AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: iconofid

form_srcid: iconofid

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.211.231.221

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: iconofid

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2009/07/07 04:29:53, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (didymos @ July 06 2009,23:11)
He is!  Clivebaby's talking to Iconifid while Ike's in moderation limbo:
           
Quote

Clive Hayden

07/06/2009

10:37 pm

iconofid,

There is no bartering to be done here from your end, I’ll keep you in moderation until you apologize. And if you don’t apologize, well, it’s likely your following comments won’t see the light of day.


That's almost Davetardian.

(edited for gratuitous pronoun)


Yes, he was talking to me! And thanks to a comment he (Clive) made here:

Clive:
   
Quote
And secondly, at AtBC, I do find it odd that there is a discussion board dedicated to discussing another discussion board. We discuss ideas and science here, they discuss us there.


iconofid became aware of this thread, and antievolution.org has a new member.

Hi, folks!

Here's the ghost post that Clive was replying to:

     
Quote
Clive Hayden:

"iconofid,

I asked you a question. “You think that’s funny?” Either you answer me, and apologize to O’Leary if you do think it’s funny and retract it, or you retract it and apologize to O’Leary if you don’t."


You did indeed ask me a question, the first of two things I would have replied to you about, the other being this:

Clive: "They’re not spouting filth, nor being hypocritical. There is such a thing as righteous anger"

However, I first replied to "Lock", and discovered that I had been put in moderation. This meant that I could not continue any public discussion or debate with you, because you are the moderator, and I would have no way of knowing if my comments would appear on the site.

Things looked a little one sided.

So, if you'll reply to this post, and remove me from moderation, I will certainly answer both your question and the "righteous anger" point.


And here's my last little effort, which was wiped.

   
Quote
Clive Hayden.

"iconofid,

There is no bartering to be done here from your end, I’ll keep you in moderation until you apologize. And if you don’t apologize, well, it’s likely your following comments won’t see the light of day."


There's nothing to apologize for. All of my comments on this thread are well within the parameters you set for I.D. supporters.

I'm happy to discuss all of my posts in detail with you in public, and to sort out any perceived problems that might relate to subjective interpretations on your part.

If O'Leary thinks anything in my posts is in any way below her own standards and those of "girlontheright", I'd be happy to debate the point with her, and confident of winning that debate.

As this presumably means permanent moderation of iconofid, I think you should inform Mr. Lock of the fact that, under these circumstances, I can't really be expected to comment on his commendably polite but highly controversial reply to my last published comment.



:D  So, permanent "moderation" for iconofid, then.

The name, BTW, is icon of id, and is inspired by the highly unrealistic schematic on the front of U.D.

If Mr. Jonathan Wells wants diagrams of embryos to be realistic, then portrayals of flagella should surely be so also.  :)

Date: 2009/07/07 07:36:32, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 07 2009,04:56)
Welcome! I've read much of your work in the tardmines of TT ! Great job!

Cheers, OldMan. I don't know about "work". I find U.D. very entertaining, to be honest!

Date: 2009/07/07 07:54:48, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 07 2009,07:16)
iconofid

welcome.  i am a huge fan.  i assumed you were here, already.  i could never have imagined that you were a solitaire, slaying T.A.R.D. alone, and did not know of the brotherhood of dark materialist forces that conspire, here, to rid the world of truth and light and baby animals.

i am glad that clive,baby has provided a beacon to steer the future sock army home to Mordor.

Thanks.

I knew about Panda's thumb, and have read a few articles on the site, but hadn't looked at this forum in detail.

Date: 2010/07/24 08:21:13, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (Maya @ July 23 2010,22:24)
It's nice to be appreciated, guys.

;-)


I found a nice picture of Clive with you guys.

Date: 2010/07/31 04:48:49, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (MichaelJ @ July 31 2010,00:52)
Is it just me of is Cornelius Hunter getting crankier. Quoth Corny


"Good point, maybe they're just insane."


I can imagine the spittle dribbling through his beard when he wrote that.


Linky

Bornagain77 actually disagrees with Cornelius, and gives us some hard scientific analysis:

"Dr. Hunter, I don't think the authors are intentionally lying, or that they are insane, but as the title of your post "Blind Guides" says, I believe they may be truly blind to even a small glimpse of "The Greatness of Our God",,,

The Greatness of Our God - Hillsong Live
http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=02bf2dc3145ca1d885bd

The Greatness of Our God - Lyrics
Give me eyes to see
More of who You are
May what I behold
Still my anxious heart

Take what I have known
And break it all apart
You my God are greater still

No sky contains
No doubt restrains
All You are
The greatness of our God

I spend my life to know
And I'm far from home
To all You are
The greatness of our God

Give me grace to see
Beyond this moment here
To believe that there

Is nothing left to fear
That You alone are high above it all
You my God are greater still

And there is nothing
That can ever separate us
There is nothing that can ever

Separate if from Your love
No life no death of this I am convinced
You my God are greater still
http://www.songlyrics.com/hillson...."."

So, that explains why the authors think a series of fossils is evidence for the fact of macro-evolution. Metaphysics, as Cornelius would say, combined with their failure to listen to corny, crappy religious songs.

