjoy the hilarity!

Should we buy one of your t-shirts, too?

Date: 2007/05/25 15:52:27, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Kristine @ May 25 2007,15:25)
   
Quote (stevestory @ May 25 2007,12:22)

 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 25 2007,07:32)
Sad to say, this indicates that the even the crack UD/ID Google research team has been disbanded.

you left off "-head"



Sorry. :)

Another wildlife shot from the Galapagos?

Date: 2007/05/27 13:13:04, Link
Author: carlsonjok

Date: 2007/05/27 15:52:42, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 27 2007,15:42)
gees, I'm begininning to think the folks from the UK have as much a distorted view that underestimates US contributions to the war, even from the supply side, as many americans seem to have from overestimating their contributions to the same.

Gosh, they are still sore that our soldiers were stealin' their wimminfolk.  What was it they said?  We were "overpaid, oversexed, and over there." ;)

Date: 2007/05/27 19:03:20, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ May 27 2007,17:24)
Oh god the one someone at PZ's blog made is just too good not to repost:


That is the best one yet.  It deserves a tribute.

Date: 2007/05/27 19:06:32, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ May 27 2007,18:28)
Quote (carlsonjok @ May 27 2007,15:52)
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 27 2007,15:42)
gees, I'm begininning to think the folks from the UK have as much a distorted view that underestimates US contributions to the war, even from the supply side, as many americans seem to have from overestimating their contributions to the same.

Gosh, they are still sore that our soldiers were stealin' their wimminfolk.  What was it they said?  We were "overpaid, oversexed, and over there." ;)

I don't understand your POV here.

I haven't expressed a point of view.  WWII history isn't an area I have studied in any depth and I couldn't make an contribution to the serious subject. I was just making a joke.

Date: 2007/05/28 19:45:59, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 28 2007,17:40)
FWIW (nuthin' probly), I figure he's playing to the crowd.

He knows he's full of it, but as long as the rubes keep shellin' out the bucks...

And what incentive does he have to retract his BS, really?  It's not like his reputation would ever recover, he'll be laughed at for the rest of his life, blah blah blah.

His only real choice is to do what he's doing for as long as the money flows, which will be forever.  There will always be people willing to pay to hear what they want.

Not so sure about that.  According to the most recent FTE Newsletter they are still at least 100 large short of what they need to get The Design of Life published.  Perhaps WmAD has been appearing increasingly bitter because the gravy train has done jumped the track.

On a similar note, did anyone catch his offer to debate Hector Avalos?  

Date: 2007/05/28 20:19:14, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 28 2007,20:13)
Quote
On a similar note, did anyone catch his offer to debate Hector Avalos?  


prediction:

if so, this will only happen if Dembksi is paid a considerable sum for doing so, which is exactly how the last so-called "debate" he was supposed to be involved in got cancelled, IIRC.

If he offers to do it completely for free, and at Avalos' university, I'll be shocked, to say the least.

what was the proposed topic, exactly?

The debate offer didn't come with a topic.  It was almost an offhand comment.  WmAD mentioned that is wife was from Iowa and he visited there occasionally. I have to wonder if the offers to debate, first Barbara Forrest and now Avalos, are ways to generate buzz.  A way to recapture some of the limelight, if you will.

Date: 2007/05/28 22:18:21, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 28 2007,20:25)
 
Quote
A way to recapture some of the limelight, if you will.


that, and a way to score some quick cash.

I am not sure I totally agree. My recollection of the stillborn offer to debate Barbara Forrest was that he would accept only as much honoraria as was offered the other participants, with the implication that he was open to doing it for free.  While I don't argue that cash has something to do with it, I have suspected it was mostly ego (with money being one of the units of measure.)

Since Dover, he has been increasingly confined to a ghetto of his own creation. Honestly, I think he finds the adulation that comes his way at UD, and the role of a theology professor at SWBTS, unsatisfying.  I can only describe his contributions at UD over the last year as having been phoned in. The whole Gonzalez-Avalos deal is the first time, IMO, that he has put more than a half-assed effort into his contributions there. He sees himself as an impact player and strives for a larger stage than UD and SWBTS can ever offer.  After his complete failure to ensnare Forrest into "Vise Strategy: Part Deux", the Gonzalez tenure denial is the first thing that looks like a casus belli.

Date: 2007/05/29 14:59:53, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 29 2007,14:12)
Quote (Louis @ May 29 2007,14:08)
LIES!!!!!!

If you produced teh zone of sexi-hawt so big, you'd not care 'bout bystanders. Sexi-hawt INCLUDES bystanders.

Teh Evidence

Louis

Oh noes. teh sexi-hawt iz not k fr men lyke U!!!!!!1111111111

Louis, be careful getting into RTH zone of sexi hawtness.

Date: 2007/05/29 17:50:40, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Louis @ May 29 2007,17:20)
Carlson,

You have made me laugh so loud my wife just divorced me.

Luckily she saw the lolRichHughes you made and forgave me because she was also laughing. I'm buying me a copy of Photoshop and joining the party. But for now the Richard Hughes club night flyer will have to do.

To be honest, I found that image here and blatantly ripped it off.  Indeed, I have a number of images from that site bookmarked just in case RTH tries to make fun of me.  Me and LOLCats can take RTH.

Date: 2007/05/30 06:02:24, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 29 2007,22:38)

Date: 2007/05/30 20:01:39, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 30 2007,19:45)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 30 2007,17:13)
Y'know he's got yet another one-post blog?  Tenacious that guy.

I'll probably regret asking, but what's the link for it?

Here it is!

Quote

Is anyone else there other than Waylon Smithers VMartin?

No comments since April 1. Evolution is finished is finished.  Don't go rattling the cage.

Date: 2007/05/30 21:00:34, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 30 2007,20:17)
Dunno about evolution being finished, but John isn't smelling none too good these days, either.  :O

Tapioca, with hints of Vicks Vap-o-rub?

Date: 2007/05/31 14:39:50, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Kristine @ May 31 2007,12:40)
Bring it. Bring it. I can take it. :)

Well,  I have too much respect for you to take any potshots, but the background vista in that picture did make me think of a new marketing slogan.

Galapagos:  Come for the boobies, stay for the large tracts of land.

Date: 2007/06/01 17:27:06, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 01 2007,15:58)
I have a camel with three humps.

HAR HAR HAR. THIS IS YOU:

Date: 2007/06/01 17:57:33, Link
Author: carlsonjok

Date: 2007/06/02 04:02:22, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 01 2007,22:25)
   
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 01 2007,21:42)
love to see one "in the flesh" sometime.

The Smithsonian has one on display.

Oddly enough, the Smithsonian doesn't have either of the two most famous WW1 aircraft on display -- it doesn't have a Sopwith Camel and it doesn't have a Fokker Dr-1 triplane.

There is also a reproduction at the National Museum of the Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio.  They also have a Sopwith Camel and a Fokker Dr.1. If you live within a days drive of Dayton and love to look at airplanes, then this museum is highly recommended.  However, leave yourself alot of time.  This is not a museum that can be breezed through in a couple of hours

Date: 2007/06/02 17:38:20, Link
Author: carlsonjok

Date: 2007/06/02 18:06:41, Link
Author: carlsonjok
DaveScot:

Quote
Well, if you want to overlook the fact that Carroll is not employed as a book reviewer, his expertise is computer science not biology or evolution,


And yet that same expertise seems perfectly adequate for pontificating about evolution and biology when it is wafting out of Gil Dodgen's pie-hole.

Whoever said that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds never met the UD crowd.

Date: 2007/06/02 21:00:45, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 02 2007,20:19)
G) RICHARDTHUGHES SEXI_HAWT ZONE HAS REDUCED ME TO PRIMAL FEMALE INSTINCTS.

HAR HAR HAR

Date: 2007/06/03 18:44:59, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes quoting Mark Chu-Carroll @ June 03 2007,18:30)
Not super bright, Dave.

I just had a free association based on this closer. It caused me to leap from DaveScot to Super Dave Osborne.



From Wikipedia:
   
Quote
Super Dave is supposedly an "accomplished" stuntman, though he rarely succeeds when performing the stunts depicted onscreen. His signature is to perform outrageous daredevil stunts which invariably go awry and result in his grievous injury.


Surely, I am not the first person to make this connection?

Date: 2007/06/04 06:09:27, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Kristine @ June 03 2007,20:52)
Add to that the fact that, according to a reporter for Esquire, the saddles on the dinosaurs at Hammie's "museum" are hornless English saddles, not really meant for riding but for dressage competitions and stakes races.
:)


Yes, a big old roping saddle makes soooooo much more sense.

EDIT:  With further thought, I think it makes far more sense that early humans would have ridden dinosaurs in English saddles.  The western saddle is a generally utilitarian saddle developed for ranch work.  The horn, in particular, was added to aid in such work.  The cowboy had more control of a roped cow when he dallied, or looped, the rope around the horn.  Now, since in those early days, all of God's creatures were vegetarian, if follows that there was no ranching.  Therefore, there was no roping of cattle and, follow me here, no need for a horn on any saddle.  Ipso Facto, Adam probably rode in an English saddle.  QED.

Date: 2007/06/04 13:50:29, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 04 2007,13:26)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 04 2007,12:46)
What do YEC's make of this...?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/06/04/ancient.tree.ap/index.html

No doubt that the tree is only a thousand years old, but God is testing us by making the tree look old.

WRONG!! The tree is probably closer to 4000 years old.  The article starts:
 
Quote
ALBANY, New York (AP) -- The tree stood tall and spindly in the hot sun some 380 million years ago when something toppled it, maybe a storm or an earthquake.


OR A FLUD!!!11!1!

Date: 2007/06/05 11:43:50, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ June 05 2007,11:20)
Ah, yes. It's all a great big conspiracy.

(Must be pretty damn big if it can even stop them from publishing their own results in their own journal.)

HUGE!!!!11!1!!

Recently revealed surveillance photos show a dirty atheistic Darwinista vandalizing the ISCID offices. Rumor has it that hundreds of papers set for publication were destroyed in the operation.

Date: 2007/06/05 13:39:50, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 05 2007,13:17)
FTK reminded me the other day, we're now officially the 'Darwin Police'.

Cool, but we may need to lay off the Dunkin Donuts if we actually want to actually bring anyone in for persecution.

Date: 2007/06/07 19:01:20, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2007,18:04)
Issue Number 1:

I'm currently drinking a Red Hook ESB ale. It's kind of thick and fruity. Discuss.

Thick and Fruity.  Initials R.H.  Man, I have this feeling that there is a joke in there somewhere, but I just can't seem to place it.  ;)

I'm not drinking anything right at the moment, as I have a lawn to mow.  But I do have a 2002 Familia Zuccardi Malbec that I am itching to pop the cork on.

Date: 2007/06/07 21:02:47, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2007,20:53)
Open question to the small number of physicists here. You've got to hire a research assistant to do some physics experiments. You have two candidates. One has just completed the first year freshman physics classes. Some mechanics, some EM, a little calculus. The other didn't, but read Scientific American for 20 years. Who do you hire?

Ooh, I know this one.  It is that old joke, isn't it?  The correct answer is, of course, the one with the bigger t*ts.

Date: 2007/06/07 21:09:02, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2007,19:10)
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 07 2007,20:01)

I'm not drinking anything right at the moment, as I have a lawn to mow.  

Non Sequitur.

Booze tastes better if its consumption is postponed until after some hard work.  As it is, I left the Malbec in the rack and I am drinking a Concha y Toro Cab/Merlot blend.  Not bad for a $6 table wine aged in stainless rather than oak.  The Reisling ice wine chilling in the fridge is going to be a nice nightcap.

Date: 2007/06/07 21:12:19, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2007,21:05)


You sure about that, cowboy?

Hey, don't blame me, I didn't write the rules.  Besides, Dave has lost another 10 pounds since he sent the photos to Blipey. I am sure he is down to a B cup.

Date: 2007/06/08 03:41:51, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (BWE @ June 07 2007,22:15)
Did you see idiocracy? The doctor's diagnosis.

Yes, I did, but the movie didn't make much of an impression on me, so I am drawing a blank.  Feel free to PM me if you don't wish to spoil it for others.

Date: 2007/06/08 11:06:09, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Kristine @ June 08 2007,10:56)
Is that Teddy Roosevelt? :)

No, that is Noah, apparently out rounding up the animals two-by-two before the flood waters get too high.

Date: 2007/06/08 15:49:21, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Kristine @ June 08 2007,15:40)
("First they came for the cupcakes, I didn't speak up for I had a stash of hash brownies...") :)

Date: 2007/06/08 22:43:59, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 08 2007,22:05)
Chateau D'Yquem.

'nuff said.

FIGURES YOU WOOD LIKE SOMETHING MADE BY CHEEZ-EATIN' SURRENDER MUNKY FURRNERS INSTEAD OF A GOOD BOX OF AMERICAN WINE.  USA! USA!

CHATEAU D' HOMO, MORE LIKE IT.

Date: 2007/06/09 09:13:54, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Louis @ June 09 2007,07:50)
Now with wine, one can talk of the big reds, the clarets etc and they have their place (my favourite is Margaux, that region has some of the best terroir in France in my opinion. Ch. Palmer, Ch. Margaux. Love 'em!

Back in the early 1990s, on the advice of a friend, I put away a few bottles of Margaux.  I finally opened a 1989 Prieure-Lichine last year and it was fabulous. I have a couple of 1988s that I am eyeing laviciously and a 2001 that I just stored away.  I've just gotten back into wine recently and wish I had a chance at a 2000, but they are likely out of the range of my wallet now.

I can only imagine what a Grand Cru like Ch. Margaux must be like. There isn't much market for high-end stuff like that in Oklahoma, and what is here is usually from California.

Date: 2007/06/09 17:18:35, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2007,17:00)
Here's the thing that is kind of weird about that.  If I had a sibling who had any sort of disability or problem with mental stability, I would never jump into their blog and lay it all out publically.  So, do you really think it was his brother?  

Would someone be that inconsiderate to their own brother?

This thread gives a little more context to David Fafarman's motives with regard to commenting on his brother.  Particularly this comment:

Quote
What I would ask of those who interacted with Larry is that they try to find some understanding and charity in their hearts. And perhaps even look for ways that he can contribute (that would be hard).

and this one:
Quote
Larry, you owe a lot of people an apology. I will waive mine. But I do have some expectations of you. These are simple and I hope are still within your capacity.

(1) You must apologize to Ed publicly for calling him names. I suggest you do this at your blog, and let me know once you have so I can email Ed, since, as he said, "I do not read Larry's blog as a matter of course." (And you should not assume that I do either.)

(2) After that, you may phone me and speak about topics of your choice, except that it may not be a subject designed intentionally to goad me. If you are not sure, ask.

(3) You will then be forgiven for my part.

While this perhaps falls short of the "Unconditional Love" that it is said all people crave, it is about as close as you're likely to get in this world.

I would like to have my brother back.

Please.

-- Dave


Do you hear heartbreak in those words?  I did.

Date: 2007/06/09 17:56:03, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2007,17:29)
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 09 2007,17:18)
Do you hear heartbreak in those words?  I did.

Perhaps...but, there is no telling what is really going on in someone elses family life.  And, do you really think that a PUBLIC BLOG where ANYONE can engage in the conversation is the most appropriate place to address your own brother?

Sometimes it may be the only appropriate place.  From my reading it sounded like Larry would deliberately antagonize his brother in private conversations. In that context, perhaps making a plea publicly was the only recourse David had.  I can't presume to know his motivations, but I have to give him the benefit of the doubt. It couldn't be easy to pour that pain out in front of a audience.

Date: 2007/06/09 18:23:56, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2007,18:15)
Well, like you said, we don't know either one of them well enough to know what was best in this situation.  I can only speak from my personal feelings, and even if my siblings angry or abusive toward me, I don't think I could ever bash them publically unless they were in agreement to take it public and ask for guidance or suggestions as to how to solve the issues.  

With everyone bashing Larry due to David taking it public, I can't imagine that did anything positive for the sibling relationship....but, maybe I'm wrong.  

I think you are wrong.  People were bashing Larry long before David showed up.  You need to step back and look at this a bit more broadly.  I was surprised that David shared the detail he did.  I wouldn't have, but we each must make our own decisions about that. But, stepping back a bit allows you to pull out the parts that are really important. One of David's comments that I thought was important is this one (again):
Quote
What I would ask of those who interacted with Larry is that they try to find some understanding and charity in their hearts. And perhaps even look for ways that he can contribute (that would be hard).

That isn't the sound of someone trying to hurt his brother.  That is someone desperately trying to help their brother.

Date: 2007/06/09 19:04:48, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2007,18:36)
Why would he ask that of a hostile group of commentors?    I could never do that to my sister or brother.  I can't imagine anyone from that blog was going to befriend Larry or try to find a way to help him.  Did you?  Did any of you?

So that, with the understanding of the situation, they might be less hostile.
   
Quote
I suppose perhaps he wasn't aware that Larry had been the brunt of their jokes?

He was well aware of the treatment his brother was getting and his intervention was intended to, hopefully, put an end to it.
   
Quote
I mean who would do that?

Someone who, despite being alienated from their brother, still cares deeply about them and doesn't want to see them treated badly.

Date: 2007/06/10 18:08:55, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Louis @ June 10 2007,11:51)
Carlsonjok and Albatrossity2,

Quote
Back in the early 1990s, on the advice of a friend, I put away a few bottles of Margaux.  I finally opened a 1989 Prieure-Lichine last year and it was fabulous. I have a couple of 1988s that I am eyeing laviciously and a 2001 that I just stored away.


Quote
My tasting notes indicate that we had the 1949, 1953, 1955, 1959 and 1961. The '49 and '53 were stunning,


Of course you must now realise that I hate you both with envy inspired passion that borders on the holy!  :angry:

Well, if it is any consolation, I lucked into them.  I had no idea what I was buying. I just did it, as I said, on advice.  FWIW, I also bought a 1987, which is considered a pretty poor vintage.  I only wish I had been into wine when the 2000 were released.  Those are supposed to be classics.

Also FWIW, I was green with envy at the vertical tasting Albatrossity did.  I am probably not enough of an oneophile to truly appreciate such an opportunity, but I sure wouldn't turn it down either.  I really need some rich friends like that.  Unfortunately, most of our friends are broke-ass horse people who like wine from a box and think Michelob is a high-end beer.

Date: 2007/06/10 19:33:40, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 10 2007,18:29)
Well, all I have from that tasting is memories, a slightly hardened liver, and the realization that it costs a lot more to drink great wines than I have in my savings account...

Tell me about it.  I rarely pay more than $30 for a bottle and only rarely, at that.
Quote

Right now, however, I am drinking a quite quaffable Chardonnay (Cambria 2004, Katherine's Vineyard, Santa Maria Valley) and preparing to grill some chicken. Things could definitely be worse than that!

Never been a big Chardonnay fan.  I don't like what oak aging does to a white. If that makes me a pirahna in wine circles, so be it. I tend more to Rieslings, Gewurtztraminers, and Liebfraumilchs.  FWIW, Wine Spectator raved about the 2005 German Rieslings.  They are reasonably priced, too.

Date: 2007/06/11 11:38:48, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote
Jesus was neither pirate nor ninja. Jesus was a zombie. Who else would rise from the dead?

I like to think of Jesus, like, with giant eagles wings, and singin' lead vocals for Lynyrd Skynyrd with, like, an angel band.  - Cal Naughton, Jr.

Date: 2007/06/11 12:55:35, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (blipey @ June 11 2007,12:47)
As Icky said above, there were no evolutionists before Darwin.  Biology at this point was mostly classification, observational.  Anyone can observe and write down findings.  An easy way to see the differences of even this observational science is to take a look at how species have been grouped over the years.  As evolutionary biologists continued to do research and as the science of genetics has  grown, species have been reclassified.  The question is could creationists have done this reclassification?

Well, I say probably so, but would they have even tried?  In the classic creationist label of "kinds" we see a limitation of how creationists look at the world.  Your example of  "environmental similarities" shows this.  As Lenny has asked, why do fish and dolphins have different genes if they both are ocean-going creatures that look very similar?  A creationist who observes these similarities has no reason to continue to pursue knowledge of these species as regards their lineage.  If he does quit looking, he stops on the wrong answer.

As supplemental reading associated with this particular thought, you might look at a previous ATBC thread that featured a sporadic and short lived appearance by a bona fide Fellow of the Discovery Institute.  I present to you, Cornelius Hunter.

Date: 2007/06/11 13:01:53, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ftk @ June 11 2007,12:51)
By Dave's own admission, he is not well versed on the subject of religion nor does he have much interest.  But, he has deemed religion as the cause of the unrest in this debate. Seems one would want to investigate more into the reasons why religious folks believe the things they do and whether it may actually be possible to find truth through religious teachings rather than reject the notion entirely and fight those whose beliefs are as strong as his own in regard to how a person can find "truth".

Truth about what?  

I personally see folks here studiously avoiding religious discussions.  Which brings up in my mind why you think they are anti-religious. Heck, even Lenny, as obnoxious as he can be, claimed to some level of theism.  

There are all sorts of truths in this world.  Truths about how the human body works. Truths about who wrote important documents.  Even truths about the status of my checking account.  Until you define which "truths" you are talking about, we can't even begin to talk about who is the most competent to discuss them.

Date: 2007/06/12 12:26:16, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 12 2007,09:13)
Yes, when I look at Sal, DaveTard, D*mbski and Denyse, I definitely think "Cool". I mean, look how their hip with-it-ness made OE such a success with the kids. "He's a wacky zany activist.."


*lip trembles*

HAR HAR HAR. THIS IS YOU:

Date: 2007/06/12 20:49:35, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ June 12 2007,13:16)
The capitalized pseudo-davescot posts are getting a little stale.

THIS IS YOU:



WHO IS THE HOST OF THIS PARTY ANYWAYS?

Date: 2007/06/13 11:51:26, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 13 2007,11:26)
Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2007,21:48)
Quote (Louis @ June 11 2007,07:03)
P.S. SteveS/Wes, if I EVER say anything bad about your moderation again (and I was wrong before) I shall fly over to your houses, hand you a 2 by 4 and let you beat me stoutly around the head and neck with it. I shall also provide the beer. ;)

The trick is to bring lots of really high gravity beer so I get smashed and can't work the 2x4 well.

Quick, someone patent "Singularity beer"

"Stringest beer in the universe" - DT.

How about this for a marketing campaign?

High Gravity Beer - Strongest Beer in the Universe.  Way Stronger than Strong Nuclear Beer!!

Date: 2007/06/15 12:37:46, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ June 15 2007,12:23)
Don't quit your day job to become a translator. (Or should I write translatour. I never know with that odd spelling you have over there.)

Damn straight.  I, for one, am sick and tired of that faux British affectation.  Here that, LEWIS?  Put away all that Limey pretense and start using the American spellings, just like God did when he wrote the Bible.

Date: 2007/06/15 13:19:34, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Louis @ June 15 2007,12:56)
Oh and Her Majesty is still after those taxes, make sure you tell that chimp that's the head of your government he has to pay up.

Well, you just tell Her Majesty to send the poodle, er, Prime Minister over here to collect.
   
Quote
Don't make us sick the Chinese on you, they still owe us for that Opium War thing.

Given that the Chinese are the largest holder of US Treasuries, I think they are already paying on that debt. :(
 

Date: 2007/06/15 13:24:02, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 15 2007,13:00)
Quote
but the money doesn't hurt.


I rather view it more like another enabler.

for example, in Behe's case, he's tenured faculty at a decent Unveristy.  while he might not be drawing a lot of grant money, unless he's a complete idiot when it comes to finances (or he spends his money on hookers and crack), he's likely doing just fine wrt to income.

If I am not mistaken, Behe has 9 children.

Date: 2007/06/15 14:40:42, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ftk @ June 15 2007,14:05)
I mean, do you actually think that people take this place seriously?  Shoot, that's why I could care less of what you people say about my views.


And you will keep coming back here forever, if it takes that long, to tell us that you don't care what we think of you. Is that it?

For what it is worth, I happen to agree with you that criticising Dembski for making fun of how someone looks is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  But, I have to say that I am forming a less-than-charitable opinion about why you stay here.  Just the other day you made the following statement:
   
Quote
   
Quote
Second, I'm just one of those people who has a really hard time watching people say stuff about me that is completely incorrect without mentioning that fact to them.  I have no idea how other people can allow you guys to rake them through the coals without comment.

Third, I tried to get out of here early on, but people kept bringing up stuff from my blog that I couldn't just let go by without comment.

If our little den of iniquity here is so insignificant, you might want to ask yourself why you can't just ignore us?Why is it so important to address the inconsequential opinions of the participants here?
   
Quote
Reasonable people reading some of the stuff on this forum might get a few laughs, but when they consider the attitudes of the posters here, it's abundantly clear where the anger at ID stems from.  

Let me guess. We all hate Christians and we have to make fun of them because we are afraid they are right?  And if any of the participants here claim to be Christians, well, they obviously can't be true Christians.  Have I got that right?
   
Quote
It's the "edge" of evolution that is in question here.  That is what ID is about, and you seem to fail to understand that.

Wait a second.  I thought ID was about design detection?  When did they change?  Can you forward me the memo?
   
Quote
You and Wesley have no reason to reject ID other than perhaps you don't want to consider how evolutionary mechanisms started working on that first microbe, and exactly what they are actually cabable of.  Why the fear of trying to find out?


As long as I have been here, I have never detected any fear about "finding out" from any of the participants, theists and atheists alike.  What I see, though, is a dedication to the process of science and ire at those who co-opt the good name of science to serve a theological agenda.

And, you want to know who I think fears the discovery of those mechanisms the most?  Dembski and his crew, that is who.  ID is only about design detection.  The identity, motives, and methods of the Designer are completely off-limits.  They can't get away from that question fast enough.

Date: 2007/06/15 14:56:50, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 15 2007,14:48)
Now, the larger question: is this a syndrome? Is this inevitable? Is there something about the religious dogmatism and extremely narrow thinking necessary to being a Creationist that destroys one's ability to actually be deliberately funny and witty to anyone without an identical set of ideas? Maybe so. Try and imagine Pat Robertson or some Iranian mullah actually making a witty remark. Hard to see, no?

It's certainly not the case that religious people can't be funny: Jews practically invented modern American humor, and I've met Buddhist monks who had extremely robust senses of humor, and who told hilarious stories. But there seems to be something about fundamentalist Christianity and Islam that totally kills any trace of laugh-laugh, even if the person wants to be funny.

Observations?

I'll give you a topic: Creationist Humor is neither creative nor humorous.  Discuss.



Sorry. Stream of consciousness moment.

Date: 2007/06/15 15:42:21, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ftk @ June 15 2007,15:15)
You're "dedication to the process of science" is what I call a truth stopper.  Ya want to possibly get to the truth, or do you want to hang on to something that is only "fact" to a point because you refuse to consider anything that might tamper with the materialistic point of view?  

Newsflash, Sweetie, I'm not an atheist.  I am agnostic with strong leanings toward deism.  I have no personal investment in the "materialist point of view" to protect. In fact, Dembski et al would be doing me a big favor if they actually do what they say that they can.  I'd be among the first to congratulate them.  Problem is that they haven't delivered the goods. And I doubt they ever will. Even I found their proposition vacuous.

If you don't want to believe me, and it is obvious you are pre-disposed not to, ask RTH the next time you swap candy photography with him. He has been trying for months get someone (anyone) to walk him through a real-life application of Dembski's Explanatory Filter over at the ID friendly sciphishow.com discussion board.

Date: 2007/06/15 19:06:35, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Louis @ June 15 2007,18:03)
I've got a whole swathe of books on the Enlightenment and also on British History coming up on my little personal reading list.

I'm glad not to be the only one with a decidely non-sciency reading list.  I am currently reading Duff Cooper's biography of Talleyrand.  On deck I have "Son of Thunder: Patrick Henry and the American Republic", Stan Hoig's "The Battle of the Washita", Akhil Amar's "America's Constitution:A Biography", and some collected works of John Locke.

Date: 2007/06/16 19:03:26, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ June 16 2007,17:27)
Here's the guy's other site

http://www.geocities.com/fiddleboy2003/Bitscience.htm

Holy crap!  Dembski has found himself a kindred soul.  

Not!!!!

Brookfield's Geocities page has a link to a joint page with his apparent POSSLQ (Person of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters).  That web page features a prominent link to Pleasuria, which actually goes back to Brookfield's personal Geocities page.  From that, I am guessing he is not one of Dembski's colleagues at SWBTS. Pleasuria is probably outside the Southern Baptist canon. Way outside.
     
Quote

-"Pleasuria," is the name of a proposed new country, new continent and new planet.
- (Pleasurian "states" or "provinces" are referred to as "Love-areas." Pleasurians are also "Lovarians."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-"Planet Pleasuria" is the, post transformation, name for the planet Earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-"Pleasurian-ism" is a pro-human philosophy based upon the civilizing influence of pleasure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-"Pleasurian-ism" is a spiritual (God based) philosophy that serves as a new model for a fully sensual, fully human society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-"Pleasurian-ism" works to enlarge upon the natural human capacity for kindness, love and orgasms -- thereby reducing violence and transforming civilization.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-"Pleasurian-ism" is a tantric movement for the re-integration of both God and sexuality (and thus human beings) into society as sacred positives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-"Pleasurian-ism" is spiritual and eco--sensitive form of hedonism. -- With renewed respect for one's natural self, comes a renewed respect for the natural world and restoration of the balance of nature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sex" within pleasurian philosophy, is a completely innocent form of intimate cuddling/kissing. Thus, there are no conceivable laws against sex in pleasurian society. All pleasurian laws are against violence, abuse, degradation, endangerment, etc. For the Pleasurian, "sex" does not exist, there is only kindness/love and various levels of intimacy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-A "Pleasurian" is a fully integrated, fully orgasmic, spiritual human-animal.

Date: 2007/06/18 06:48:59, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Another review of the creationist museum.  This one over 200 pictures long!

Date: 2007/06/18 15:17:02, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 18 2007,14:33)
Hmmm... I know there's a good answer to this joke:

How many Dave Scots does it take to change a lightbulb?

Just one, but the bulb will never want to be changed again since no one can screw one in like Davescot. In fact, lamps are just begging him to change their bulbs.

Date: 2007/06/18 20:40:41, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ June 18 2007,20:26)
tonight's dinner:

You know, Steve, with you recounting your culinary activities every night, I am starting to wonder if you are trolling for a husband.

Date: 2007/06/18 20:52:52, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ June 18 2007,20:26)
I still need to find a good sauce which is significantly hotter than Tabasco sauce, but not retarded hot like Dave's Insanity Sauce.

I guess it depends on how you define "significantly." There is a Scoville scale, with brand names, at Chilliworld.

I like the flavor that pepper sauces give, but don't seek out the heat.  I personally like the flavor of this, admittedly mild, sauce:

Date: 2007/06/18 21:29:59, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 18 2007,21:04)

Actually, I like that, too. I never remember to buy some to keep at home, but I always flavor my pho with that when we go out for Vietnamese.

Date: 2007/06/19 11:17:55, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (slpage @ June 19 2007,11:03)
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)

 
Quote
What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?

Dave Springer gave you a textbook?
Did he have you begging him to father a child, also?

No, really - let me guess, it is some freshman biology text?  

And reading with the intent to learn, not find fault (as I am sure you are doing) will amke you some sort of expert, right?  That is what Springer thinks, I am sure.  Which explains why so many of his claims are just plain stupid...

Umm, ease that back into the holster, okay?  The Dave she is referring to is not DaveScot, but our own Albatrossity2.

Date: 2007/06/19 11:43:04, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 19 2007,10:45)
 
Quote
How many honorary doctorates does Judge Jones have now?
WAD

...Ron Numbers informs me that over 100 professional societies have weighed in officially against ID. (Again, I’d like to see this confirmed.) Don’t expect people with a finger in the wind to help ID....

But if they've got a thumb...

No, nevermind.

Further WmAD:
 
Quote
George Bush may make supporting noises for ID when confronted on the matter by the press, but when push comes to shove he defers to his science adviser John Marburger, who takes his marching orders from the NCSE.

Oh noes!!!1!!  The Darwinist Conspiracy ™ has it's tentacles into the White House and the Prez-nit!!!

Date: 2007/06/19 14:20:34, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (J-Dog @ June 19 2007,14:05)
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 19 2007,13:24)
That page says "1996".

Where do you get your time-warps from?

I did too much LDS in the 60's . . . since I live basically down the street from the Sands I should have really remembered it couldn't have been last year, but I still live in the 90's anyway.[/quote]
Wow, far out man!  You did LDS while me and my group was doing LSD!  

Dude! I just couldn't get off on those Mormons (Latter Day Saints).  They kept getting stuck up my nose.

I think it is a reference to Star Trek: The Journey Home.  Trying to explain Spock's odd behavior, Kirk says "Oh, him? He's harmless. Part of the free speech movement at Berkeley in the sixties. I think he did a little too much LDS."

Date: 2007/06/19 15:15:08, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 19 2007,14:10)
But often it seems like Bill doesn't examine the articles he links to all that closely himself.

One would hope that, for a minute, he would stop looking for a message from the Designer in DNA and look for it in the seemingly unbroken stream of backfires that he is experiencing.

Date: 2007/06/20 10:28:41, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Kristine @ June 20 2007,10:08)
Naturally he broods about not being rewarded for his great contribution to humanity, for which he has so much secret contempt.

Naturally.  But, as a believer in a personal God Disembodied Telic Entity who moves in mysterious scientifical ways, you would think that he would see in his embarassing series of missteps groundbreaking ideas being viewed skeptically by the scientific community, a lesson in humility opportunity to further develop his ideas.  Alas, no moments of insight return to the lab here.  Better to petulantly stamp his feet stand by his considerable body of work.  Because, his canon is a dead-end irreducibly complex.

Date: 2007/06/20 10:33:00, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 20 2007,10:28)
The story I heard is that Stephen turned out to be the same person as Ghost of Paley, and that's why he was banned. Good riddance, I say. Total wuss about spicy food.

Wasn't he the fellow that raved about Old Speckled Hen?  That itself is a bannable offense.  If I wanted bitter beer face, I could do it much cheaper with any of a variety of American beers.  Like Hamm's.   Except, of course, drinking Hamm's is a bannable offense too.   ;)

Date: 2007/06/20 12:16:42, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 20 2007,12:01)
How dare you ridicule Old Speckled Hen? Damn your eyes you cad. I shall see you at dawn. Swords or pistols?

We decided to throw beer cans at you.  And we are already doing a little target practice.

Date: 2007/06/21 15:23:21, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (J-Dog @ June 21 2007,15:07)
BUT, how does an Englishman, know Shaft well enough to drop in a Dembski at the drop of a hat?

RTH is an wanna-be, putting on an American affectation in order to appear cool.  Not unlike those upper middle class white kids listening to Snoop Dogg while driving to school in the BMW Daddy bought them.

Har Har Har. This is RTH:

Date: 2007/06/24 15:13:33, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (VMartin @ June 24 2007,14:08)
Tell him also that you firmly believe beyond any doubt that you originated from fish and that your cousins are mollusks.      