Date: 2010/07/31 10:56:13, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (Maya @ July 31 2010,09:27)
Gordon makes a testable (and incivil) claim:
     
Quote
If your pictures looked a lot like the Haeckel pictures, they were probably not photographs, but airbrush rendered, masked images; or the digital equivalent.

San Antonio Rose calls him on it (civilly):
     
Quote
They were definitely photographs of embryos that showed that there are alot of similarities between different species. And they did look very similar.

and
     
Quote
Is this the time that someone could tell me what those differences are? I’ve asked like 4 times now and I have been ignored all along. The photos in my text beek make the embroyos look very similar. What are the differences that the Darwinists are hiding?

Does anyone have a link to the photo in the Dragonfly book to help out Rose?

Are the odds that Gordon will apologize for suggesting that Miller and Levine manipulated their photos to deceive their readers within the Universal Probability Bound?


Here's what Miller and Levine have to say. They rewrote the page in 1998 to include accurate drawings from detailed photomicrographs.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html

Date: 2011/06/23 18:18:38, Link
Author: iconofid
For Zachriel:

Ode to Tard (A lament)

Some say the tard today is not
The treasured tard of yesteryears,
That the golden age of tard is past,
Like the music of the spheres.*

When Scott strode tall in days of yore
The longest thread would seldom bore
"Now 'tis just News, and we are weary
Of mangled English from O'leary

Could Stephen B's philosophy
Perhaps persuade him not to be?
"I cannot think, therefore I'm not"
Should be the point where he has got

And now as blogger, Gordon's in
Indignant at materialist sin
Strawmen drown in ad hominem
Stardom in Tarddom for Lewontin

Can anyone count the FSCI
In just one GEM of TKI?
Is Gordy beyond the probability bound?
Is he immaterial or just mentally unsound?

Is JohnnyB StephenB's little brother?
If parents spawned one, would they try for another?
Has BornAgain been born at least once too much?
Has Dembski lost that Newtonian touch?

Some say the tard today is not
The treasured tard of yesteryears
I say that present tards are but
A shadow of their former peers

*First verse © Zachriel





Date: 2011/07/16 06:08:47, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 15 2011,17:59)
 
Quote (Tom Ames @ July 15 2011,18:41)
   
Quote (KCdgw @ July 15 2011,14:41)
     
Quote (Seversky @ July 15 2011,07:54)
     
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,23:10)
       
Quote (Cubist @ July 14 2011,21:44)
       
Quote (Henry J @ July 14 2011,20:40)
         
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,19:37)
         
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 14 2011,20:15)
           
Quote (sledgehammer @ July 14 2011,18:30)
             
Quote (noncarborundum @ July 14 2011,16:18)
               
Quote (keiths @ July 14 2011,18:01)
                 
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 14 2011,14:22)
                     
Quote (JohnW @ July 14 2011,15:55)
                     
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,13:50)
                       
Quote (damitall @ July 14 2011,16:43)
                       
Quote (Freddie @ July 14 2011,14:48)
                         
Quote (keiths @ July 14 2011,14:05)
                         
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,04:45)
Unpleasant Blowhard, wordsmith:
                           
Quote
It seems as though you asked for an operational definition, then got one, then later found out what kind of dynamic structure would be required for such a phenomenon to exist, and have since gone on a rant to eviscerate yourself from the position you are in.

Apparently, it wasn't clear to her what his argument entrails.

That's my gut feeling as well.

Is that colon intentional?

I hope there's not going to be another nested pun-fest. I couldn't stomach that

(Here incorporate AtBC policy on nested puns as an appendix to the above.)

That would be quite a tract.

I villi think this is not a good idea.

Butt colitis get on with it.

My reflux is not to ruminate on this tripe.

Is this the right time to point out that the ID folks should spend less of their time in theorizin' and more intestine?

Maybe we should spleen that to them.

Bile means keep on with the alimentary witticisms. This must be that polyp fiction people speak of. Don't let it get too serosa, though.

Just duodenum others as you would have them duodenum you.

Maybe at this point we should liver be?

Naah, we just need some authoritative advice on how to deal with it. I'm sure the Army can supply a G.I. Tract on the subject.

That's it? Shit.

That's right.  What he means is the Army can supply a Jack Shit Tract - rather than a Jack Chick Tract - because that's what they really know about anything.

What gall.

I don't find this conversation at all humorous.

I don't know about you, but it boweled me over.

Me too. But I find it all rather hard to digest.

Date: 2011/07/16 06:37:12, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (BillB @ July 16 2011,06:29)
 
Quote (iconofid @ July 16 2011,12:08)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 15 2011,17:59)
     
Quote (Tom Ames @ July 15 2011,18:41)
       
Quote (KCdgw @ July 15 2011,14:41)
         
Quote (Seversky @ July 15 2011,07:54)
         
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,23:10)
           
Quote (Cubist @ July 14 2011,21:44)
           
Quote (Henry J @ July 14 2011,20:40)
             
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,19:37)
             
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 14 2011,20:15)
               
Quote (sledgehammer @ July 14 2011,18:30)
                 
Quote (noncarborundum @ July 14 2011,16:18)
                   
Quote (keiths @ July 14 2011,18:01)
                     
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 14 2011,14:22)
                         
Quote (JohnW @ July 14 2011,15:55)
                         
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,13:50)
                           
Quote (damitall @ July 14 2011,16:43)
                           
Quote (Freddie @ July 14 2011,14:48)
                             
Quote (keiths @ July 14 2011,14:05)
                             
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,04:45)
Unpleasant Blowhard, wordsmith:
                               
Quote
It seems as though you asked for an operational definition, then got one, then later found out what kind of dynamic structure would be required for such a phenomenon to exist, and have since gone on a rant to eviscerate yourself from the position you are in.