Well, we did come from fish as was conclusively demonstrated by Garrison, et al:

"In the beginning we were all fish.  Okay, swimming around in the water. And one day a couple of fish had a retard baby and the retard baby was different so it got to live. So retard fish goes on to make more retard babies and one day a retard baby fish crawls out of the ocean with it's mutant fish hands and it had buttsecks with a squirrel or something and made this: retard frog-squirrel. And that had a retard baby that was a monkey-fish-frog.  And then this monkey-fish-frog had buttsecks with that monkey.  And that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey and that made you."

So, there you have it, VMartin, you are the retarded offspring of five monkeys having buttsecks with a fish-squirrel. Congratulations.

Date: 2007/06/24 18:23:54, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 24 2007,17:36)
How about the Kuiper Belt, FTK.  Does that, uh, exist?

The evidence is equivocal.  It could also be interpreted to support the theory of the Kuiper Suspenders.  Recent photographs have done nothing to clear the issue up.



Coincidence that the table is positioned in the exact right place? Of course not, it was specifically (may I say, intelligently?) placed to obscure so that we all have to decide for ourselves where the evidence leads.

Date: 2007/06/25 14:49:17, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 25 2007,14:39)
That's a great site!  I particularly like the subtle message encoded by the first letters of each paragraph. Do you think that the EF can explain that?

Maybe.  But who is this Darles Charwin they are on about?

Date: 2007/06/26 19:58:00, Link
Author: carlsonjok
I'm not really much of a sci-fi fan, but I would have to nominate Stargate.  Kurt Russell and that creepy guy from "The Crying Game."  Ugh, what a waste of two hours of my life.  The only good that came from it was finding a kitten at the theater that is still doing great, 13 years later.

Date: 2007/06/26 20:07:59, Link
Author: carlsonjok
For what it is worth, I tried this recipe for Tinga over the weekend.  It had a great flavor with just the right amount of heat (for me).  Fire-eaters could probably spice it up even with a few more chipotles or some cayenne.

Date: 2007/06/27 07:27:20, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Observations from Outside the Big Tent (includes a link showing discontent within the big tent).

Date: 2007/06/27 08:06:57, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Kristine @ June 27 2007,07:37)
Well, I don't want to be an offensive fustilarian niggler, but there's a great big material America-hating anti-Bush flood bearing down on the Austin and central Texas area right now..

While the whole Oklahoma-Texas area has had an unusually wet year (*), I think the worst flooding is in the North Texas area.  Not to say that Austin and the Hill Country aren't getting soaked, but the DFW area seems to be getting the worst.
Quote
Is it unforgiveably Darwinian materialist of me to wonder about the material safety of some of our UDudes? Probably.

No, that is your inner Christian trying to get out.  Just ignore it. :p

(*) My neighbors weather station has recorded over 29 inches of rain so far this year.  Normal yearly levels in OKC are around 32-33 inches.  After last year's drought I am trying not too grouse, but geez.......

Date: 2007/06/27 11:53:34, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 27 2007,08:06)
 
Quote (Kristine @ June 27 2007,07:37)
Well, I don't want to be an offensive fustilarian niggler, but there's a great big material America-hating anti-Bush flood bearing down on the Austin and central Texas area right now..

While the whole Oklahoma-Texas area has had an unusually wet year (*), I think the worst flooding is in the North Texas area.  Not to say that Austin and the Hill Country aren't getting soaked, but the DFW area seems to be getting the worst.

Update:  The central Texas area is getting pounded today, including counties just north of Austin.

I can't help but contrast this with last summer when all of Texas, save Houston and Corpus Christi, seemed completely brown.  That reminded me of this.  Perhaps someone should contact WorldNetDaily and ask for a Day of Prayer and Fasting for Not Rain.

Date: 2007/06/27 12:16:27, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 27 2007,12:06)
 
Quote
I can't help but contrast this with last summer when all of Texas, save Houston and Corpus Christi, seemed completely brown.  That reminded me of this.  Perhaps someone should contact WorldNetDaily and ask for a Day of Prayer and Fasting for Not Rain.

I wonder how DS will weave this into his GWDenial complex. Will his sycophants want to hear it from him just now I wonder?

Already got that figured out!!!!!

Last year, through the end of June we had 36 days where the temperature exceeded 90 deg F.  This year we have had only 1 such day.  Therefore, this year is cooler than last year.  And therefore....................

Global Warming is a Myth!!!!!!

Take that you globalwarminganista!

Date: 2007/06/27 13:39:20, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 27 2007,13:13)
It's my understanding that the larger storms usually happen in the Midwest and Texas later in the year, and are typically the result of warm, moist air moving up from the Gulf of Mexico (the same that spawns hurricanes) meeting cool air coming down from Canada.

so, the question is:

Is this earlier in the year than usual for large storms in that part of the US?

Uh boy.  I am not an expert on the subject and, unfortunately, my retired meteorologist neighbor is off in Illinois (doing research on the 1925 Tri-state tornado), so I can't ask him.  But, I can give an amateur answer, but it will be kind of oblique.

The mechanism you describe for severe weather of warm, wet air from the gulf meeting cool, dry air from the north is correct.  While such severe storms can happen at any time of the year, they are most common here in March through May. Having said that, though, these storms lately haven't been particularly severe in the way you are thinking.  In fact, it has been a relatively calm year for tornados.  As I understand it, the wet weather we have experienced this year is an artifact of, globally, El Nino(*) and, more locally, a relatively stable, slow moving weather system.

(*) Good description of El Nino

Date: 2007/06/27 16:06:15, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,15:53)
I also know many of the commenters and even though sometimes someone might put through a comment that sounds civil, I know that the person has no interest in civility whatsoever.  In that case, I won't even put the first comment through because, in the end, I know where the conversation is going to end up.  A good example would be Blipey.  I recently read a conversation between him and Joe G. that was seriously freaky.  Why let conversation get that out of control?

You consider it better to wring all the spontaneity out of people communicating?  Maybe it would be more pleasant if everyone played the parts you script for them?

Hey! It just occurred to me that Blipey is an actor.  I'll bet he'd have no problem reading his part and hitting his marks.  

ACTING!! THANK YOU!!

Date: 2007/06/27 18:29:53, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 27 2007,18:12)
Phhh. God Hates Texas. He looks and see's so many tards and gets his smite on.

Well, they do say that it is so windy in Oklahoma because Texas blows and Kansas sucks.   :D

Date: 2007/06/28 07:55:16, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 28 2007,07:50)
Interesting. Luckily the world is not run by people like you or we'd all be sitting round in mud-huts chanting for the volcano not to erupt (again).

Come again?

Date: 2007/06/28 13:45:09, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (franky172 @ June 28 2007,13:18)
Oh good god.  Now Sal agrees that HIV might not cause AIDS.

Maybe Kristine has written this somewhere. I can't recall.  But, I am scratching my head wondering why it is important to ultraconservatives that the HIV-AIDS link be denied.  I understand how they come about their stance on evolution and global warming, but this one has me stumped.

Date: 2007/06/29 07:14:44, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Bob O'H @ June 29 2007,01:08)
It is possible to survive at UD for a long time without developing Tard (as I think I've shown), but it's not easy and if everybody did it, Steve would complain that UD was getting boring.

I think I know why they let you stay over there.  Forgive me if the gratuitous South Park reference is lost on our British brethren.


Editted to get around hotlink problem.

Date: 2007/06/29 07:19:21, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 29 2007,07:14)
I'm reposting this (with permission of course) from UDoJ:

 
Quote (JanieBelle @ June 29, 2007 – 8:09 am)
Ira Flatow talks today on Science Friday with Craig Venter.  Craig and his team of scientists have taken the genome of one bacteria and transplanted into another, thus changing it to another species.

Reported in today’s issue of Science (gotta pay for it), this research may be the first step in creating an artificial life form from scratch, which is just too amazing for words.

Of course creationists will have to have a huge conference on where they’ll move the goal posts now.  If they were honest, they’d just stop giving all their money to the invisible psycho in the sky who’s never been observed creating a damned thing and send it all to Craig.  I guess the key word in that sentence is “honest”.


Very cool.   Check out Science Friday this afternoon on NPR.

This is unequivocal support for ID.  It didn't happen by chance.  It took intelligence to create this new species!  

Praise Be the Disembodied Telic Entity!!!!

Date: 2007/06/29 09:35:20, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Paul Flocken @ June 29 2007,09:30)
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 29 2007,08:52)
I guess I was going more for the "hey look, here's something cool" with an added thumbing of the nose at the IDiots across the way, than a profound scientific statement of my own on the current state of evolutionary biology.

Try to think of it...

as Street Theatre.

Lou, I think those scienticians are just too high up there in their ivory towers to understand sometimes.

Oh, they understand all too well that this is their Waterloo.  This supports the ascendancy of ID and is the final nail in the coffin of Darwinism.

Date: 2007/06/29 10:54:48, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ftk @ June 29 2007,10:38)
Bye.

Date: 2007/06/29 12:54:02, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 29 2007,12:21)
           
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,12:14)
...

She's not the easiest person to talk to on this, but if I had someone like Lenny hurling a huge spew of posts at me everywhere I turned up even if he did have good points, I'd be pretty defensive too.

Fair point.

Lenny can be a tad anoying (at first).

Opposite reaction here.  The schtick was funny at the start. It wasn't until after the fifth time through the complete repetoire, that it started to get annoying.
           
Quote
But does he say a single thing that you would dispute?

Actually, no.

Here is my opinion on this whole deal.  It looks like a therapy group having a competition to prove who has the worst case of OCD.   FtK is right about one thing when she says she knows how this will turn out.  Let me summarize:
       
Quote

START

FtK - "There is no proof of common descent - only wishful thinking."
Albatrossity  - "Okay, then what about this specific case?"
FtK  - "I addressed that 3 years ago at the KCFS forum.  Go look it up"
Albatrossity  - "Why should I do your work for you?  Tell me now in your own words?"
Oldman - "While you are here, show me the proof of design?"
FtK - "No time now, I have to go to work/go to a ball game/fix dinner/Read Icons of Evolution again"

WAIT 1 DAY

FtK - "There is no proof of common descent - only wishful thinking."
Albatrossity and Oldman (in unison) - "What about our questions?"
Arden - "Yeah. What about their questions?"
FtK - "You athiest meanies!  I'm out of here!"
Lenny - "Bye. Don't forget to take your big bucket of martyrdom with you."

WAIT 4 DAYS

Blipey - "She ran away again."
Lenny- {Shrug}
FtK - "I'm not afraid of any of you. I'll answer your questions this weekend."
RTH - "HUBBA HUBBA YABBA DABBA DOOO"
FtK - {swoon}
Albatrossity - What about my common descent question"

GO TO START


Have I missed anything?

Date: 2007/06/29 13:14:01, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 29 2007,13:07)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 29 2007,12:54)

Have I missed anything?

Alternatively:

1)Ftk makes a claim.
2)It gets disputed with evidence.
3)Ftk: Waits for an excuse to dodge claim 2).

True.  Now, I'd like to suggest adding an IF..THEN statement that once we've been through this routine...say.....four times we go directly to END. It is almost enough to make me looking forward to Steve telling us about the habanero pot pie he made last night.

Date: 2007/06/29 13:17:03, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ June 29 2007,13:13)
She makes me long for AFDave. He was a total nutjob, but at least he tried to defend his fake science. FtK just wants to have a pity party and talk endlessly about why she won't talk to us.

Now this is funny:
 
Quote
Antievolution.org Discussion Board welcomes our newest member xanaxxx making a total of 1539 registered members.


And not a moment too soon.

Date: 2007/06/29 14:42:21, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 29 2007,14:34)
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 29 2007,12:54)
           
Quote


RTH - "HUBBA HUBBA YABBA DABBA DOOO"

[Lip tremble]

Ooooh, that hurts. I have feelings, you know.

[/Lip tremble]

There, there, Richard. It's okay. All men have feelings.  They are angry, hungry, thirsty, horny, and sleepy. If you have a feeling that isn't on that list, I don't know what to say.

Yes I do: HOMO.

Date: 2007/06/29 15:05:04, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 29 2007,15:02)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 29 2007,14:34)
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 29 2007,12:54)
           
Quote


RTH - "HUBBA HUBBA YABBA DABBA DOOO"

[Lip tremble]

Ooooh, that hurts. I have feelings, you know.

[/Lip tremble]

Richard, I would have you know that "HUBBA HUBBA YABBA DABBA DOOO"  is an exact quote from a post you made here last February 31st. Look it up if you don't believe me.  :angry:

He's just upset because I wrote that in an over-the-top pretentious British accent.

Date: 2007/06/30 05:37:35, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Kristine @ June 30 2007,01:08)
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 29 2007,22:42)

(I don't know if PaV is a guy, but so what?  Have you seen the T-Shirt on Gil?)

Um, yes. :) Hawt!

Oh, then do check out one of his album covers.

Date: 2007/06/30 12:49:53, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Zachriel @ June 30 2007,11:22)
I have been "privileged" three times. But never by Dr. Dr. Dembski.

So, you weren't The Pixie?

Date: 2007/06/30 22:02:29, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ June 30 2007,22:00)
I seldom say it, but I love the people here. It's the community that makes the place what it is. We've created a good community here, and I'm glad for every one of you.

You still can't have my Bud Light.

Date: 2007/07/02 07:19:14, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote
Human beings were created (that is, invented) via genetic experiments that were conducted by reptilian aliens. These reptilian aliens, also known as the "Anunnaki" or "the Reptilians," still rule the Earth to this day.

Crab people!  Crab people!  Crab people!  Crab people!

Date: 2007/07/02 09:54:38, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (argystokes @ July 02 2007,09:48)
Eww, I think I just threw up a little in my mouth. Looks like DaveScot has found a new denialism to take up the cause for (brace yourself, Kristine):
 
Quote
...That said it’s not wholly unlikely that HIV is a symptom rather than a cause of AIDS. From my POV 23 years of considering it the cause of AIDS has not moved us any closer to a vaccine.

2 more UD contributors, Sal and PaV, are putting one foot on the bandwagon. I suspect we'll see this as a front page topic on UD within the next week.

Just wait until he embraces common cold denialism.  Years of "research" hasn't gotten us any closer to a cure.  Clearly, the scientists are in league with the vap-o-rub-anistas at Proctor and Gamble.

Date: 2007/07/02 11:57:05, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 02 2007,11:47)
Somebody help me out here.  Aside from the obvious misunderstandings, what is Nelson really saying about the relationship between genes and organisms?  Is he saying that there's some magical fairy dust that makes chimps chimps and humans humans, and so we have to quit looking at silly things like genes?

While I think you probably already know the answer, let me drop a hint on you.

Date: 2007/07/02 12:26:50, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 02 2007,12:20)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 02 2007,11:57)
  While I think you probably already know the answer, let me drop a hint on you.


You're quite wrong: it's actually


Perhaps for you.  But, given the group we are dealing with, this is the most accurate.

Date: 2007/07/02 13:43:52, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ July 02 2007,13:22)
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs....1=10150

Because some people have no standards.

Date: 2007/07/03 09:49:19, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (J-Dog @ July 03 2007,09:36)
Per Ed Brayton at ScienceBlogs, there is nothing in the US Constitution that gives him permission to do this.  Very interesting.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....riv.php

Ed is talking about executive privilege, which really has nothing to do with the power of the President to issue pardons and reprieves.  The latter power is codified in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Date: 2007/07/03 11:05:48, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (J-Dog @ July 03 2007,10:39)
Thank you Carlsonjok - and my education continues!  (Please don't send me a bill for Constitutional Law 101 though!)

You are welcome. But, fear not. You can further your education for the low, low price of $2.80.

Date: 2007/07/03 14:30:34, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,14:08)
Not sure what to say. So a desk driving political employee is considered worth more than someone who actually does risk their life in service to country?

I don't think the comparison you are making is the correct one.  Libby isn't the show here and I have a hard time sharing everyone's indignation at the decision to commute his sentence.  To be sure, it is a crime that he lied to a grand jury and he was probably complicit in the underlying crime of outing Valerie Plame in the first place. But, it is my opinion that Libby is basically a useful idiot, a fall guy.  The real problem children in this whole sordid affair are Cheney and, most likely, Karl Rove.  So, it wasn't a matter of trading off Plame for Libby.  Rather, Plame "had" to be outed to shore up the edifice of the Administrations justification for going into Iraq.  Libby was a tool of the adminstrations policy and a sacrifice to the special prosecutor.

The commutation of his sentence was, as I have heard it described, the way to shield him from punishment, but keeping the conviction on the books so that, if hauled before Congress, he can still invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify against himself (and, by extension, his bosses.)  Sweet little deal.

Date: 2007/07/03 14:34:57, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,14:20)
We have retarded bombs which equal "slowed by parachute" etc.

Isn't that the type of thing that Gil Dodgen does programming for?

Date: 2007/07/03 23:16:04, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 03 2007,22:58)
Quote (Kristine @ July 03 2007,22:54)
IT'S RICHARDTHUGHES BIRTHDAY TODAY! He's only 34! :O Just a pup! :) Happy birthday from an old campaigner. As Bette Davis said in All About Eve, "'Princess Fire and Music,' that's me - an old kazoo with some sparkles." ;)

Thank you form the heart of my bottom, Kristine. Please note I'm not replying in tardlicious caps, as that is apparently passé. I cannot help but observe, 'the older I get, the better I was."


I LOVE IT SO.

34?  Do you shave yet?

And what the hell are you doing at ATBC on your birthday?  Surely a man of infinite jest such as your self can find better company than the reprobates that hang out here.