Apparently, it wasn't clear to her what his argument entrails.

That's my gut feeling as well.

Is that colon intentional?

I hope there's not going to be another nested pun-fest. I couldn't stomach that

(Here incorporate AtBC policy on nested puns as an appendix to the above.)

That would be quite a tract.

I villi think this is not a good idea.

Butt colitis get on with it.

My reflux is not to ruminate on this tripe.

Is this the right time to point out that the ID folks should spend less of their time in theorizin' and more intestine?

Maybe we should spleen that to them.

Bile means keep on with the alimentary witticisms. This must be that polyp fiction people speak of. Don't let it get too serosa, though.

Just duodenum others as you would have them duodenum you.

Maybe at this point we should liver be?

Naah, we just need some authoritative advice on how to deal with it. I'm sure the Army can supply a G.I. Tract on the subject.

That's it? Shit.

That's right.  What he means is the Army can supply a Jack Shit Tract - rather than a Jack Chick Tract - because that's what they really know about anything.

What gall.

I don't find this conversation at all humorous.

I don't know about you, but it boweled me over.

Me too. But I find it all rather hard to digest.

Pfft. I see that my own comment on this got skipped over. I'm gutted.

You don't need to get anal about it

Date: 2011/07/16 07:15:56, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 16 2011,06:54)
 
Quote (damitall @ July 16 2011,07:42)
 
Quote (iconofid @ July 16 2011,06:37)
   
Quote (BillB @ July 16 2011,06:29)
     
Quote (iconofid @ July 16 2011,12:08)
       
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 15 2011,17:59)
         
Quote (Tom Ames @ July 15 2011,18:41)
             
Quote (KCdgw @ July 15 2011,14:41)
             
Quote (Seversky @ July 15 2011,07:54)
               
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,23:10)
               
Quote (Cubist @ July 14 2011,21:44)
                 
Quote (Henry J @ July 14 2011,20:40)
                 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,19:37)
                   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 14 2011,20:15)
                     
Quote (sledgehammer @ July 14 2011,18:30)
                     
Quote (noncarborundum @ July 14 2011,16:18)
                         
Quote (keiths @ July 14 2011,18:01)
                           
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 14 2011,14:22)
                             
Quote (JohnW @ July 14 2011,15:55)
                               
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,13:50)
                               
Quote (damitall @ July 14 2011,16:43)
                                 
Quote (Freddie @ July 14 2011,14:48)
                                 
Quote (keiths @ July 14 2011,14:05)
                                   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,04:45)
Unpleasant Blowhard, wordsmith:
                                   
Quote
It seems as though you asked for an operational definition, then got one, then later found out what kind of dynamic structure would be required for such a phenomenon to exist, and have since gone on a rant to eviscerate yourself from the position you are in.

Apparently, it wasn't clear to her what his argument entrails.

That's my gut feeling as well.

Is that colon intentional?

I hope there's not going to be another nested pun-fest. I couldn't stomach that

(Here incorporate AtBC policy on nested puns as an appendix to the above.)

That would be quite a tract.

I villi think this is not a good idea.

Butt colitis get on with it.

My reflux is not to ruminate on this tripe.

Is this the right time to point out that the ID folks should spend less of their time in theorizin' and more intestine?

Maybe we should spleen that to them.

Bile means keep on with the alimentary witticisms. This must be that polyp fiction people speak of. Don't let it get too serosa, though.

Just duodenum others as you would have them duodenum you.

Maybe at this point we should liver be?

Naah, we just need some authoritative advice on how to deal with it. I'm sure the Army can supply a G.I. Tract on the subject.

That's it? Shit.

That's right.  What he means is the Army can supply a Jack Shit Tract - rather than a Jack Chick Tract - because that's what they really know about anything.

What gall.

I don't find this conversation at all humorous.

I don't know about you, but it boweled me over.

Me too. But I find it all rather hard to digest.

Pfft. I see that my own comment on this got skipped over. I'm gutted.

You don't need to get anal about it

I thought there were strict forum rules about this sort of thing. But I see you've rectum

Don't be an ass. This isn't Sunday stool. (Oh, how will we ever eviscerate ourselves from this pun cascade?)

It's got its own omentum

Date: 2011/07/17 06:52:24, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (utidjian @ July 17 2011,06:20)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ July 16 2011,21:31)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 16 2011,17:24)
I think we broke it.  I'm on a 19" widescreen and I still can't see the fist 4 or 5 posts in the stream.

Ah.  Then our work here is dung.

And sealed with mucous.

Excretions eh? Urine for a long one, and it'll end in tears.