Date: 2007/07/03 23:38:49, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 03 2007,23:20)
Like all sociopaths, I seem much more charming than I am. Thanks for the well wishes, but it is I who is in debt to the scientists and commentators here.

Nonsense.  To borrow a phrase from my tender youth, you are the cleanup hitter(1) around here.

Note 1: Sorry if the significance of that phrase is lost on a Brit expat(2) like you.

Note 2: Limey bastard.

EDIT:  I changed a phrase to more accurately reflect your contributions without dragging in any negative baggage.  Fans of the 1977 Yankees will know what I mean.

Date: 2007/07/04 00:16:32, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 04 2007,00:03)
What was the origional phrase? PM me if it's too rude for Kirstine or FtK!

Straw that stirs the drink.

Context: The 1977 New York Yankees were a superstar team.  A late addition to the mix was Reggie Jackson who was signed to the team in late 1976.  There is some controversy as to whether he uttered that phrase in reference to himself or it was erroneously attributed to him. Regardless, it was viewed, at the time, poorly by his teammates and was a source of resentment.  That said, IMHO, on a team of excellent players, Jackson was truly a dynamic presence. He was the straw that stirred the drink.

But, for baseball aficionados, particularly fans of the late, great Thurman Munson, the phrase may come with negative baggage that I don't want to bring into my drunken tribute to the originator of the Tard Cap ™.

Date: 2007/07/04 15:23:14, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Ptaylor @ July 04 2007,15:17)
Kevin Beck has a nice take on Dembski's latest.

Dave Heddle also posted his opinion on another of Dembski's offerings.

Date: 2007/07/04 23:17:32, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Kristine @ July 04 2007,19:58)
We made veggie dogs. *Ducks*

Okay, I'm not as kewl as Rev. Chimpy! But I gotta save room for the tequila and beer.

Veggie dogs and then tequila? Are you some kind of furriner? Because that is un-American, especially on this the most American of holidays.

Now if you want a good hot dog, try these.  They generally can't be found in groceries outside Upstate NY, but you can get them shipped.  $5.49 is expensive for a pack of hot dogs, and that is before shipping.  But, they are so worth it.  Best hot dogs evah!!

I had strip steaks with a cumin rub and garlic-cilantro sauce, spinach salad, and Boulevard Bully Porter.

Date: 2007/07/05 11:52:16, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 05 2007,10:48)
Yeah, that's a bit ironic given her moniker. And given the compassion shown in her blog entry about Al Gore's son getting busted for speeding and drug possession, I sincerely hope that she never has to experience anything less than perfection from her own offspring.

One wonders if she showed the same level of concern when Jeb Bush's daughter Noelle was arrested for trying to pass a forged prescription for Xanax. Or when the same Noelle Bush was found, while inside a drug rehab facility, with crack cocaine in her possession.  Or when President George Bush's daughters, Barbara and Jenna, recieved citations for underage drinking.

Chelsea Clinton, on the other hand, seems to be an ideal young woman.  Talk about irony!

Date: 2007/07/06 07:46:10, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 06 2007,07:23)
Once, I was at an pro-choice rally and found myself sitting on a sidewalk with actress Morgan Fairchild (she's really short).  

Yeah, Morgan Fairchild, that's the ticket........

Date: 2007/07/07 13:36:41, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (djmullen @ July 07 2007,11:06)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 06 2007,11:39)
The next case involving IDC or other labels for DI-labeled and packaged bogus antievolution arguments, I think the pro-science side (the real ones, not the cybersquatters) would miss a trick if they don't call Bill Dembski as a hostile witness.

And give him some ball bearings to hold while he's testifying!

A la Captain Queeg in "The Caine Mutiny"?   A comparison that seems strangely apt.

Date: 2007/07/10 10:16:50, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 10 2007,09:57)
Bah you lot are rubbish. You need some English food. :angry:

How about "twice burned then boiled unspiced mystery meat?"

*smacks lips*

Reminds me of the old joke that in heaven the police are English, the engineers are German, and the cooks are French.  In hell, the police are German, the engineers are French, and the cooks are English.

Date: 2007/07/10 13:38:30, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 10 2007,13:26)
Quote (lkeithlu @ July 10 2007,13:18)
Finally, a response to ICR:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/creatio....re-2493

Owww. This is choice.    
Quote
The ICR might do well to stop running their organization like a church, and more like a scientific enterprise.

Oh my.  It is apparently a new day under the big tent.

Date: 2007/07/10 13:44:13, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ July 10 2007,13:07)
"This university recently got rid of a professor because she was a women. Explain, in 300 words, why this was the right thing to do, and not at all the behavior of semi-literate throwbacks drunk on the bible."

Strictly speaking, they didn't get rid of her because she was a woman, but because she was a woman in a position that would have her instructing men.

I am sure they could have found her a place in another program at SWBTS.

Date: 2007/07/11 09:43:08, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Louis @ July 11 2007,02:47)
We also have orthodontists now too.

I did a quick google and, by golly,you are right.  I am a little skeptical of their marketing strategy, though.

Date: 2007/07/11 10:03:41, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ July 11 2007,09:54)
God help me if that nickname catches on.

With beer for breakfast, I have to wonder if a better nickname for you would be "My name is" Steve.

Date: 2007/07/11 10:30:10, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 11 2007,10:15)
To have our cuisine criticised by people from a nation that eats cakes for breakfast, puts sugar in damn near everything and produce the most tasteless apples I have ever encountered (but they looked nice) is a tad harsh.

Interestingly, my wife and I were watching a show about breakfast on the Food Network (porn for the middle aged set) and they were saying that the only traditional breakfast food that is truly American is grits.

Date: 2007/07/11 11:07:42, Link
Author: carlsonjok
I live in Oklahoma and have a Flying Spaghetti Monster on the back of my pickup and have never had a problem.  I suppose it could be because FSM is a wee bit more obscure than a Darwin fish.

Date: 2007/07/11 11:26:46, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 11 2007,11:19)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 11 2007,10:30)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 11 2007,10:15)
To have our cuisine criticised by people from a nation that eats cakes for breakfast, puts sugar in damn near everything and produce the most tasteless apples I have ever encountered (but they looked nice) is a tad harsh.

Interestingly, my wife and I were watching a show about breakfast on the Food Network (porn for the middle aged set) and they were saying that the only traditional breakfast food that is truly American is grits.

I'll start taking virtual punches if anyone criticizes grits.....

I love grits.  I usually eat them with liberal amounts of butter and black pepper.  But, I am willing to bet the Right Reverend has a good recipe or two for grits.

However, let me state up front that I am going to write you off as a complete food geek if you actually prepare your own hominy.  Not that my opinion means anything, but just saying........

Date: 2007/07/11 11:51:36, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 11 2007,11:42)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 11 2007,11:07)
I live in Oklahoma and have a Flying Spaghetti Monster on the back of my pickup and have never had a problem.  I suppose it could be because FSM is a wee bit more obscure than a Darwin fish.

You are very likely the only person in Oklahoma who knows what the FSM is.

Not true.  I was wearing a FSM T-shirt while waiting in line at my favorite Mexican restaurant (*) and I noticed a minor hub-bub at a table near the entrance because of it. Okay, it was mainly furtive pointing and hushed whispers, but it was clearly about the FSM.

(*) Wrong thread, but note to Steve:  a chain Mexican restaurant is an oxy-frigging-moron.

Date: 2007/07/11 12:14:59, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 11 2007,12:02)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 11 2007,11:51)
Not true.  I was wearing a FSM T-shirt while waiting in line at my favorite Mexican restaurant (*) and I noticed a minor hub-bub at a table near the entrance because of it. Okay, it was mainly furtive pointing and hushed whispers, but it was clearly about the FSM.

How do you know your fly wasn't open or something?

Well, I was trying to read their lips.  I am fairly certain they said "flying spaghetti" right before they distinctly said "monster."  But, I suppose I could be wrong. :)

Date: 2007/07/11 12:52:19, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 11 2007,12:42)
[quote=Reciprocating Bill,July 11 2007,12:17]
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 11 2007,10:58)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 10 2007,17:05)
There is something familiar about this guy, but I just can't place it. Did he once have some notoriety?

(no need to repeat the image again)

Not sure if your question is serious...

Naw, look again!


Still looks more Willie Nelson than Willie Dembski.

Date: 2007/07/11 15:25:05, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 11 2007,15:21)
Okay, okay, enough with the love-in already!

Here, let me be the first to say it:

all of you people SUCK!

:angry:  :angry:  :angry:

Aww. Did someone not get enough love growing up?

Date: 2007/07/11 15:37:52, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Deleted as it riffed on a different thread.

Date: 2007/07/11 15:46:31, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 11 2007,15:41)
Let GO of me, you HOMOS!

This just proves that Carlsonjok and Louis suck even worse than I thought!

:angry:  :angry:  :angry:

Wow. Such aggression.  If it would help work through the issues, Louis said he would dress as your mother.

Date: 2007/07/12 13:36:25, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 12 2007,13:24)
I'm especially partial to Szechuan cardboard, myself:

Arden, I found one of your old school photos:

Date: 2007/07/12 18:51:22, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ July 12 2007,18:17)
i only had Tecate once, but i thought it was foul. What do other people think?

My favorite Mexican restaurant (note: not a chain, Steve) serves it ice cold with salt and lime pulp on the rim of the glass and, while some may consider that heresy(*), I think it tastes great.  I will occasionally drink it at home straight up, but again it has to be ice cold.  My personal preference for Mexican beers is Indio, but it is not available in the States as far as I can tell.  :(

(*)  A former coworker, who is an accomplished homebrewer, called it a white trash margarita.  YMMV.

Date: 2007/07/12 21:31:11, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ July 12 2007,20:12)
Arden's our resident linguist, so this question's mostly posed to him, but not exclusively:

I'm not a very literary person. I mostly read nonfiction. For instance, here's what I'm reading now. But when I read fiction, two authors stand out for their gorgeous English. Shakespeare and P.G. Wodehouse. Is there any special reason why? Are there other writers of that caliber?

Well, I basically just read non-fiction too, but I have encountered several writers who's best work has an almost lyrical quality to me.  One is Bill Bryson, who's penultimate book is all sciency and what not.  Another wonderful non-fiction writer is Michael Wallis (the voice of the sheriff in "Cars"). He is most known for his celebrations of Route 66, but I think his book about The 101 Ranch is fantastic.  A better place to start might be this book of short stories.  

Another non-fiction writer who has the ability to really make you feel the emotions he is writing about is William Least Heat Moon. Of course, he seems to me to have an issue with depression, so that may not always  be a good thing. He is best known for Blue Highways, but I think PrairyErth is better.  I found River Horse to be a difficult read because of the apparent depression.

Date: 2007/07/13 15:36:38, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Louis @ July 13 2007,15:26)
KNIGHTS OF ID???????????????????

Oh now I have seen EVERYTHING!

Louis (Promptly dies!)

I would just hush if I were you. Sal doesn't look like he is going to take much guff off of you.

Date: 2007/07/14 15:05:07, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (JAM @ July 14 2007,14:33)
O'Leary is so ignorant that she can't distinguish between a mutation and a phenotype.

For how many years has she been ranting about evolutionary biology, and she still doesn't get high-school genetics?

You will learn the answer to that question when you buy her next book "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Vacation Bible School"

Date: 2007/07/14 18:50:35, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 14 2007,17:50)
While hoping that an approaching thunder- and hailstorm doesn't hit Manhattan,

Better you than me, Bubba.  I've done had it with the rain. After the drought last year, I am trying to be thankful that we are getting rain, but it is getting a bit ridiculous.  Last year, with the drought, I mowed my lawn 6 times the entire year.  This year, I am mowing it every 4 days like clock work.
 
Quote
I thought I'd try this chicken mole recipe. Served with this IPA (which is delicious, BTW). I'll report back on the chicken/mole recipe after all the critics have weighed in...

That is an odd recipe.  Raisins?  I've never seen that before.  And no peppers?  Strange.  Our favorite mole recipe is actually on the  South Beach Diet.  I've tried it with the jarred mole that you can find at Hispanic groceries, but the South Beach is better.

EDIT: Was watching Guy's Big Bite on the Food Network (porn for the over 40 set) and this recipe looks intriguing.  Will probably try it next weekend.

Date: 2007/07/15 20:24:31, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 14 2007,21:09)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 14 2007,18:50)
   EDIT: Was watching Guy's Big Bite on the Food Network (porn for the over 40 set) and this recipe looks intriguing.  Will probably try it next weekend.

Whoa. That looks great. Any excuse I can find to make ribs I'll take.

So, I broke down and made the ribs tonight.  The turned out good, although next time I will probably add dry mustard to the rub and forgo the bottled mustard which made it hard to spread the rub evenly.  I would also cut down on the soy sauce and increase the hot sauce.
 
Quote

I bet this would go great with those

I served it with Lakewood Vineyards Vignoles.  It was sweet with a touch of spice to it.  A nice complement to the flavor of the ribs.

Date: 2007/07/16 20:40:45, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 16 2007,20:09)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 16 2007,20:40)
There are two levels of creationist/IDer...

Like the sheep in "1984", all they do is brainlessly bleat "god is goooooood, atheist darwinists are baaaaaaaad", without understanding anything else that is going on around them.

You're analysis of the levels of ID membership is spot on, although I think there is a third tier for the likes of DaveTard, who is in it for the blowhard polemics and doesn't give a rat's ass about anything but his own visibility.  

(And, I know you know you meant "Animal House.")

Actually, he meant "Animal Farm."

But, as long as I am speaking, let me weigh in.  I thought ya'll were way too hard on her, even as I knew she wouldn't ever come around.  The reaction was far in excess of her importance to the larger fight.  All she ever wanted here was the last word.  But no one would let her have it (and, in some respects, still won't), so she ended up painting herself into a corner she couldn't get out of.

So, now FtK has retreated to an intellectual ghetto of her own creation. It is time to let her be. I don't see the need to comment obsessively about every last goings-on at her blog.

Date: 2007/07/17 06:36:10, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 17 2007,05:33)
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,05:23)
Afarensis,

Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size.

The point being...?

To apparently cast apersions on the credibility of scientists without challenging them on the actual science.

Reminds me of this incident as related by Wes.

Date: 2007/07/18 06:26:46, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Woo-hoo!!   A friend sent my wife home yesterday with a huge bag (at least 5 pounds) of fresh-picked okra.  Tonight, I'm making "Chicken Smothered with Okra And Tomatoes" from The Prudhomme Family Cookbook.  And, later this week, fried okra.

Date: 2007/07/18 11:27:03, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 18 2007,10:32)
My god, what a load of old claptrap.

She seriously thinks people hate her for being religious? Either she's REALLY good at ignoring the real reason or she's really, really dense.

Or it is intended as an attention-grabber.

Date: 2007/07/18 14:13:28, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 18 2007,14:04)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 18 2007,13:55)
FTK laments (on her blog):
     
Quote
Mercy
Mention prayer, and you're liable to have anti-ID Darwinist bloggers and their followers breathing down your neck like the hounds of hell. Figures...site meter has blown a fuse...moderator has gone into full Darwinian alert.

What you won't have, apparently, are readers with any interest whatever in the subject:
     
Quote
One Minute Each Night
In WWII, there was an advisor to Churchill who...

0 comments

I've put a couple of fairly tame comments, neither of which got through. A shame, but typical of creationists.

???

Well, you are obviously a hound of hell.

Obligatory, if unfashionable, tardologue:

HAR HAR HAR. THIS IS YOU:

Date: 2007/07/18 22:06:01, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ July 18 2007,21:05)
William Dembski's supporters may be fools, but Dembski is not. He's just a hustler out to make some bank. So he goes where the money is: business executives.
     
Quote
Intelligent Design: The Scientific Theory That Improves Your Bottom Line
I see that William Dembski, fresh from raking in thousands of dollars for not testifying in the Dover trial, has now branched out into explaining his business savvy to the masses. Look at this announcement for a conference at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary for a conference entitled "Intelligent Design in Business Practice: How design assumptions impact management, leadership & organization".

This page has more details. Since ill-conceived ideas like this have a history of vanishing without a trace, I'll repeat the description below:


http://recursed.blogspot.com/2007....ry.html

Jesus-Tapdancing-Christ.  There are really very few groundbreaking management ideas out there.  Lean manufacturing, all the rage right now, is pretty much the decades old Toyota Production System.  Six Sigma is just tweaked and repackaged quality process improvement.  Just about everything can be traced back to the Hawthorne Studies of the 1920s.  From the description, this looks pretty much like every other freaking business management seminar out there.  People are your greatest assets! Unleash their productivity through empowerment!  Be a leader, not a manager!  Dembski may be alot of things, but Tom Peters he is not.

Looking at this makes me feel like Mugatu in Zoolander:
   
Quote
Blue Steel? Ferrari? Le Tigra? They're the same face! Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

Date: 2007/07/18 22:18:05, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 18 2007,22:12)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 18 2007,22:06)
From the description, this looks pretty much like every other freaking business management seminar out there.  People are your greatest assets! Unleash their productivity through empowerment!  Be a leader, not a manager!  Dembski may be alot of things, but Tom Peters he is not.

Maybe Dumbski can have them all **praying** for success.

Already been done.

For what it is worth, I scanned the book and it really doesn't look all that bad. But, it is still just a variation on a theme.

Date: 2007/07/19 07:56:17, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 19 2007,07:07)
Re Dr. Dr. D's business/management seminar, this presentation      
Quote
“History and Prospects of the Intelligent Design Movement”
Dr. Ide Trotter, Trotter Capital Management

might almost be worth the price of admission. It should rank right up there with a presentation entitled "History and Prospects of Enron".