Date: 2011/07/17 07:43:19, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (k.e.. @ July 17 2011,07:06)
 
Quote (iconofid @ July 17 2011,14:52)
 
Quote (utidjian @ July 17 2011,06:20)
     
Quote (noncarborundum @ July 16 2011,21:31)
     
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 16 2011,17:24)
I think we broke it.  I'm on a 19" widescreen and I still can't see the fist 4 or 5 posts in the stream.

Ah.  Then our work here is dung.

And sealed with mucous.

Excretions eh? Urine for a long one, and it'll end in tears.

You may be thin skinned but I'm flushed with hide.

'Snot my fault I'm thin skinned.

Date: 2011/07/22 06:01:19, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (Badger3k @ July 21 2011,19:26)
   
Quote (Patrick @ July 21 2011,18:16)
     
Quote (Badger3k @ July 21 2011,19:08)
       
Quote (Patrick @ July 21 2011,17:38)
       
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2011,16:53)
Recordkeeping the ID Way.

Bachmann is a little on the sane side for Barry, isn't she?

Well, that depends on whether she is having her migraines with auras, or talking to her exorcist.  

I think I know what happened - Bully was trying to calculate some FSCI on those donations, and the numbers didn't add up, so he decided not to list them - it could have been a false positive, after all, so why report them as donations?

Maybe he let Joe do the counting.  There was no mention of videos or long-winded screeds, so it wasn't Batshit of Gordo.

Many Individual Conservatives Helping Elect Leaders Everywhere

I think they may have let kairosfocus help with the name.

I don't know - there's no mention of Lewontin in that title.

many INdividual cONservaTives helping elect LEaders everyWhere

It helps if you're familiar with advanced FSCI cipher.

Date: 2012/02/16 15:16:59, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 14 2012,14:51)
Barry's latest (emphasis added):
       
Quote
The law of non-contradiction (“LNC”) states that for any proposition “A,” A cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same formal relation.

The existence of the LNC is the very basis of all argumentation, and anyone who denies it also denies meaning, order, truth and logic. For obvious reasons, therefore, it is not only useless but also affirmatively harmful to the search for truth to argue with someone who refuses to admit unambiguously the LNC. Arguing with a person who denies the basis for argument is self-defeating and can lead only to confusion. Only a fool or a charlatan denies the LNC, and this site will not be a platform from which fools and charlatans will be allowed to spew their noxious inanities.

For that reason, I am today announcing a new moderation policy at UD. At any time the moderator reserves the right to ask the following question to any person who would comment or continue to comment on this site: “Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?” The answer to this question is either “yes” or “no.” If the person gives any answer other than the single word “no,” he or she will immediately be deemed not worth arguing with and therefore banned from this site.

We will start with Petrushka to demonstrate the application of the policy. Petrushka, can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?

My opinion: bizarre.


I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet because I'm replying to a post on page 98 of the thread, but Barry has just denied the existence of an omnipotent God. He has also effectively banned anyone who believes in such a God from defending its ability to make the moon simultaneously existent and non-existent.

I'm banned from U.D., but had I been Petrushka, I'd have relished pointing this out.

Ignoring the physics for a moment, the knife could be stuck in this way:

"Only someone who believes in an omnipotent god could answer yes to that. And who believes in miracles these days?"

I wonder if this has occurred to any of the god squad at U.D.

Does anyone with a surviving sock want to make the point?

Date: 2012/02/16 16:21:59, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 16 2012,15:44)
 
Quote (iconofid @ Feb. 16 2012,15:16)
   
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 14 2012,14:51)
Barry's latest (emphasis added):
             
Quote
The law of non-contradiction (“LNC”) states that for any proposition “A,” A cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same formal relation.

The existence of the LNC is the very basis of all argumentation, and anyone who denies it also denies meaning, order, truth and logic. For obvious reasons, therefore, it is not only useless but also affirmatively harmful to the search for truth to argue with someone who refuses to admit unambiguously the LNC. Arguing with a person who denies the basis for argument is self-defeating and can lead only to confusion. Only a fool or a charlatan denies the LNC, and this site will not be a platform from which fools and charlatans will be allowed to spew their noxious inanities.

For that reason, I am today announcing a new moderation policy at UD. At any time the moderator reserves the right to ask the following question to any person who would comment or continue to comment on this site: “Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?” The answer to this question is either “yes” or “no.” If the person gives any answer other than the single word “no,” he or she will immediately be deemed not worth arguing with and therefore banned from this site.

We will start with Petrushka to demonstrate the application of the policy. Petrushka, can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?

My opinion: bizarre.


I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet because I'm replying to a post on page 98 of the thread, but Barry has just denied the existence of an omnipotent God. He has also effectively banned anyone who believes in such a God from defending its ability to make the moon simultaneously existent and non-existent.

I'm banned from U.D., but had I been Petrushka, I'd have relished pointing this out.

Ignoring the physics for a moment, the knife could be stuck in this way:

"Only someone who believes in an omnipotent god could answer yes to that. And who believes in miracles these days?"

I wonder if this has occurred to any of the god squad at U.D.

Does anyone with a surviving sock want to make the point?