Well, now David Heddle gives his take. No wonder they kicked him out of the big tent.  His mind is too small to see the endless applicability of Intelligent Design ™

Watch your store shelves for Ground Beef Helper: The Irreducibly Complex Meal in a Box!  Now with 33% more CSI!!!

Date: 2007/07/19 12:07:36, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Kristine @ July 19 2007,11:45)
No, I've got it. Irreducibly Chocolate Chip Cookies. Kind of like the cake in a mason jar craze. As Dennis Campbell said, “Darwinism indeed is threatened by science elves…” and can they bake.

Date: 2007/07/19 15:48:59, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Louis @ July 19 2007,15:39)
'Twould appear your parsing skills are up there with your ability to think clearly and unsmugly about matters religious.

God only knows where he got the idea that you were being uncharitable.   ???

Date: 2007/07/20 05:49:08, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Louis @ July 20 2007,03:22)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 19 2007,21:48)
Quote (Louis @ July 19 2007,15:39)
'Twould appear your parsing skills are up there with your ability to think clearly and unsmugly about matters religious.

God only knows where he got the idea that you were being uncharitable.   ???

Carlson,

No no no no, I was being uncharitable THAT time but not the time before. It's not like I have a universal unwavering Heddle policy (or an anyone policy), it's situational.

Well, all I can say is the Queen's English ain't what it used to be if "best ignored on the matters of religion and irritating smugness" is now considered a compliment.

Date: 2007/07/20 08:20:15, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Louis @ July 20 2007,06:26)
LOL!! That bit wasn't the compliment.

Ya think?
 
Quote
The bit before it was. Like it or not Heddle on religion is smug and trite, like most religious people I encounter.

We all have our idiosyncracies.  Inasmuch as David hadn't offered any religious pronouncements in the post you responded to, it seemed superfluous to mention it.  But maybe you are right.
 
Quote

Should I whine about your horrid and nasty criticism of me? Or should perhaps realise that I do some things you like and some other things you don't? ;-)

Oh, I agree.  You have excellent taste in beer, for a vainglorious royalist bastard. ;)

Date: 2007/07/20 18:58:30, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ July 20 2007,18:14)
Back when you guys imagined yourselves scientific revolutionaries, did you ever suspect this is how it would end up? No accomplishments, no theory, no experiments, no solution to any scientific problems whatsoever? Just sitting around complaining that an irrelevant aspect of a diagram maybe gave someone a wrong impression? While evolutionary science rolls on, unaffected, publishing thousands of papers a month. Looking back, would you have spend the last decade in the same way, if you could see that nothing would come of it?

Psalm 37:7  Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; do not fret when men succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes. 8  Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret--it leads only to evil. 9  For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land.

Or something like that.

Date: 2007/07/20 19:33:57, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 20 2007,17:13)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 20 2007,08:20)
 Inasmuch as David hadn't offered any religious pronouncements in the post you responded to

Heddle ***IS*** a religious pronouncement.  A walking, talking one.

He's God's favorite, ya know.


(snicker)  (giggle)

And, uhh, why should your opinion of David Heddle be more valuable than mine or the guy who delivers my pizza?

Date: 2007/07/20 19:38:19, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Bob O'H @ July 20 2007,13:53)
Albatrossity2, why are you expecting consistency?  They would need some level of understanding first.

Bob

Hey, Bob. Someone over at UD has got your number
Quote
Thirdly, what else is there other than mutation?

A metaphorical touch of the finger of the telic entity.

Take that, you materialist!

Date: 2007/07/21 11:59:56, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,09:36)
         
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 21 2007,08:33)
The thing with money is that it is so ingrained into our lives that money and wealth are confused with each other.

Well, money is just a medium of exchange.  It doesn't mean anything in and of itself -- it's the social context behind it that gives it its power.

Wealth will be accumulated one way or the other.  Eliminating money and going to a barter system does nothing to change that.  All it does is changes is the process of arbitrage.  Start everyone out with the same amount and you will still end up with disparities in the end. Equal opportunity never guarantees equal outcome.
         
Quote

What needs to change is this idea that a person's "worth" is measured primarily by his, well, "worth" (in capitalism, of course, the accumulation of wealth is the be-all and end-all -- there simply *is* no other goal to the system).  

Plenty of people look down on me because I drive a bike, live in a garage, and don't care about making money.

I don't. We all at some point are presented with that decision to chose how we balance the different aspects of our life and I respect those that have made the choice you have. Heck, my father was a middle manager for a Fortune 500 company and passed on opportunities to advance into the executive suite because he didn't like the trade-offs that came with it.  Same choice, different point on the continuum. But don't kid yourself, Lenny.  While you consume little and live simply, you still benefit from the efforts of those you openly disdain.  Your self-satisfaction is a little misplaced.  
You can thank capitalists for the low cost, high quality computer you post from.  You can thank them that you don't have to stand in line to buy food staples.  You can thank them for printing and distributing the books you write.  In short, you are firmly ensconced in the system.  Thoreau you are not.
       
Quote

 There simply is no reason on God's green planet why anyone has to be a billionnaire and have more wealth than they could possibly even spend in a lifetime. All they are doing is taking bread out of other people's mouths (LOTS of them).  All we, as a society, are doing is rewarding greed and selfishness (and then we cluck our tongues over why "greed" and "selfishness" seem to be "human nature").

Self-preservation, and its modern successor, self interest, are human nature.  The reason that capitalism is the dominant economic system is because it doesn't seek to suppress, only to constrain, self-interest.  The abject failure of every attempt at socialism writ large ought to be instructive.  "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" are lovely words, but non-starters in practice. There is always someone looking to gain an advantage.   And always someone to give it.  
Quote

I'd like to see it so that someone who hoards money (and that's all billionnaires do) is viewed as just as squirrelly as someone who hoards, say, Fig Newtons or TV sets.  Nutty.

I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around the notion that an intelligent person like yourself actually believes this.  Billionaires don't hoard money. The idea that they take all their wealth in excess of what they consume and stash it away in some warehouse where it is never seen again is laughable.  If that was the case, capitalism would have collapsed ages ago.  The rich invest.  Money invested is money circulated.  That wealth distribution today is increasingly concentrated is not a notion I would contest or, indeed, even defend.  But the notion that billionares are leeches because they don't break a sweat is pablum for the proletariat.  Try building a plant and distributing a product without a capitalist.  Hell, try to print your next book without the help of someone out to make a buck.
 
Quote

Alas, as someone once said, "even if you win the rat race, you're still just a rat."  (sigh)

Yeah, but they can eat all the fanciest, Dijon cheeses.

Date: 2007/07/21 16:17:16, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,12:52)
       
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,11:59)
Wealth will be accumulated one way or the other.  Eliminating money and going to a barter system does nothing to change that.  All it does is changes is the process of arbitrage.  Start everyone out with the same amount and you will still end up with disparities in the end. Equal opportunity never guarantees equal outcome.

No one is talking about, or suggesting, "equal outcome".  (shrug)

No, of course not. Just more equal, right? Take from those you think have too much and give to those who you think have too little.  A year or two later, guess what?  You'll be right back to where you started.
     
Quote
     
Quote
You can thank capitalists for the low cost, high quality computer you post from.

Remember who it is that assembled this low-cost computer, and the conditions they work under.

Ah, yes, the noble savages. Living in peace and harmony with each other and nature until the evil Western capitalists came and despoiled their land.  Don't presume to lecture me, Lenny. I've spent more time than you can imagine working in factories in Mexico and moving production lines to factories in China. No one is forcing them to build those computers.  Folks there literally stand in line for a chance to apply for those jobs.  Why is that, do you suppose?  Let me tell you. Self-interest. Building those low cost computers pays a far better wage, and provides a far better life, then they had available to them in their unspoiled native culture.       
Quote
     
Quote
The reason that capitalism is the dominant economic system is because it doesn't seek to suppress, only to constrain, self-interest.

Well, I think it had something to do with the historical fact that Europe conquered the rest of the world, enslaved its native peoples, destroyed its native cultures, and imposed the European social/economic system upon them by force.

You act as if imperialism is somehow only endemic to capitalist systems.  You are far too well read to believe that.  I don't disagree with the notion that imperialism is an act of extreme self-interest.  But, as I contend, self-interest is the modern successor to self-preservation and is part and parcel of the human condition.  I am pretty sure we all know the counter-examples of socialist imperialists.  
     
Quote
Capitalism not only doesn't make the pretense, but celebrates the lack of it.  "Self-interest", indeed, is its sole and only god.

Maybe so, and I would never argue that capitalism is without it's excesses.  It isn't.  But to say that greed and self-interest is an artifact of capitalism is putting the cart before the horse.  Face it, socialism as an economic system is dead, dead, dead.  The only thing left is.......well, you know the rest.

Date: 2007/07/21 19:29:33, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,19:10)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,16:17)
Ah, yes, the noble savages. Living in peace and harmony with each other and nature until the evil Western capitalists came and despoiled their land.

Huh?

See your own comment, reproduced below.

Quote
Well, I think it had something to do with the historical fact that Europe conquered the rest of the world, enslaved its native peoples, destroyed its native cultures, and imposed the European social/economic system upon them by force.

Date: 2007/07/21 19:43:59, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,19:15)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,16:17)
 I am pretty sure we all know the counter-examples of socialist imperialists.  

Um, you seem to be under the impression that I'm a fan of the Soviet Union, China, or whatever.

No, I'm not assuming that. In fact, I know that you aren't.  But there isn't exactly many successful socialist countries now are there?  At least none that don't have a significant infusion of Western capital. If Hugo Chavez didn't have all that oil money to throw around, do you really think he'd still be around?  Perhaps you could hold forth for us as to why socialism hasn't worked so far.

EDIT:  See my response to Ian below for a little clarity in what I mean by "socialist countries."  I've been a little too loose in my language.
   
Quote
   
Quote

Don't presume to lecture me, Lenny. I've spent more time than you can imagine working in factories in Mexico and moving production lines to factories in China. No one is forcing them to build those computers.  Folks there literally stand in line for a chance to apply for those jobs.  Why is that, do you suppose?

I'm sure they love it.

One day, they'll show you just how much.


Ahh, yes. The coming workers paradise.  From each according to their means, to each according to their need.  I'm surprised no one has tried that yet.  Oh, wait....

(snicker) (giggle)

Date: 2007/07/21 19:54:07, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 21 2007,19:35)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,16:17)
Face it, socialism as an economic system is dead, dead, dead.  The only thing left is.......well, you know the rest.

I feel I must ask of this, what socialism are you on about here? Actual socialism, Marxist leninism, Maoism or....what?

Actually, a fair question.  I am using the term rather loosely.  I am referring, in general, to any system that centralizes ownership of capital.  

I am no libertarian to the extent that I agree there are some things that need to be centrally controlled, such as national defense and public safety, to mention two.  And I think the health care system in the US is a travesty that will end up having to be a single payer system.  But, overall, I believe the economic model that works the best seeks not to control, but only to constrain, the actors in the system.

Date: 2007/07/21 20:22:52, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,20:08)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,19:43)
 But there isn't exactly many successful socialist countries now are there?  At least none that don't have a significant infusion of Western capital. If Hugo Chavez didn't have all that oil money to throw around, do you really think he'd still be around?  Perhaps you could hold forth for us as to why socialism hasn't worked so far.

Well, it's quite simple, actually ---- everyone ---capitlaists and Leninsts alike -- keeps shooting all the socialists.
 
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to epxlain to me how capitalism has been a success in, say, Guatemala or Bangladesh or  . . . . ?

Probably about as well as it was working in Chicago as described by Upton Sinclair.  What is instructive is that the US has advanced from there without abandoning capitalism.  Is the US now perfect? Hell no.  We still have problems with poverty and, as I said, our health care system is a disgrace.  But, socialism isn't the answer. Not, at least, until you eliminate the selfish nature of man.  But, things are looking up. I hear there is a think tank out in Seattle that wants to eliminate man's depravity, too. Maybe you could look them up.   ;)
 
Quote
People with power, prefer to keep it.

And socialists differ exactly how again?

EDIT: Added back a comment that I responded to but didn't quote.  Sorry.  I blame the Top Sail Pale Ale.

Date: 2007/07/21 20:38:04, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,20:25)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,19:54)
Quote
I feel I must ask of this, what socialism are you on about here? Actual socialism, Marxist leninism, Maoism or....what?


Actually, a fair question.  I am using the term rather loosely.  I am referring, in general, to any system that centralizes ownership of capital.  

You mean like modern-day corporate capitalism, where the wealthiest 10% of the population owns more than 66% of the total corporate stock, the richest 1% owns 44% of all stock, and the bottom 40% of the population owns less than 2%?  

Is THAT the sort of, uh, "centralized ownership of capital" that you are referring to . . . ?

I don't think you are necessarily decieving here, but I would like to see where you got that from.  With the advent of 401Ks, IRAs and other such financial devices, ownership of capital is far more widely available now than probably any time in the past.

EDIT: This does start to get us into the issue of the dysfunction of corporate governance, where I think we would probably find ourselves on common ground.  Strange bedfellows, and all that.

And again, I need to point out that the wealth concentration you disdain so isn't idle wealth in the sense that it is sitting somewhere out of circulation.  It is invested in companies that use it to finance growth that leads to the purchase of plant that has to be built and the hiring of employees to run the plant.  Lenny, you really should hold your nose and take a course in corporate finance.

Date: 2007/07/21 20:38:59, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,20:29)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,20:22)
Quote
People with power, prefer to keep it.

And socialists differ exactly how again?

They don't.

Well, fudge!  You seem to be an advocate for a system that is no damn better than any of the rest. Bummer!

Date: 2007/07/21 21:02:52, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ July 21 2007,20:51)
But on the small point here, it is possible for Lenny's figures to be true, and simultaneously for your statement  
Quote
With the advent of 401Ks, IRAs and other such financial devices, ownership of capital is far more widely available now than probably any time in the past.
to be true.

Indeed, but it does put paid to the notion Lenny is peddling about some cabal controlling all the wealth.  That there is a concentration in wealth is not disputed.  But, what Lenny doesn't state is that many of us (at least in the US), in some form, are owners of capital.  That there is serious dysfunction in the corporate world (which is also not disputed) is a problem of corporate governance, not economic systems.

Date: 2007/07/21 22:31:27, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,21:57)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,20:38)
And again, I need to point out that the wealth concentration you disdain so isn't idle wealth in the sense that it is sitting somewhere out of circulation.  It is invested in companies that use it to finance growth that leads to the purchase of plant that has to be built and the hiring of employees to run the plant.  

Were that true, the distribution of wealth would be steadily getting more and more even, as more and more factories are built and workers are paid.

That, uh, seems not to be the case.

Why is that?

Umm, no, Lenny it doesn't.  And if you don't understand why, then perhaps you aren't ready for that course in corporate finance. You have yet to master basic economics.  But let me give you a hint:  the total of wealth in the world is not the same as the amount of currency in circulation.

Date: 2007/07/21 23:46:37, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,23:07)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,22:31)
 But let me give you a hint:  the total of wealth in the world is not the same as the amount of currency in circulation.

No kidding.

And yet a tiny minority monopolizes most of the wealth.

Why is that?

Seriously, dude, you really need to sit in a few classes at a business school.    
Quote

Oh, and of that wealth that the tiny minority monopolizes, how much of it, again, do those monpolizers actually, ya know, produce . . . ?

All of it and none of it.
 
Quote
By the way, Carson, please feel free to continue to be as condescending and smarmy to me as you like.  It's been done before by others, far more effectively.

I figure it is the style of communication you know best.
 
Quote
Alas, when I unionized their plant, they ceased being condescending and smarmy.

Here is the thing, Lenny. I don't fit neatly in the little caricature that you have constructed for me.  I am not anti-union.  I understand the role of the union in transforming American economics. Both in the last century and this one.  Oh, and get this.  I worked in union shops for over 16 years and managed union workforces for over 10 of those years.  In all that time, I never had a single greivance filed against me.  And when I no longer directly supervised represented employees, none of the supervisors that I managed ever had grievances filed against them while they were in my organization.  .

Date: 2007/07/22 07:29:57, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 22 2007,01:14)
             
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,21:55)
               
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,21:02)
That there is serious dysfunction in the corporate world (which is also not disputed) is a problem of corporate governance, not economic systems.

Alas, "corporate governance" is, itself, an inevitable and inescapable consequence of capitalism.  In any system of competition, there will be winners, and losers.  The losers disappear, and the winners get bigger.

As I said before, the economic system you seem to like, that of a Smithian group of small English shopkeeper proprietors, has been dead for over 100 years.  Capitalism itself killed it.

All in the name of "self-interest".

I'm a little curious, though, as to how you would propose such concentration of corporate power (economic, political and/or social) be prevented . . . . ?

I am not at all certain that it can be prevented in any society that is successfull. However it could be made less harmfull through legal means. If it was unprofitable to polute or cause suffering, I reckon such behaviour would stop (or at least be reduced drastically).

I completely missed responding the the comment you have bolded here, Stephen.  That Lenny seems to think that corporate governance is a consequence of capitalism shows me that he really doesn't understand how I am using the term.  He seems to think it has something to do with the interactions of various companies within a market.  Which, it doesn't. The Wikipedia entry on the subject is actually quite well-written and gives a fair treatment to the problems.  It, significantly, points out the  effect institutional investment has had on issues of governance.  Institutional investors have become more prominent as investing has become widely available to the general public. Including, ironically, union pension funds and the retirement savings of average workers.
 
Proceeding from his misunderstanding of the term, he asks a question that has nothing to with governance and everything to do with scope.  But, to that question you are right, there is nothing that could or should be done to prevent the increase in size of corporations. That is really just punishing the successful for being so.  In any case, increases in corporate size is often it's own punishment as, not unlike an obese gourmand(*), large companies become unwieldy and difficult to manuver. (Added in edit: size does become an issue of attention when it accompanies monopoly.  But that is a whole other topic.)  