Hi iconofid,

Orthodox Christianity doesn't conceive of "omnipotent" in ways that allow self-contradictory propositions.  They just laugh, and with some warrant, when you ask if "God can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it", or "make a square circle". Even (especially) God is not potent in that way, because it's not a potency at all, but instead a conceptual error in the asking of the question.

An omnipotent God would not be able to make a moon exist and not-exist at the same time, and in the same (classical, we must note) sense. That's a contradiction in terms, rather than an ability or a potency. "No be able" is a bit of a language trick we play on our selves there,  because "make a square circle" does not resolve against "able" or "unable".

Is it a contradiction in a non-classical world?

Date: 2012/02/16 18:13:06, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 16 2012,17:00)
 
Quote (iconofid @ Feb. 16 2012,16:21)
     
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 16 2012,15:44)

An omnipotent God would not be able to make a moon exist and not-exist at the same time, and in the same (classical, we must note) sense. That's a contradiction in terms, rather than an ability or a potency. "No be able" is a bit of a language trick we play on our selves there,  because "make a square circle" does not resolve against "able" or "unable".

Is it a contradiction in a non-classical world?

I don't think the formulation is such that you have established meaning for "contradiction" yet. I may be wrong, I think your two states "exist" and "non-exist" for God are not operationally defined and so, there isn't any clear semantics underwriting the term "contradiction" there.

An example may be helpful. If, in an experiment, a supercooled membrane of some kind is set into superposition such that the membrane is simultaneously, "vibrating and not vibrating at the same time, and in the same sense", that is a contradiction only insofar as we can establish what "vibrating" and "not vibrating" mean, and tie both of those meanings to our observations. To the extent we can empirically identify both states (with the grounded meanings involved for "vibrating" and "not vibrating), at the same time, for the same membrane, you have at least an apparent contradiction, or a physical phenomenon that is not well modeled with the classical understanding of "vibrating" and "not vibration" being logical (exclusive) negations of each other.

With God "existing and not-existing at the same time, and same sense", you're pretty much hosed from the get go. The existence of God is a non-starter -- what does that mean? It isn't amenable to descriptions in natural, observable characteristics like "vibrating membrane". As far as I can see, it's not meaningful at all, a term used all the time that conceptually signifies nothing.

Until your terms you use as the predicate for any putative contradiction (or not) are more clearly defined, and grounded in meanings and concepts that can actually support one value negating the other, I think you just don't have anything to work with.

"Not even true/false",  one might say.


We seem to have gone from god making the moon both exist and not exist at the same time, to god both existing and not existing at the same time (which is an interesting idea). I'm not suggesting that a god can exist myself, but looking at the suggestion that god could play around with the state of the moon from the POV of believers.

Let's look at your analogy. Why, from the point of view of Christians, can't their god make the moon both vibrate and not vibrate at the same time? That would seem to be sufficient to drive our Barry crazy, because he would certainly see it as incompatible with the LNC. Can it be argued that there are laws that override god's choices about the nature of the physical world he has created?

I certainly think it might be worth someone suggesting it on U.D. just to see what happens (I'm banned, as I mentioned above, and I see you've now joined the club - welcome).

Date: 2012/02/21 06:11:22, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 19 2012,08:38)
 
Quote (tsig @ Feb. 19 2012,09:03)
   
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 16 2012,15:44)
   
Quote (iconofid @ Feb. 16 2012,15:16)
       
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 14 2012,14:51)
Barry's latest (emphasis added):
               
Quote
The law of non-contradiction (“LNC”) states that for any proposition “A,” A cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same formal relation.

The existence of the LNC is the very basis of all argumentation, and anyone who denies it also denies meaning, order, truth and logic. For obvious reasons, therefore, it is not only useless but also affirmatively harmful to the search for truth to argue with someone who refuses to admit unambiguously the LNC. Arguing with a person who denies the basis for argument is self-defeating and can lead only to confusion. Only a fool or a charlatan denies the LNC, and this site will not be a platform from which fools and charlatans will be allowed to spew their noxious inanities.

For that reason, I am today announcing a new moderation policy at UD. At any time the moderator reserves the right to ask the following question to any person who would comment or continue to comment on this site: “Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?” The answer to this question is either “yes” or “no.” If the person gives any answer other than the single word “no,” he or she will immediately be deemed not worth arguing with and therefore banned from this site.

We will start with Petrushka to demonstrate the application of the policy. Petrushka, can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?

My opinion: bizarre.


I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet because I'm replying to a post on page 98 of the thread, but Barry has just denied the existence of an omnipotent God. He has also effectively banned anyone who believes in such a God from defending its ability to make the moon simultaneously existent and non-existent.

I'm banned from U.D., but had I been Petrushka, I'd have relished pointing this out.

Ignoring the physics for a moment, the knife could be stuck in this way:

"Only someone who believes in an omnipotent god could answer yes to that. And who believes in miracles these days?"

I wonder if this has occurred to any of the god squad at U.D.

Does anyone with a surviving sock want to make the point?

Hi iconofid,

Orthodox Christianity doesn't conceive of "omnipotent" in ways that allow self-contradictory propositions.  They just laugh, and with some warrant, when you ask if "God can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it", or "make a square circle". Even (especially) God is not potent in that way, because it's not a potency at all, but instead a conceptual error in the asking of the question.