It should not come as a surprise, then, that folks like Carl Icahn, can make obscene amounts of money by taking over companies and breaking them down into multiple, smaller companies.  I haven't read the book in probably 15 years, but Rand Araskog wrote The ITT Wars about his attempt to fend off a raid on the underperforming company. ITT was a conglomerate cut from the old cloth with multiple lines of unrelated businesses like hotels, telecommunication systems and services, and insurance, to name but three. I last read it before my formal business education and have always wanted to read it again with that perspective.  But, alas, biographies of Patrick Henry and Albert Gallatin await me.

(*) The picture that always comes to mind for me is Paul Prudhomme moving about on his Hoveround.

Date: 2007/07/22 08:32:10, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 22 2007,08:01)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,23:46)
And yet a tiny minority monopolizes most of the wealth.

Why is that?

Seriously, dude, you really need to sit in a few classes at a business school.      
Quote

Will they explain to me why a tiny minority continues to monopolize wealth?

And why?

Umm, Lenny, I have actually answered your question.  Not, of course, in the explicit detail you seem to need.  But, your continued misunderstanding of fairly basic concepts leaves me about as interested in debating you further as you are in debating creationists.

And, for much the same reason.

Date: 2007/07/22 12:54:00, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 22 2007,12:12)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 22 2007,08:32)
about as interested in debating you further

You're right -- there is no point in discussion.  After all, the interests of the employers and of the employees are simply not the same, and no amount of discussion or debate will alter that.  

I support their interests, and oppose yours.

Lenny, your ability to caricature those you disagree with reminds me of that of a certain haus-frau from flyover country. I don't reside on mahogany row and I can look at my benefits and know that but for the labor movement of the last century, I wouldn't have most of them.  But, I have also seen unions continue to fight the battles of the last century when it should have been obvious to anyone that the landscape had shifted.  And for what?  They weren't fighting for a principal, they were fighting for the sake of fighting. And that was a damn shame, because in the end, their membership wasn't served.
 
Quote

So the only "debate" I'm interested in having with employers is on the strike line and, eventually, at the barricades.

When all your dreams are realized and when the people can democratically elect company managers (cuz they do such a bang-up job electing local school boards, donchaknow), you'll start fighting them as soon as they fail to live up to your expectations, which ought to be in about a day or two.  Your fight isn't with capitalism per se, it is with power. Regardless of what form it comes in.  You been expelled from more parties than I know exist, isn't that right?

Date: 2007/07/22 14:35:40, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 22 2007,14:23)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 22 2007,12:54)
When all your dreams are realized and when the people can democratically elect company managers (cuz they do such a bang-up job electing local school boards, donchaknow),

Sorry you don't like democracy.  (shrug)

Oh, I like democracy just fine.  I am just amazed at your ability to, on the one hand, trust the people to vote according to your will on economic issues while, on the other hand, you dismiss them as clueless rubes for buying into the pseudo-scientific crap that the Discovery Institute serves up.

I just get this feeling that you are perpetually disappointed in people and you like that just fine because it means a never ending supply of people to fight.

Date: 2007/07/22 15:03:06, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 22 2007,14:55)
I'd be sort of curious, though, to know why you think a corporate management that is elected by the stockholders can do something that a corporate management that is elected by the population at large cannot do --- particularly if, as you seem to assert, we're all stockholders now anyway . . . ?

Actually, I am glad you asked. I wouldn't assume that the two have to be mutually exclusive.  It would be an interesting experiment in governance if the board of directors was not allowed to vote undeclared shares.  It doesn't resolve the issue of institutional investors acting against the interests of the collective small investors they purport to represent, as we saw in the recent hedge fund scandals. But, that is a different issue that I've never really taken the time to consider.

Date: 2007/07/22 15:12:11, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 22 2007,14:47)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 22 2007,12:54)
But, I have also seen unions continue to fight the battles of the last century when it should have been obvious to anyone that the landscape had shifted.  And for what?  They weren't fighting for a principal, they were fighting for the sake of fighting. And that was a damn shame, because in the end, their membership wasn't served.

BTW, back in the day, I've had that very same conversation with an awful lot of AFL-CIO union officials.  They, unlike the corporados, are still locked into the 19th century view of national economies. The corproados have already made national borders and national economies irrelevant.  I argued that if the labor movement was to mean anything, it HAD to become just as international as the corporados are --- we needed to organize everywhere they go, to put all their workers in the same union no matter WHAT country they were in, and make sure that every auto or computer worker in Brazil or Mexico or China was getting the VERY SAME WAGE that a worker in Michigan or Tennessee or Ohio was getting for doing the VERY SAME JOB.

Alas, the "unions" decided instead that Americans are more important than Mexican or Brazilians or Chinese or whatever.  The corporados "whipsawed" the unions, and the unions were utterly powerless to do anything about it.  We all paid the price for that.  It's why the US itself is turning into a Third World economy.

Oddly enough, I agree totally.  Lou Dobbs can complain all he wants about outsourcing and offshoring, but until such time that companies can no longer play arbitrage with labor markets, he is spitting into the wind.

Date: 2007/07/22 15:15:36, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 22 2007,15:10)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 22 2007,15:03)
Actually, I am glad you asked. I wouldn't assume that the two have to be mutually exclusive.  It would be an interesting experiment in governance if the board of directors was not allowed to vote undeclared shares.  It doesn't resolve the issue of institutional investors acting against the interests of the collective small investors they purport to represent, as we saw in the recent hedge fund scandals. But, that is a different issue that I've never really taken the time to consider.

In Germany, they have "co-determination" laws, which give voting representation on the board of directors to representatives from the unions and from the community at large.

Also oddly enough, I am not opposed to such arrangements. One aspect of corporate governance I despise is it's clubbiness.  It seems sometimes that CEOs all sit on each other's boards and, perhaps more importantly, compensation comittees.  No conflicts of interest there?  No sirree.

Date: 2007/07/23 12:47:34, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Kristine @ July 23 2007,12:24)
WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE! You have nothing to lose but your gains! Of course the union is you - and if you don't stand up, put your foot down, be willing to strike (and I was scared this time, folks, I was really nervous, but I ain't no scab, no sireee, if my union calls a strike I'm there with the placard and the communal potluck, and if I have to shimmy on the sidewalk for coins I'll do it), and able to articulate your plight firmly and respectfully to management, you may as well hang a yoke around your neck.

We did just that, and because of it, I'm getting a raise. Not the raise that we wanted, but the highest one I've ever gotten. And no concessions. We definitely made some gains - got a foot in the door in some areas - and I'm happy (and relieved). I love my workplace - and yes, managers are people.

No, we are not.   And now that I have moved on to a different project, I have a ziploc bag full of pesos that I don't need anymore. I ever do see you shimmying for coins on the picket line, your going to get them. Try paying the light bill with those.

BWAHAHAHA.  

{Twirls moustache}

{Kicks a little old lady trying to cross the street}

Date: 2007/07/23 14:34:54, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 23 2007,14:17)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 23 2007,12:47)
BWAHAHAHA.  

{Twirls moustache}

{Kicks a little old lady trying to cross the street}

You forgot to flourish your cape.

Quite right.  And, I'm off!!

Date: 2007/07/23 18:11:27, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ July 23 2007,17:47)
I don't know much about this 'nested hierarchy' business so I took a look at this page. It's a little complicated.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy

It isn't that hard, Steve.  See here, a family tree must have the wimminfolk on it, otherwise it don't make no sense.   The reason you are having a hard time with it is because you are a homo and don't get the biology of reproduction.

Date: 2007/07/24 08:11:29, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (k.e @ July 24 2007,07:11)
FTK like all Women just want their kids to get into heaven for free, it’s her little crusade. Poor girl seems to think if god is not there, the cosmic fabric that makes up the suspenders of disbelief would be rendered inelastic.

You would think, then, that she would be more willing to believe in the Kuiper Belt.

Date: 2007/07/24 08:34:39, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 24 2007,02:40)

2: Can U.S. companies sack workers on a legal strike and replace them?

Sort of an irrelevant aside:  By way of background, as a manager, I always try (and occasionally succeed) to remember that I don't have all the answers and listening to folks doing the jobs is always necessary for perspective and can often provide solutions not recognized by me.

Whenever my employer at the time approached contract negotiations, they surveyed the non-represented employees to determine what skills and knowledge each person had.  This was done in order to identify people to perform critical functions should there be a strike.  While filling out these strike duty surveys, it became obvious that I was only qualified to be a secretary.  And a damn poor one at that. A valuable, and humbling, realization.   ;)

Date: 2007/07/24 08:53:25, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 24 2007,08:49)
Come on, let's at least get the mythologies right... movie zombies eat brains, and the vampires suck blood. Mummies strangle,

Oh, sure. Next thing you will tell us is that they all evolved from a common, undead ancestor to fill those particular niches.

Date: 2007/07/24 09:23:23, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Kristine @ July 24 2007,09:10)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 24 2007,07:34)
While filling out these strike duty surveys, it became obvious that I was only qualified to be a secretary.  And a damn poor one at that. A valuable, and humbling, realization.   ;)

Waddaya mean, "only a secretary"? ;)

"Only" referred to my paucity of skills, not the nature of the position. Without getting into excurciating details, my employer, by the nature of it's business, had a large number of critical positions that needed to be manned.  Most involved fairly technical skills.  When filling out the survey, the only skill contained therein that I could match to was word processing.
   
Quote

Secretaries know everything. "It's the servant who see the master in his underwear." I used to open mail for the man who headed the Republican Party in Minnesota. (Alas, he is clean as a whistle. Nice guy too, damn him.) :)

In my career, I have pissed off alot of people.  It comes with the territory. But, I have always tried to stay on the good side of the secretaries.  On their birthdays,I always try to guess their ages about 7-8 years low.   ;)

Date: 2007/07/24 13:37:50, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:29)
The "set" at the top of Zachriel's "tree" is Abdullah. If you look at the diagram closely you will see only his name.

That "set" does NOT include all the other sets-> it does not include all male descendants.

Joe, please see the following definition provided by Franky:

 
Quote (franky172 @ July 24 2007,11:47)

I have defined the following:

D(x) = {s: s = x, or s is a male descendant of x}


If you set x="Abdullah" your definition of a nested heirarchy is exactly the same as Franky's and Zach's.

Date: 2007/07/24 14:11:06, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 24 2007,13:47)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....-128550

 
Quote
55

rrf

07/20/2007

12:11 pm
Thirdly, what else is there other than mutation?

A metaphorical touch of the finger of the telic entity.



It's "noodley appendage."

Bzzt.  Sorry,Richard, that is known as begging the question.  ID does not seek to identify the designer.  It may or may not be the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  It could be space aliens.  Although for DS sake hopefully not these space aliens:

Date: 2007/07/24 22:08:58, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 24 2007,20:57)
So the designer IS a space alien, huh Joe . . . . . ?

Of course he is.  They even have pictures of his space ship.

Date: 2007/07/25 13:58:27, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 25 2007,13:50)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ July 25 2007,13:40)
He can't even read to the end of the sentence!

Bob

Shit, Salvador at least would have had the sense to delete the second half of the sentence!

Speaking of Salvador, he said the following:
 
Quote
I'm....the dumb kid in my family.  I.....Like Ed Brayton...because....I....have a great....[]ass...


Hard to believe, I know, but it is right here.

Date: 2007/07/25 20:00:03, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 25 2007,15:25)
Incoming Tard Alert!

Sal breathlessly reveals his latest contribution, filed under "Advanced Creation Science".  
Quote
This morning, after much searching I may have found confirming evidence of a VERY VERY bold prediction of Barry Setterfield’s light speed decay theory. Light speed decay (CDK) theory predicts that we will see celestial objects move in slow motion (time dilation) depending on an equation calculated by Dr. Stephen Cheesman. For example, the degree of time dilation predicted when we start to look at objects at say about 30,000 light years is about 59, their physical motions will appear to be slowed down by factors of 59!.

In a survey of Visual Photometric Binary stars and Visually accessible Spectroscopic Binary stars, I have found confirming evidence of this time dilation! Astronmers have acknoweldged the anomaly and tried to explain away the fact that as one looks farther out from Earth there is an increase in population of slow visual Binary Stars (Stars which orbit one another), or apparently no binary stars at all. Actually, with extreme time dilation, binary stars will look frozen, and this is actually what we are seeing in globular clusters 30,000 light years away.

I have also asserted that there are only supposed eclipsing binaries detected by micro-lensing techniques which are not binaries at all.

I would welcome review of the current work on this subject as it would confirm:

1. Intelligent Design
2. Recent Special Creation

Visit www.YoungCosmosDiscussion.com

regards to everyone, especially my brethren,
Salvador

Shorter Sal:
Quote

This morning, after much....dilation....I have found....the anomaly....with extreme....globular clusters....I have also....detected....techniques which are not....welcome....to....my brethren...

Date: 2007/07/25 22:49:22, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (J-Dog @ July 25 2007,21:24)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 25 2007,20:00)
Shorter Sal:
 
Quote

This morning, after much....dilation....I have found....the anomaly....with extreme....globular clusters....I have also....detected....techniques which are not....welcome....to....my brethren...

Carlsonjock- WARNING!
YOU MAY HAVE EXCEEDED YOUR TARD QUOTIENT FOR THE DAY!

Your last two posts both contain quote mine examples consistant and worthy of Sal and UD.  

Your failure to take all necesssary precautions to prevent further exposure to Tard for the next hour may automatically confer DI Fellowship status upon you.

If you experience any dizziness or lust for flagellum or Denyse, please dial 911 and seek medical assitance immediately.

We would hate to lose you to the Dark Side, so take it easy, everything will be fine.

Relax.  Imitating Sal is just some light hearted fun.  Nothing dangerous about it at all. Now if I start, a la O'Leary, writing about myself in the first and third person in the same post, then we have a problem.

Hey!  Is that a flagellum in my pocket or is carlsonjok just happy to see you!

Oh Noes!!!!!!

Date: 2007/07/26 07:53:24, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 25 2007,23:15)
Carslonjok is a (bi)curious fella,
Who's posts here are much less than stellar,
You might think of course
that he's hung like a horse
He's not; It's a fracterial blagella!

There was a fellow named Hughes
Who shared at length his views
Although just a tard
He thought he was The Bard
And related to monkeys in zoos

Date: 2007/07/27 19:10:41, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (GCT @ July 27 2007,17:18)

It's a pre-banning.  I'm on that list as well.

What a slacker.  I got banned on this thread, where Davescot claimed any abiogenesis research was ID research.  I was actually surprised to get three comments posted, each containing a potshot.  I finally got banned with a simple
 
Quote
cjok just doesn’t get it and is no longer with us

The e.e. cummings flourish was nice, but a little derivative.  And I am pretty sure not accessible to the average UD poster.

Date: 2007/07/31 16:07:04, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Kristine @ July 31 2007,15:48)
Oh, now we're (I consider myself a secularist) "shooting ourselves in the foot". Is this the same foot that we're putting "in our mouths"? Is this the same mouth the location of which is where "the money" should also be put? Can we do that after we've "shot off our mouths" so much? I'm just wondering how many holes in his enemy Dembski can point out before he realizes that he's pointing at thin air. :)

Har Har Har.  You just don't like it when Dembski is being o(ri)fficious.

Date: 2007/07/31 18:46:59, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 31 2007,18:26)
It doesn't take a double doctorate to figure out that the "positive program" is still more "if evolution is false, then creation is true" negative argumentation.

Heck, a fair chunk of grade schoolers will follow that much philosophy talk. It didn't go anywhere in McLean, Edwards. or Kitzmiller. I don't know why these guys think that the bogus arguments that got hammered in court will seem any less bogus afterwards.

Because it is all they got.  And the only lesson they have ever taken away is that they didn't cover their tracks near enough. Thus, the only thing that ever seems to change between successive attempts is the level of obfuscation they employ.

Date: 2007/08/02 09:40:59, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 02 2007,09:30)
That's textbook bad reasoning.

Or, as Sal would say "Even Darwinists agree my reasoning on the subject belongs in textbooks."

Date: 2007/08/03 12:11:15, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Wow!  Look at this guy:
Quote
Quote
scordova wrote:
3. The Heckler claims his arguments were so powerful and could not be dealt with therefore the orthodoxy had to resort to Draconian measures

Or perhaps the Hecklers arguments were so powerful and could not be dealt with that the orthodoxy had to resort to Draconian measures. Tiggy raised some very interesting points that I was eager to see discussed. Your response was to edit, move/hide, and avoid questions. Very disappointing.
Quote

I think, "why the hell do I have to deal with such scum." It's better for my sanity to keep heckler out of my sight.

Sal, you put yourself out there in the public eye in the Evolution vs creation controversy. You speak in public, you blog in public, you even wade into public forums like Scienceblogs and the Sci Phi Show. You positively gush when someone acknowledges seeing you on C-SPAN. Now, all of a sudden, we are supposed to believe you are some sensitive flower that withers under heat? I don't buy it. The only difference as far as I can tell between this forum and others that you participate is that this is your forum where you can't walk away when the questions get too tough, but you can wield the tools of moderation to ensure that someone who disagrees with you doesn't get a fair hearing.

Date: 2007/08/03 18:54:57, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 03 2007,17:43)
If we look just at the text here, the idea that Christians believe the ACLU is attempting to remove God from the public  square is not only mainstream but probably undeniably true.  

Not that I care to get into an in-depth discussion, as that never went anywhere with AFDave, but it has been my experience that this type of statement is generally only advanced by:

a) Demagogues attempting to rile up the rabble by deliberately obfuscating the ACLUs position on Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause

b) the uninformed masses that buy the demagoguery lock, stock, and barrel.