An omnipotent God would not be able to make a moon exist and not-exist at the same time, and in the same (classical, we must note) sense. That's a contradiction in terms, rather than an ability or a potency. "No be able" is a bit of a language trick we play on our selves there,  because "make a square circle" does not resolve against "able" or "unable".

If we follow that line of logic then all miracles are impossible.

Indeed. Someone is playing language games, but it isn't iconofid.

If Yahweh (or any other god) "...is not potent in that way", then he is not in fact omnipotent.

If Barry's (and StephenB's) God is the uncaused cause of everything, that should include the reality in which the law of non-contradiction applies. He should only be constrained by the law if it is part of a greater reality that he did not create and does not control.

Barry cannot claim that it is impossible for the moon to both exist and not exist at the same time without placing limitations on his God's omnipotent miraculous capabilities.

This is not on quite the same level as questioning God's omnipotence by asking if he himself could both exist and not exist at the same time, or whether he could create a rock too heavy for himself to lift. I'ts just asking whether or not he can miraculously alter the reality he has created.

Can Barry claim to know that the moon scenario is beyond the capabilities of his god, and therefore impossible? Is Barry omniscient?

Shouldn't this be discussed at U.D., where there might be people who believe that God can do whatever he wills, and isn't constrained by a reality greater than himself?

That last is, I think, a commonly held belief amongst Christians.

Date: 2012/03/06 00:12:20, Link
Author: iconofid
I think it's the right time for everyone who hasn't been banned to stop posting at U.D.

It would be nice watching the "broad church" members arguing amongst themselves, which would be the inevitable result. It would also be nice to see DeNews O'Leary denied a platform with any significant traffic, and to see how she reacts.

Also, this would help shift the discussion to Elizabeth's ban free blog, which allows both I.D.ists and their opponents to start threads.

Let's kill U.D.

The fun side of this thread could still be had on a "Skeptical Zone" peanut gallery.

Date: 2012/03/06 14:07:57, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 06 2012,02:33)
   
Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 06 2012,02:02)
Cool graphs. So if they maintain 30 comments per day then the total for March would be 930 which would make it the lowest month since 2008.


Thanks.

Yes, great graphs. Thanks for putting in the work.

While the great increase in 2011 posts is entirely due to DeNews, they won't increase the comments. That's where we see the Liddle effect you mentioned. The first three months of 2011 are all below the peak months of 2010. Lizzie arrives in April, and from April through 'til November every single month out performs the 2010 peaks easily. Each of her comments probably inspires several replies, and the Bornagain/Kairosfocus duo's graph lines have orgasms over her output.

In December, she virtually stops posting, and we're straight back to below the 2010 peaks. In January and February (until the Big Bann), Lizzie's back on form, and the comments back above 2010 peaks.

This is what I sensed, and why I made the comment further up about killing off UD. It's great to have these discussions, but there's no need to have them under the control of the likes of Barry.

It's not our job to increase their traffic, and I want to see what happens when sectarian arguments set in.

Speaking of which, Elizabeth is doing a good job of driving a Wedge between the smarter I.Ders and Granville Sewell's 2LoT argument on her blog.

A suggestion for another target if you're reading this Lizzie might be Sandford's "young earth because of genetic entropy rubbish", which can't be supported by all the I.D. crowd I'm sure.

The "broad church" is very vulnerable in many areas.

Date: 2012/03/20 15:55:51, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 20 2012,15:05)
I suspect the number of believers will never drop much below those numbers. The situation in France may simply reflect a reversal of social pressure, or a rebound from centuries of theocracy. Perhaps religion is associated with the monarchy.

In the United States we have the opposite political history. Religion is associated with rebellion against monarchy.

The percentage of believers is dropping steadily in the U.S., and will continue to drop. Europe is about 50 years ahead on average, but that's the direction you're going.

Believing Christians are already a minority in many European countries.

The fundy attack on science and all their energetic politic-ing are symptoms of the demise of Christianity, not its revival.

Date: 2012/04/19 06:21:29, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 19 2012,03:19)
Joe:
 
Quote
LoL! We were talking about BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION, not the OoL. And BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION does NOT require any intervention.


? So Joe in fact accepts evolution without any intervention from the OOL on.

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t....t-10686

Yes, Joe has become a "frontloader", it appears. He's also disagreeing with Dembski and Wells that there's evidence for design that contradicts "materialism", and with Behe that there's an "edge" to naturalistic evolution.

Dr. Who knows how to turn around Joe's claims that materialism isn't testable to show that it contradicts any claims that there's evidence for a non-material designer.

I'm not sure whether or not Joe has understood this yet.

Date: 2012/07/22 11:42:31, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 22 2012,10:39)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 22 2012,10:00)
   
Quote
But if technology (and the rest of human enterprise) is recovered for intentionality, teleology becomes a truly global rival to evolution.


Can anyone parse this for me?


Off topic, by why are the bars in Montserrat stocked with 8-10 year old girls? Or is it 8-10 mya? :p

More to the point, where can Gordo get fifty or sixty dollars?

More to the point, even if he took it out of the collection plate, even Magenta, who can suck a golf ball through a garden hose, might not consent to blow the world's biggest windbag at that price.

Date: 2012/08/19 07:19:58, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 19 2012,02:55)
 
Quote
 
Quote
And as far as I can tell, in all your efforts, you have not examined any alternative processes that might work.

alternative processes that might work.

That is because there are none to observe, yet the argument makes available the possibility that one might be posited. That is a simple acknowledgement of reality; appropriate for both proponents and opponents alike.



 
Quote
   
Quote
Stating that there ARE or CAN BE no such processes is not a material observation, it’s simply an assertion.

Again, that is not a claim made by the argument. Even so, it does highlight the fact that the argument is falsifiable with a single demonstration otherwise. It also highlights something else. A school of thought that cannot produce a counter-example becomes non-falsifiable because their assumptions are never subjected to a test of reality.



So it's chicken and egg plus god of the gaps.

After thousands of posts over severa months, that's what it boils down to.

On TSZ, UB counted self-replicating molecules out from his definition of a semiotic system (on the basis that they represent themselves, rather than something else). I pointed out that, as they can replicate with variation, that means that Darwinian evolution can take place without a "semiotic system" (by his definition) in place.

He didn't comment on that point, but it refutes his claim that Darwinian evolution requires a "semiotic system".

If someone who's allowed to comment on U.D. would like to ask him about self-replicating molecules, and point out that they can evolve and are subject to natural selection, it might be interesting.

Date: 2012/08/26 12:07:56, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (BillB @ Aug. 26 2012,10:36)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 26 2012,15:39)
   
Quote (keiths @ Aug. 26 2012,01:05)
There's also a full-on tardfight between Maus and KF on the Toronto thread. Sample:
     
Quote
So if I accept your plea to wordsnitchery as valid then you surely accept that it was the height of bad form and malice to attack and ban those commenters on UD that took a Dialetheist approach to contradictions. Both arguments stand together or fall together...

If your answer relies on ‘because I infer it backwards, but not in the well understood fallacy way, but in a magic way indistinguishable yet awesome’?

Then you are a Supernatural Materialist. And being of Moral Immoral character acknowledge that you have Contradicted your position on Contradiction – -but not in a contradictory manner — and will ban youself from UD by not leaving.


No more 'big tent' for Maus.  He's going the Sal route.

His posts content have been deleted, ASFAICT.

This is why you always have and always will lose, UD, because you don't even play. Shame on Barry. I don't want to hear diddly about censorship from him, the bully.

I happened to copy the last post from Maus, which is probably the one that invoked the impotent wrath of baz:


   
Quote

Maus August 25, 2012 at 11:56 pm

@Barry    
Quote
Your fear of the questions in the OP has been demonstrated repeatedly …

Oh? Are you saying that an established law professional with an impressive CV and work history is so incompetent as to not understand what a “Devil’s Advocate” argument is? And that they are further so incompetent that they find the proper rejoinder is a long line of straw man and ad hominems?
We both know that you’re not such an incompetent. Which leaves one of two curiosities: 1) You know your argument is a mouth-breathing waste. 2) You’re on a Torquemada fishing expedition for the ‘faithful’.

So I’ll tell you what, Barry, since I obviously cannot answer for a personally held belief that I do not hold I’ll go ahead and answer for the one I am only allowed to hold until I answer the statements that you assert are absolutely correct and airtight.[1] And ‘hold until’ is the case as we do not dispute the LNC in this fora lest we be banned.

Which is to say I cannot answer your questions from a Christian perspective. For if I assume Christianity then the Lord has commanded, on various occasions, that children should be killed in toto. (Put aside ‘fun’ for now.) Such that if these sorts of antics are universally immoral then the Lord Himself is immoral. But He is the seat of morality and moral by definition. Which is absurd.

Therefore the killing of children, by numerous means, can only be contingently immoral. And this brings us back to ‘fun’. For it is understood that to worship the Lord, is amongst other things, to revel in His Glory and be at good cheer in carrying out His will. And since he has commanded the death of children on various occasions then it is immoral to not have a good cheer about trashing tots for the Lord. But, as you have continually asserted that your argument is airtight, then it is immoral to be moral and have a good cheer toasting toddlers.

So we cannot say that your airtight argument shows that Christianity is more or less moral than Materialism. We can only say that your airtight argument shows that Christianity is absurd. That it is self-contradictory and you have accomplished by assertion what Dawkins has spent a lifetime failing at.

But since I am not allowed by my nature, nor the rules of the road here, to disavow the LNC then I must reject the Christianity I held previously to accepting your arugment as valid. And since you’re not such an incompetent as to be a Christian and make an argument that refutes Christianity then your assertion to universal immorality must come from elsewhere.

Certainly not Materialism, since there Materialism is orthogonal to the topic. And so it must be some other religion that you follow. And since I cannot be any further a Christian then I should sorely like to know which religion it is that you practice, and which holds all the answers.

Not that you’ll answer, of course. For answering the notion — for whatever worldview you hold — would demonstrate that it was indeed an enthymeme that Begged the Question as I originally stated to you. And should your argument be simultaneously valid and invalid then you would need to have the bravery to deal with my original post or the bravery to ban yourself from your own site for rejecting the LNC you demand of others.

So I’ll just let it hang for others to let me know what a suitable replacement for my worldview should be.