Date: 2007/08/03 18:58:41, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Wife is off playing bunco, so this is on the agenda for tonight.  It is chilling down for that magical time when all the chores are done.

Date: 2007/08/03 21:30:26, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 03 2007,18:58)

Verdict:  Good stuff. It isn't the type of thing you drink at the end of a hot day of work, but it was definitely enjoyable.  Flavoring beer with spices is, to me, a difficult thing to do.  There is a real fine line between adding too little and too much. This seems to hit the right balance. You can taste the peppers without it overwhelming the flavor of the underlying beer.

Date: 2007/08/04 20:45:37, Link
Author: carlsonjok
A look into the Recycle Bin over at Young Cosmos offers some interesting, if disturbing, insights into the machinations taking place inside Sal's noggin.  He apparently commandeers people's login, and post the most juvenile of rants under their name, then may even follow up using other pseudonyms.  

I guess I understand why he doesn't have moderator duties over at UD.  He could actually make UD even more of a farce.

Date: 2007/08/05 06:13:04, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 05 2007,04:54)
Sal Notes:
Quote
Dr. Olofsson’s paper was one of the more respectable critiques I’ve seen unlike the trash I saw out of Elsberry and Shallit and Perakh.


Sal knows all about trash - YoungCosmos is full of it for starters!

Note that Sal does not say why the trash is trash. It just is.

Oh, give him time.  Sal, is just smarming up Oloffson at the moment.  As soon as Peter calls Sal on his BS, like he did with Kairosfocus, Sal will turn on him.  Or, alternately, Sal will change his tune if Dembski stomps his foot and petulantly complains that Oloffson doesn't understand the greatness of his work.

Date: 2007/08/06 15:17:25, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (heddle @ Aug. 06 2007,14:49)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 06 2007,14:08)
No, but the fact you invented NASCAR does.


Sorry, low blow, low blow.....

NASCAR rocks!  Much better than that effeminate F1 racing, where nobody ever passes for the lead.

Uh oh. No religious wars allowed here.

Date: 2007/08/07 09:58:05, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 07 2007,09:45)
If you were such a humongous idiot that you wanted to give these conmen $5,000 for special access to their defunct symposia, defunct workshops, and defunct journal, you would call their office  at 609-924-4424 and find that no one answers the phone.

Well, the office is a little cramped.



Maybe with your donation, they could afford an appropriate phone.

Date: 2007/08/07 17:36:42, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (GCT @ Aug. 07 2007,17:32)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 07 2007,18:20)
[That's what Denyse gets for casting her lot with a bunch of fundy doofuses who think Jesus is American.

Of course Jesus isn't American.  He's an illegal immigrant.  He just wants to be American, but we're actually too good for him, which is why he needs to be deported.

Baloney.  If that was true, the Bible would be written in Mexican.  But you just look at it, it is written in English (which is just a fancy word for 'merican).

Date: 2007/08/07 19:15:33, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 07 2007,18:59)
The miller lite chelada beer is extremely limey. I'm pleased.

Leave it to an American brewery to really f*** something up.  For a real michelada, here is a recipe.  It is best made with a dark lager like Negro Modelo or Indio.

Date: 2007/08/07 19:25:45, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 07 2007,19:19)
this is clearly not authentic. This is more like a Miller with about 2 tablespoons of lime juice added. Good, though.

I might have to try it.  This weekend the temperature is supposed to be near triple digits and, thanks to an unusually wet spring, I've got some serious brush clearing to do.  That sounds like just the thing to hit the spot after a hot day of work.

Date: 2007/08/09 18:08:22, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 09 2007,17:38)
Rad! Hey, guess what? That new "disco" music is really cool, now lets strap on our skates and hop in VMartins TIME MACHINE.

Dear lord alive.

Is there a resemblance? You be the judge.

Date: 2007/08/09 21:54:09, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 09 2007,21:31)
OTOH, I'm not sure that you need to see Topeka. A bit west of there, in the Flint Hills where I live, it is a tad more scenic however.

Off-topic, but did you ever read PrairyErth by William Least Heat-Moon?  If so, did you like it?  I got a good way through it once, but he has always been a writer I have struggled with. I was thinking of trying it again.

I drove through the Flint Hills once when heading back east for the holidays.  I really liked the area. I even found Emporia, of which Least Heat-Moon had nothing nice to say, to be a charming town.

Date: 2007/08/11 21:51:06, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 11 2007,21:09)
"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?"

How can someone so smart make such a dumb comment?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20226452/site/newsweek/from/RS.5/

Reminiscent of Michael "Belgian Endive" Dukakis.  He better pass on the Snoopy helmet if they ever offer to let him drive a tank.

Date: 2007/08/14 09:26:09, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 14 2007,09:01)
That's a shame. These closed communities tend to become echo-chambers. That being said, she may have a large readership, I don't know.

Given that there hasn't been a diet results entry (entree?) on her blog for a very long time, I suspect you are correct.

Date: 2007/08/14 14:46:06, Link
Author: carlsonjok
I really enjoy the show "Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives" on The Food Network.  On a recent show, they actually featured a place I have eaten at, The Triple XXX Family Restaurant, just down the hill from Purdue University in West Lafayette, IN. Seeing the Triple XXX (9 X's?) on TV gave me a craving for a Purvis Burger.  So, tonight for dinner, I am making one for dinner.  

What is a Purvis Burger, you might ask?  Well, it is described thusly:
 
Quote
The Duane Purvis All-American - A very special taste treat!
 
1/4 lb. of 100% ground sirloin served on a toasted sesame bun with melted cheese on top with lettuce, tomato, pickle, Spanish onion and French fries. Add thick creamy peanut butter on the lower deck and you're in for the touchdown!


That is right. Peanut butter on a hamburger.  I can hardly wait!

Date: 2007/08/15 06:40:16, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 14 2007,22:50)
   
Quote (Kristine @ Aug. 14 2007,23:22)
Oh, remember that the diet club folded abruptly when Prince Charming who apparently thought I wasn't reading suggested that the "Rubinesque [sic]" atheist in a crappily copied photo

Dave's spelling isn't his strong point - he meant to indicate that he is attracted to "Reubenesque" women, as in Paul Reubens, particularly in his Pee Wee character.  

So I don't think this had much to do with you, Kristine, in any of your loverly incarnations.

I think the idea of Ruebenesque women makes more sense.  I mean, seriously, Miss Yvonne and Dottie? HAWT!!!

Date: 2007/08/16 15:17:06, Link
Author: carlsonjok
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Hey! What is up with the hoo-hoos?  Did Joel Borofsky sign up?

Date: 2007/08/16 17:32:13, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Kristine @ Aug. 16 2007,17:21)
?
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 16 2007,14:17)
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]<br/><br/>Hey! What is up with the hoo-hoos? ?Did Joel Borofsky sign up?

I feel sexually harassed in an intimidating online environment and I'm going to sue.

Don't blame me. I wasn't the one that posted the picture. I was just wondering if everyone's favorite research assistant and teen culture pundit was in the house.

Date: 2007/08/16 18:29:35, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 16 2007,18:14)
The week's fare has been kind of boring. I'm training for a triathlon several months away and so I'm eating more sensibly. Lots of veggies and no booze during the week. To make up for these absurd strictures, I go hog wild on the weekend. I need suggestions for the weekend blowout. Anybody got any favorite dishes?

How about Mesquite Crusted & Marinated Pork Tenderloin?

Using a 2-3 lb tenderloin, it obviously makes alot, so you probably should invite company.

Date: 2007/08/17 11:04:01, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 17 2007,01:24)
Baylor, lord of the endarkenment:

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13256

Does anyone have the full text of the article?  I don't want to pay to read the whole thing and the free portion of the article cuts off right after the "Sternberging" of the Evolutionary Informatics Lab.

Date: 2007/08/17 11:17:22, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 17 2007,11:04)
?  
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 17 2007,10:46)
the Baylor lab is focusing on this!!!

Quote
the study of whether Darwinian processes like random mutation and natural selection can generate new information


I wonder about a study whether Dembskian processes like street theater and hand waving-ism can generate new information. ?I suspect it is too much CSI (complex-y sounding investigation).

According to Richard's link earlier
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13256
there is no longer any lab!

Well, you only saw the beginning of the article and your conclusion didn't match up with the articles title. So, I figured out how to read the article in it's entirety.Here is the money shot: ?Marks is free to resume work in the informatics lab on his own time. He is free to put up the website again so long as it includes a disclaimer that it does not represent Baylor's position.

[Editted to summarize rather than quote directly.]

Date: 2007/08/18 13:28:19, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 18 2007,12:43)

Whoa, Nelly! Baby got back!!!!

P.S. Lou - my condolences. I've been reading over at CHCB.

P.P.S. Not to change the subject, but what kind of sorry S.O.B. am I if I read CHCB, but not UDOJ?

Date: 2007/08/18 13:33:28, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Not sure if it means anything, but it looks to me like the extraneous question marks pop up when the text has two or more spaces in a row.

If nothing else, it would tell you who learned to type on an honest-to-goodness typewriter.

Date: 2007/08/19 03:43:14, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Rob @ Aug. 19 2007,00:15)
? ?  
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 17 2007,11:17)
Here is the money shot: Marks ?is free to resume work in the informatics lab on his own time. He is free to put up the website again so long as it includes a disclaimer that it does not represent Baylor's position.

[Editted to summarize rather than quote directly.]

Thanks for the info, carlsonjok. ?This is interesting, and not unexpected by those who were wondering why Baylor, after giving Dembski's Polyani Center the boot, would host this worthless project.

Dembski was apparently referring to this project when he said: ? ? ? ? ? ?
Quote
Dembski: Happy New Year to all UD regulars. I expect 2007 to be a bang-up year for ID. Here are three things in particular I?m looking forward to in the coming year:

? 1. A new ID friendly research center at a major university. (This is not merely an idle wish stay tuned.)

Apparently it is merely an idle wish. ?Dembski's "research center" devolved into a "lab", which apparently consists of Dembski, Marks, and two grad students. Their research consists of running MATLAB programs, probably on Marks's office computer or in a common computer lab. And now it turns out that the project isn't even affiliated with Baylor. A bang-up year for ID, indeed.

It is an odd situation. Given the reaction, I have to assume Baylor was not in on the deal and Marks opened the lab on his own initiative. This is all armchair politics, but it almost seems as if they were trying to recreate the other great victory of the ID movement: L'affaire de Sternberg, hoping to have Baylor either roll over or over-react and give the movement a new martyr(1). The solution reached on August 9, as it were, accomplished neither. Which may explain why there have been no posts on UD, replete with allusions to French history(2), about the matter.

(1) Speaking of martyrs,has there been any sightings of Guillermo Gonzalez or has he outlived his usefulness?

(2)  Either Waterloo or Joan of Arc might have been referred to. Although it seems as if the Baylor administration possessed at least some of the skills of a Talleyrand.

Date: 2007/08/21 18:53:32, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 21 2007,17:38)
Double Tard, with cheese.
?
Quote
I started my own blog and discussion forum and modeled the moderation policy based on UD.

UD is a trend setter. It deserves to be famous.

Salvador

To be honest, having watched both Dave and Sal wield the moderators sword, I have to say that Dave does it with far more style and flourish than Sal. Sal has all the subtlety and social skills of a 40 year old man still living with his mom.

Date: 2007/08/22 08:24:50, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Experience British Dining, or An American Gourmand in London

Date: 2007/08/25 19:06:50, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 25 2007,18:29)
Tonight, I bought some veal that was on sale,

Why, Steve, why?!?!?!?!?!?



EDIT:  Go with Schnitzel.

Date: 2007/08/26 20:39:25, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 26 2007,18:45)
We are having the kitchen renovated starting tomorrow, so we are looking at at least a month of microwave or restaurant food.

A month? Good googly moogly! I just finished a week without air conditioning and hot water due to a foundation repair and new HVAC install. I think I prefer my ordeal over being without a kitchen for a month.

On topic: Boulevard Bully Porter is not a real good choice for a drink when you dealing with the heat. The only thing that tasted good was ice cold Coca-Cola.

Date: 2007/08/27 09:53:00, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 27 2007,09:37)
Yes, Wesley ... you make yourself very clear. ?Very, very clear.

So, does anybody want to start a pool for guessing how long it will be before Dave puts a "Wesley Elsberry is still banning me" post up at his blog?

Date: 2007/08/27 14:57:58, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 27 2007,14:48)
I'm not sure I ever saw him use the word homo. Davescot's just this fat, slovenly old guy who like to brag about how he was a jarhead 40 years ago and marines are called Devil Dogs!!!!111 which he types with one hand while ripping open the case of twinkies from Sam's Club with the other. His desperate need to brag and relive imagined glories is ripe for abuse.

Come on, Steve, you need to try harder than that. Twinkies? What about:

Date: 2007/08/27 15:24:38, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 27 2007,15:16)
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 27 2007,15:08)
Joe is the Maytag Man. ?The Frigidaire Biologist. ?The Astrophysicist of the Deep Freeze. ?The Kitchen Muslim....

Really? ? He's a repairman? ?Fantastic.

Well, sure, in a manner. He works for General Electric, which does makes consumer appliances.  They also make jet engines, railroad locomotives, medical imaging equipment, and desalination plants to name a few.

Has Joe actually stated what he does service?

Date: 2007/08/28 19:59:15, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 28 2007,18:54)
One of the perks of living in urban California -- cheap, abundant, authentic, high quality Mexican restaurants. Tell me again why immigration is supposed to be such a bad thing?

Oklahoma is the same way. I have a little over a six mile drive to my favorite Mexican restaurant. The first four miles are country road and, in the final two miles, I have to directly pass three other Mexican restaurants and within a short detour to another four.

Around here, Mexican restaurants are like religion. Everyone has their favorite and is fiercely loyal to it. Of course, most everyone else is wrong, except those that agree with me.

Date: 2007/08/30 15:25:21, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Granville Sewell has a new vise strategy.



Die, Darwinista, Die!!!1!!1!!!

EDIT:  Darn you, Zachriel.  *shakes fist*   :angry:

Date: 2007/08/31 12:29:17, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 31 2007,12:16)
This is why they're getting crazier and crazier now. 'Darwinism' has been on its death bed for so many years now and ID has nothing to show for it. Nothing's any different.

I'm not quite dead yet!

Date: 2007/08/31 16:03:21, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (factician @ Aug. 31 2007,15:52)
May the Wedge of Truth be with you.

I thought they mostly pretended the Wedge Document didn't exist? ?Or do they have 2 Wedges?

/snicker

Why, yes they do. There is another Wedge being promoted by the founder of The International Coalition of Non-Religious ID Supporters.

Read more here.

Date: 2007/09/01 23:06:20, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Speaking of Sal, he gets spanked.

And how.

Date: 2007/09/02 08:44:26, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 02 2007,08:05)
Once, years ago, I wrote a letter in a professional context that I should never have sent. ?I learned a lot from that: in particular, I learned that some letters are best deleted rather than sent.

You would think that Dembski's "Waterloo" comment would have taught him the lesson: But nobody at UD seems to have any sense of self-restraint.

Sometimes I wonder if it has to do with their identification with a community that seems to value revelation over reason.  To that end,  every stupid bit of gutter humor (like farting judge animations and fake letters from university presidents) that pops into their fevered minds seems divinely inspired. Every apparent ally, even ID Pleasurians, are gifts from on high.  

Stopping to think about what they are doing, or whom they are allying themselves with is anathema, because to question such inspiration is an act of betrayal of their faith.

Date: 2007/09/02 15:01:35, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Fear not for WmAD.

His next opus, The Design of Life, is due out in September.

Date: 2007/09/03 06:59:03, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 03 2007,01:24)
UD is in dire need of some support right now and if they think even children can see right through them, they just might close UD.

Ah, don't worry. If that was true they would have shuttered that wacky, zany Overwhelmingevidence.com ages ago.  It is still a continuing enterprise. Why there was a comment and a blog post by Densey just the week before last.  It's da bomb!!

Date: 2007/09/03 19:14:51, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 03 2007,18:56)
?  
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 03 2007,16:12)
And even more bizarrely, Grandma Tard posts something for Dr. Dr. Dembski!

Have his posting privileges been revoked?

Yeah, but look at the dates... this Tard is aged. ?It does not go into the All New Tardariffic Happenings.

Actually, I suspect it does. Dr. Marks continued to collaborate with Dr. Dembski, and it wasn't too long after he hosted Dembski's Jesus Tomb Math paper that the lab's website went dark.

Another interesting bit of trivia http://www.evolutionaryinformatics.org is actually registered to Dembski, not Marks.



Date: 2007/09/05 10:11:18, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 05 2007,09:26)
?
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 05 2007,05:30)
P.S. Who's bringing the innocent babies for the cannibalistic sacrifice. No black babies this time. I only like the taste of white babies. Hail Satan.

Louis - I think your post should be moved to the Libations & Comestibles thread....

We could spend hours discussing the best sauces to use.

Typical nonsense I'd expect from a northerner. When properly barbequed, baby doesn't need sauce. The smoke provides all the flavor needed. Now if you want to have a real discussion, we could talk about using hickory versus mesquite wood.......

Date: 2007/09/05 13:13:37, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Leftfield @ Sep. 05 2007,12:47)
Not exactly on the level of "piranha," but I enjoyed the typo in this paragraph:
? ?
Quote
But, macroevolution, on the other hand, would have to provide evidence that the offspring of an animal or plant was able to evolve, for example, a different and improved set of vital organs that could be inherited. Despite many breading experiments trying to cause such changes, this has never been observed. Micro changes are trivial in comparison to the long-sought macro changes.