[1] You have not, of course, stated this outright. But then your cowardice at addressing common rebuttal is enough to make the same intent apparent.
My Webpage

I think we should give Maus POTW for that effort. I like the way he got around the "fun" bit, which Arrington had included because, of course, doing nasty things to children in general is fine in the eyes of his god.

Date: 2012/08/26 13:49:24, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 25 2012,23:31)
Petrushka warned that it was a trap. Didn't anticipate a maustrap.

When Barry posts, I always anticipate claptrap.

Date: 2012/08/26 14:09:23, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 26 2012,13:09)
ID is all about science, though, really.
It isn't religion.
Honest.

Sergiomendes on the "On self-evident moral truth" thread:

"Barry arrington,

now is Uncommon Descent site concerned more and more of Christianity, filosofia, atheism and less and less sciences, yes?

sergio"


I somehow wonder if Sergio is related to the recently deceased Mr. Nakashima.

Date: 2012/08/27 00:58:57, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (paragwinn @ Aug. 26 2012,21:12)
 
Quote (iconofid @ Aug. 26 2012,12:09)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 26 2012,13:09)
ID is all about science, though, really.
It isn't religion.
Honest.

Sergiomendes on the "On self-evident moral truth" thread:

"Barry arrington,

now is Uncommon Descent site concerned more and more of Christianity, filosofia, atheism and less and less sciences, yes?

sergio"


I somehow wonder if Sergio is related to the recently deceased Mr. Nakashima.

sergiomendes' comment is now down the memory hole, leaving JWTruthInLove's response to it hangin'.

Possibly my fault. I shouldn't have mentioned him.

Date: 2012/08/27 05:44:07, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 27 2012,02:59)
 
Quote
Possibly my fault. I shouldn't have mentioned him.

Which is why I used an alternate name at UD and never commented here on a UD thread where I was posting.

But the Barry Arringtons come and go, and eventually Dembski will take note and either shitcan Barry or publically disavow the site. It hosts Behe's blog also.

I do wonder about his personal life. It's one thing to toy with your adversaries, quite another to inflict this kind of shit on allies. Being a bill collector instead of a lawyer must be painful.

Speaking of Behe, who once wrote that the malarial parasite must have been designed under his own arguments, Barry clearly isn't bright enough to realise that his questions are more problematic for I.D. folk than for most others.

The Intelligent Designer clearly isn't averse to torturing children with many nasty ailments, so the question for I.D.ists is whether or not he does this for fun, and even if not, whether or not he cares whether we do.

They have no way of answering this (or any other moral question) without claiming to know the mind of the designer.

Date: 2012/08/27 05:56:13, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 27 2012,00:01)
Maus has been disappeared:    
Quote
24 Maus August 26, 2012 at 7:23 pm

UD Editors: Maus is no longer with us. He was a gutless coward and will not be missed.

The trouble with getting rid of most of the real diabolical opposition is that, as I and others have pointed out before, the broad church will tend to collapse in on itself, for we are the pillars that support its roof, and the cement that glues together its walls.

Date: 2012/08/29 15:42:52, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 29 2012,15:14)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 29 2012,14:56)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 29 2012,14:47)
     
Quote

43
Joe August 29, 2012 at 1:33 pm

For the record, the translation of nucleotides into amino acids is not a chemical reaction and cannot be described by chemical reactions.

Therefor what dr who sez about “that’s all we observe when we actually physically examine life” demonstrates either deception or ignorance on his part.


http://tinyurl.com/9762bz4....9762bz4

JoeTard provides more "no way anyone could possibly be that stupid!" moments than all the other IDiots put together.

For the record, and oh what a record of IDiocy it is!

If Joe wishes to equivocate on the definition of chemical reaction (whether dimer formation without forming covalent bonds is a "reaction" etc), the argument is still stupid.

Joe's actually disputing dr. who's claim (on TSZ) that life is a chemical phenomenon.

So he mentions something in life which is a chemical phenomenon.  :D

Well done Joe!

Date: 2012/09/02 10:07:04, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 02 2012,09:10)
 
Quote (damitall @ Sep. 02 2012,13:54)
 
Quote (rossum @ Sep. 01 2012,17:19)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 31 2012,13:15)
     
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 31 2012,06:30)
       
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 31 2012,01:32)
That's one way to toe the line?

Why? They're all lion down.

That's just purr-fect.

You're my mane man.

You should take pride in that

I think we should paws now.

Are you feline tired?

Date: 2012/09/03 12:57:19, Link
Author: iconofid
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 02 2012,17:42)
 
Quote (iconofid @ Sep. 02 2012,09:07)
   
Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 02 2012,09:10)
     
Quote (damitall @ Sep. 02 2012,13:54)
       
Quote (rossum @ Sep. 01 2012,17:19)
       
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 31 2012,13:15)
           
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 31 2012,06:30)
           
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 31 2012,01:32)
That's one way to toe the line?

Why? They're all lion down.

That's just purr-fect.

You're my mane man.

You should take pride in that

I think we should paws now.

Are you feline tired?

Nah, the cat just got his tongue.

Cue JoeG with hyper-lynx to pussy licking porn.

 

 

 

=====