[Homer]
Mmmm, breaded piranha
[/Homer]
:)

Sounds like planning for the Church-Burning, Ebola Boys Annual Awards Banquet is well underway.

Entree choices are BBQ baby, breaded pirahna, or (for the vegetarian) an O'Leary Word Salad. Bar choices include old wine in new skins (decanted through the Explanatory Filter) and single malt scotch. For those that don't partake, there will be a selection of Disembodied Celestial Entity Seasonings teas.

Date: 2007/09/06 06:42:05, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 06 2007,06:33)
?
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 05 2007,21:43)
? ?  
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 05 2007,15:14)
What does a half developed tube look like anyway? A flat surface?

...FTK, if we were to find a "half evolved" something, how would we know what it was?

Wait a minute now. The horseshit FTK posts on this topic is indisputably half-assed. No one has any difficulty seeing that.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...."half-assed..."...would that be part of an evolutionary processs, ya know...a transitional...on the way to a "complete ass"???

I am surprised that you are not up to date on the relevant literature. This question has been answered definitively by Stone, Parker, et al. who have shown that evolution is working inexorably towards a monkey with 5 asses.

Date: 2007/09/07 11:39:27, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 07 2007,11:24)
?
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 07 2007,18:50)
I see that the speaker in the ceiling is still working. They should rip that thing out by the wires.

Maybe Bill should move to North Korea. He would fit right in. Everyone there fears the Dear Leader and must endure being force fed propaganda without the slightest murmur of descent....er I mean dissent.

This made me think of the NK News website, which has a random insult generator. WmAD and his merry band definitely need to get themselves one.

Date: 2007/09/07 12:25:23, Link
Author: carlsonjok
*runs in all willy-nilly and out of breath*

OMG!! OMG!! WTF!! OMG!!

There is new content over at Overwhelming Evidence! If we don't act fast, we'll lose a whole generation of children!!! How will we support our discredited theory!! What are we going to do? OMG!! OMG!11!! WTF!1!

Quote
In Memory of Dr. D. James Kennedy


Huh? You mean that isn't Jamie Kennedy, the actor and comedian? Really? Oh, okay.

Hey, look over there! A giant flagellum!!!!

*runs out door while no one looking*

Date: 2007/09/07 13:01:17, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 03 2007,20:55)
What the hell is the Lifeworks foundation anyway? ?A google search seems to bring it up mainly as a patron of the arts.

A commenter over at Telic Thoughts named JAllen seems to have found the answer.

Summary: A former Microsoft programmer named Brendan Cook is associated with the Discovery Institute funded Biologic Institute, and is also the President and sole employee of the Sammamish, WA based Lifeworks Foundation.

If one of you guys is JAllen: Good catch.

Date: 2007/09/07 19:48:59, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 07 2007,18:45)
   
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 07 2007,18:11)
Arden et al:

From Erv's Website:

http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/

EEEEWWWW! Trinity Baptist Elders and Dembski praying for you.. EEEWWWW!

I think this might even be sciencey enough for FTK!
(ERV - Watch out for a Mom type telling you your jeans are too tight, or to pull down your skirt, if you roll that way.)

Promise to keep us posted!  Dembski hisself!

Ah yes, another fine entry in the "ID is nothing like Creationism and has nothing to do with Jesus" sweepstakes!

Hmmmm... I think we need Carsonjok there for this, too.

OMFG! I am mainly here for the laughs. I don't actually know enough to ask an effective question. I would like to attend just to observe the good Dr. Dr.  One of my wife's friends is a grad student in biology. I'll have to ask if they are going to any of the campus events and see if I can tag along. My wife, who is a Christian, already looks askance at my hanging out with you godless heathens.  If I went with her friend, she might actually let me go.  

Of course, it is my one free weekend for a long time, and if the weather permits, I intend to burn a brush pile that has been accumulating since last year's drought.  That is a full day task and takes priority.  But, dang.......
 
Quote

Oh, by the way:
       
Quote
Trinity will be undertaking a very intense and strategic effort to present the gospel to the University of Oklahoma. God has given us incredible mission fields here in Norman with our proximity to a campus that welcomes thousands of students, many of whom have either never heard the gospel or have rejected the truth of the scriptures.


People in Oklahoma who have 'never heard the gospel'? ? ?  I don't think so. That's like Saudis who've never heard of the Koran.


We are talking Norman here. It is a little den of librul iniquity, what with the University and all.

Date: 2007/09/08 12:00:50, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 08 2007,11:08)
Anyone else going to watch England vs USA just starting now? I wonder if that's where Louis was going on holiday?

Edit: 21-3 at half-time. England played pretty poorly, so on this form they are hardly likely to end up winning the competition.

What sport are you talking about?

Not that it matters.  It is Saturday here in the States, which means college football.  And that is real football, not that lightweight football you play over across the pond.  Best of all OU vs. Miami is on.

Date: 2007/09/10 09:42:04, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 10 2007,09:21)
 
Quote

And in other news, whaddaya wanna bet Eugenie Scott can't install drywall?

I wouldn't take that bet. Genie seems remarkably handy, given the couple of times she's helped us move places.

She does bake a scrumptious lemon pie.

Surely, that justifies everything she says about anthropology in UD-logic, right?

*consults Table of Expertise in the Materialist Conspiracy Omnibus*

Nope, sorry.  Lemon pie only buys you credibility when it comes to Newtonian physics.  Now a killer key lime pie will get you both anthropology and organic chemistry. HTH.

Date: 2007/09/10 13:34:37, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 10 2007,13:21)
Quick, to the informatics lab, Tardman!
We should be able to see this extra, targeted protection, then...?

Umm, Richard, we've already dealt with the informatics lab.



I'm surprised you don't remember, as that is clearly you wielding the hammer sans pants.

Date: 2007/09/10 15:56:12, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Rob @ Sep. 10 2007,15:45)
   
Quote (factician @ Sep. 10 2007,14:52)
Denyse quivered:

         
Quote
They wouldn’t care if he won a Nobel Prize. It would be a huge embarrassment.

Look, it’s this simple, guys: They don’t want Marks around if there is any chance that he can demonstrate that Darwin was wrong.

Yeah, universities hate it when their professors win Nobel Prizes for successfully overturning established theories.  After Einstein disproved aspects of classical physics, no university in the world wanted him, and he had to settle for that backwater diploma mill, Princeton.

Well, duh.  I mean Princeton is the one place in New Jersey with a worse reputation than Newark.  Look at the reprobates that hang out there:


ISCID
William Dembski, Executive Director

66 Witherspoon Street, Suite 1800
Princeton, NJ 08542

Date: 2007/09/10 17:30:26, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (argystokes @ Sep. 10 2007,17:27)
Quote (Rob @ Sep. 10 2007,15:13)
I don't know what to make of this.  Tom English, a Dembski debunker and a member of the banned, is now an affiliate of the Evo Info Lab.  And Dembski still isn't listed.

I can't tell if Dembski is really off the project or not.  As of Sept. 7, he was still saying, "Bob and I are committed to doing good work and letting the results go where they will."  But if English is in and Dembski is out, I think the lab will be legitimate.  I don't think that English will put up with having his name attached to junk pseudoresearch.

This is a very surprising twist in this story.

IIRC, there are two Tom Englishes (Toms English?), one who is an ID supporter or maybe even a DI fellow. This caused a bit of confusion when Good Tom appeared on UD last year, with Salvador being very deferential until he figured it out.

How to type your Tom English.

It appears that this the Tom English that is associating with Dr. Marks is the same one that got banninated at Uncommon Descent last year.

Date: 2007/09/11 06:15:53, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 11 2007,01:47)
Quote

ISCID
William Dembski, Executive Director

66 Witherspoon Street, Suite 1800
Princeton, NJ 08542


He must be tiny to live in that "Suite"



<---------------actual size ------------------------->

Reminiscent of the Derek Zoolander Institute for Kids Who Don't Read So Good.

Date: 2007/09/11 08:22:43, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 11 2007,08:12)
Wasn't it  Robert Heilein who said god is a 12 year old boy with an Ant farm.

Actually, I think it was Gary Larson.

Date: 2007/09/11 11:07:42, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 11 2007,10:15)
I think it's time we offered Doc. Billy.A.D. Some professional advice.

No no no I thinks it's time he doctors BAD  billy device .....shut up Igor.

One: I suggest Billy A. D. gets hisself a new tailor. Yes yes I know .......some young girls will go for a guy in a cardigan knitted by his mother (or if she is dead .....his mother who morphed into his wife((but not his mistress))) but like fat free cold rice pudding some things should be banned on account of their juxtaposition to road kill, its is hard to tell which is more pathetic.

k.e, you must have missed the LOLcreationist fad when you were off in the bush.  Getting a good tailor would put a full stop to Dembski's scientific endeavors.



N.B.  I didn't create this.  Steve found it over at PZs.

Date: 2007/09/11 15:27:17, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 11 2007,15:15)
If you're going to shout across the cosmos, you might say more than "Hey!"

In contrast to what?  Beeming out cheesy old reruns? Can you imagine what that would lead to?

Date: 2007/09/13 05:45:20, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Hallelujah!  Global Warming is a myth!

This is basically a press release from the Hudson Institute, which was formed in 1961 by former members of the Rand Corporation.  The Source Watch article contains a list (from 2002) of its major funders. Many seem to be in the agricultural industry, but also includes ExxonMobil.

The press release notes that the book was funded by an individual, Wallace O. Sellers, without any corporate sponsors. One has to wonder if this is the same Wallace O. Sellers that sat, in recent years, on the board of directors of Natural Gas Services Group, which "manufactures, fabricates, sells, leases and services natural gas compressors that enhance the production of oil and gas wells."

Date: 2007/09/13 18:06:39, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 13 2007,16:38)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 13 2007,20:18)
 
Quote

I've been reading the bit on PT about "conservatives" and "liberals" and it's been getting on my nerves. Why do so many people think that liberal=left wing?


The terms don't mean the same things in Britain versus the US.

Well yes they do, it's just that the US has misapplied the term and it's stuck.

Just another step in our plan of complete cultural hegemony.  USA! USA! USA!

Who's your daddy now?!?!?1?11?one?

Date: 2007/09/13 20:33:56, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 13 2007,20:13)
I can has bring teh_sexi Hawt back? K bia.

HAR HAR. THIS IS YOU.

Date: 2007/09/14 11:27:58, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (factician @ Sep. 14 2007,11:10)
Quote (factician @ Sep. 14 2007,11:07)
 Doesn't that count as harrassment?

Of course, I mean that in the legal sense.  Is Billy setting hisself up to get sued?

Quick reverse lookups show that most of the numbers are publicly available. However, by my reckoning 4 of the numbers are unlisted.  And, get this,  one of the home numbers on Dembski's post is registered to a completely different person, at a completely different address, than the targetted regent.

I have to say that this is getting painful to watch.  That said, I am probably stll going to go and see his talk at OU on Monday night if more pressing matters don't intervene.

Date: 2007/09/14 13:13:14, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 14 2007,11:30)
Painful? It's delicious.

Yes, painful.  Oh, I'm all for a little schadenfruede when the arrogant get knocked down a peg or two. But, this goes beyond some well-deserved comeuppance.

Uncommon Descent into Madness shouldn't be a spectator sport.

Date: 2007/09/16 16:50:21, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 16 2007,12:40)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 16 2007,12:37)
They're busy reading the thousands of reports about the great Baylor scandal, so they don't have time to post anything.

Bob

They're still on the "first wave" of reports. This Story wont blow over instantly...

I can't help but be reminded of the Underpants Gnome's business plan from South Park:

1.  Gin up some press releases and blog posts and plant a story in a minor newspaper or two.
2.  ?
3.  Waterloo!

Date: 2007/09/16 21:56:21, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Tonight was a visit to the State Fair. On the menu was roasted corn on the cob, a gyro, deep fried macaroni and cheese, an elephant ear, and a deep fried Snickers Bar.  And fresh made root beer and Choc Beer to wash it down.

Further, if I am lucky, my new smoker should arrive tomorrow!!1!!11!one!!!

Date: 2007/09/17 21:33:51, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 17 2007,20:43)
Here's something new for you guys: Billy D. was giving an ID propaganda speech over at U. of Oklahoma, and during the Q&A session, an informant in the audience reports that he stated the following in response to a question about his ulterior religious motives:

For what it is worth, I did not attend the Dembski lecture at OU tonight.  In other news, I also didn't attend the Village People concert at the State Fair last week.  And, if you must know, for much the same reason.

Date: 2007/09/17 22:06:09, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,21:37)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 17 2007,21:33)
For what it is worth, I did not attend the Dembski lecture at OU tonight.  In other news, I also didn't attend the Village People concert at the State Fair last week.  And, if you must know, for much the same reason.

What, I'm confused, you didn't want to see Dembski wearing chaps or dressed like a construction worker??

Now that I would have paid to see.

But, to address your befuddlement, Dembski is past his sell-by date.  The only thing left for him is to get on the annual Zoo Tour circuit opening for Kansas and Styx.  My evening was spent locating a remote cooking thermometer for my new smoker that arrived today, cleaning stalls, feeding, and walking the pastures with my wife as she created a new honeydew list (14 items strong) for me to work on this week.

Date: 2007/09/18 05:30:28, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 17 2007,23:38)
Quote
It is a gay man's disease. The only way a regular person can catch it is if he/she sleeps with a homo.

Supersport, Christian Forums [Comments (39)] 2006-Nov-05



And to think of all the money I wasted for condoms at that brothel in Thailand!

Yes, but think of all the money you'll save not having to insist on a clean needle and screened blood at your next transfusion.

Date: 2007/09/18 20:21:55, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 18 2007,19:59)
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Sep. 18 2007,19:53)
FtK (via Blipey's link):
 
Quote
I've really got some reading to do before I get you on the couch.

Crikey, blipey, we were just kidding around with Lenny.  I hope FtK understands that!

Where is Lenny, BTW? He and Louis seem to have dropped off the face of the earth. Who else will write '*shrug*' and write semi-obscene anecdotes full of British in-joke references?

Lenny got tired of sparring with people who made no attempt to understand him and bailed. Louis is on holiday in the Greek Isles somewhere.

EDIT: RTH is going to be pissed when he finds out FtK is trying to get blipey on the couch.  Who has got teh sexi_hawt now?

Date: 2007/09/19 13:26:40, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,13:09)
....therefore evolution will happen quickly, purposefully, horizontally across the population.

Then why are there still monkeys?   ;)

Date: 2007/09/19 14:29:39, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,14:14)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 19 2007,13:26)
     
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,13:09)
....therefore evolution will happen quickly, purposefully, horizontally across the population.

Then why are there still monkeys?   ;)

because creatures can't change into something they aren't.  A worm, for example, could never change into a centipede because a centipede is not a worm with legs.   These two creatures are completely different.  What are the limits to change?   I don't know....that would be an excellent thing for science to experiment with...unfortunately, however, they never have....so who knows.  

Wow. The ark must have been crammed to the rafters then.  Unless Noah had some kind of "Honey, I Shrunk every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort" technology.  
 
Quote
A human, for example, if forced to live in or near the water, might be able to adapt to that new environment phenotypically -- but even if that were to happen, humans would still, and always be, humans.

But, what about a monkey living near water?

Date: 2007/09/19 15:11:25, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (Touchstone @ Sep. 19 2007,14:57)
I think I might understand this more if WmAD's  at least trying to hold up his end of the story about the Showdown and the OK Corral, and spinning out pages and pages on the subject (what's more current in the ID world than *that* encounter right now by way of interesting subjects to address?), but we get... copy-and-past from the Baylor student newpaper.

Relax, man. Dembski is busy getting ready for his next appearance.

Date: 2007/09/20 07:21:32, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,07:04)
This forum is pathetic.  Truly pathetic.  I ask you mental lightweights about mutations in my OP...never do I get a single answer....I asked about natural selection above, no answer again.  Instead all I get are insults.   Now reach down, grab your tiny, sorry excuse for manhood and answer my previous post about natural selection.

2 Days, 9.5 hours to move from OP to belligerency.  That has got to be a new record!  Someone needs to tell AFDave he has been bested.  SS, you da man!!

 
Quote
Why should I believe that natural selection causes evolution, (change over time) when it has been proven that individual internal adaptations cause change over time?


You shouldn't.  You are far smarter and have far better insights than the hundreds of thousands of working scientists that have studied this matter for the last couple hundred years.  Why are you wasting your time in a dingy backwater like ATBC casting pearls before such swine?  You need a wider platform if you are going to overturn all of modern science.

As for me, I'm running right out and finding a Baptist church to join. Oh, and I'm finally going to start studying for my real estate license too.  I want to stick it to those pinheaded so-called scientists with all their fancy book-larnin' and alphabet soup after their names!!

Date: 2007/09/20 08:40:46, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2007,08:32)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,08:29)
just curious......so who's worse...me or the afDave guy (or whatever his name is) you guys were talking about?  By the way, anyone know where he debates?

AFDave "debates" in the same style as you.

I.E not at all.

I would note one difference, and that is that AFDave emphasizes volume where Sporty emphasizes velocity.

Date: 2007/09/20 10:37:03, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (factician @ Sep. 20 2007,10:25)
Densy:

Quote
Anyone who thinks that the fact that girls are not as good as boys in math means that girls do not rule is obviously not in contact with many girls.


Ummm...  Huh?

Link

I think this is Granny Spice's way of saying "Girl Power!"

Date: 2007/09/20 14:26:12, Link
Author: carlsonjok
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 20 2007,13:54)
3.) Concerned that Ohio National Guard would start shooting again.

Ohio National Guard? Bah!  We once sent out the Oklahoma National Guard, accessorized with a tank, to deal with knuckle-headed Texans.