form_srcid: improvius
form_cmd: view_author
Your IP address is 38.107.191.96
View Author detected.
view author posts:
Retrieve source record and display it.
form_author:
form_srcid: improvius
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 'improvius%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_err:
DB_result: Resource id #4
| Date: 2006/01/18 04:06:46, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
Evolution Ale left for legislators "Park City-based Wasatch Brewery first introduced the amber ale in November, after Buttars said he would introduce the bill. The bottle's yellow and orange label shows the progression of man from a hunched over ape to an upright human drinking a beer and carrying a six-pack." |
| Date: 2006/01/18 05:29:24, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
"While we cannot study the “supernatural” through science, we can study intelligence. We have a huge sample dataset to tell us how intelligent agents operate: technology produced by the human race." Then why isn't it called "Human Design"? |
| Date: 2006/01/18 06:00:51, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
The litigation is not about protecting evolution. The litigation is about preventing the state from advocating a particular religion. You can't teach a class that advocates religious doctrine in a public school. It doesn't matter what label you slap on it. |
| Date: 2006/01/18 10:18:21, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
For that matter, how could we even tell the difference between God and a technologically advanced alien or time traveler?  |
| Date: 2006/01/18 10:53:00, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| "I, for one, welcome our new time-traveling iguana overlords..." |
| Date: 2006/01/25 04:18:27, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
Here are some NC high school students' perspectives on the "debate". And, from that very same high school, a research assignment on creationism vs. evolution is stirring things up. |
| Date: 2006/01/25 04:24:23, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Here's another article on the research assignment discussed above. |
| Date: 2006/01/25 04:47:55, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Well, take a good look at the link in my 2nd post. It will give you a couple of hints as to the quality of the science education they are receiving. |
| Date: 2006/01/30 07:26:08, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
The problem is that the DI is telling people what they want to hear. I gues you could say that there is a demand for BS, and they are just the suppliers. People want there to be a supreme guiding force. They want to believe that the world was "designed" by some sort of "intelligence". So long as that demand exists, there will always be con artists catering to it. I don't think scientific PR has any hope of competing with it. It would be like getting people to stop eating Snickers and start eating carrots instead. |
| Date: 2006/01/31 07:02:51, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
I suggest another tactic: patronize them. This involves agreeing with them to a point - something along the lines of, "what an interesting little hypothesis you have there!" Of course, you have to point out the obvious, but you do it in a very condescending (yet cheery) manner, like "I can't wait to see the experiments and tests you've come up with!" There is one HUGE benefit to this technique over simply ridiculing them: it nearly eliminates direct conflict. This is important because they THRIVE on conflict. A patronizing approach is much more passive and will greatly frustrate someone who is looking for a fight/argument. Remember to keep encouraging them to meet those oh-so-difficult scientific requirements. After all, you're their friend! |
| Date: 2006/02/02 04:13:22, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Flock of Dodos is opening tonight in Kansas. Anyone planning on going? I'm looking forward to the reviews on this one. |
| Date: 2006/02/02 05:07:07, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Our favorite snake oil salesman will be offering a 2-day seminar in Dover next month. One can only wonder at how the good doctor was able to shoehorn this engagement into his busy schedule of speaking "over 700 times each year in public and private schools, universities and churches." |
| Date: 2006/02/02 07:49:04, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
I'm warming up to Stroker and Hoop. It's not up to par with Venture Bros, but it can be pretty funny. Boondocks is simply fascinating as social commentary. The episode when grandad dates a hooker is brilliant ("What if they have kids? They'll be half-ho!"). The episode when MLK comes out of his coma was amazing, too. Some of the racial issues they deal with make Chappelle's Show look tame by comparison. Robot Chicken is a good 10 minutes of brainless fun. And Birdman continues to rock. Squidbillies? Meh. |
| Date: 2006/02/06 11:36:57, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
What else could he possibly say after that? "Yeah, I got busted! Oh well, back to the lab..." Or maybe, "At the trial, some things were brought to my attention that indicate I should re-evaluate my research." Of course not. Those would be the reactions of a scientist. Instead, he tells us he is a man of the people, and not like those mean, stuffy, godless scientists. Behe makes his intentions perfectly clear: he wants to keep selling books. |
| Date: 2006/02/06 11:52:09, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
Wow it just gets worse and worse as I read it... -Strawman YEC vs. big tent creationism... -Splitting hairs with "controverted" vs. "refuted"... -"If I performed an experiment nobody would believe me..." |
| Date: 2006/02/06 12:33:52, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
But any average person can buy my book and understand it perfectly! That's Darwin's Black Box, available at amazon.com and fine book sellers everywhere. And it makes a great gift! |
| Date: 2006/02/08 06:15:44, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
Cancer - New Mechanism Potentially Explaining Evolution Of Signalling Pathways Found, University Of Helsinki Honestly, I wasn't a bio major, so much of this technical article is over my head. Would any of you biologists care to explain it in layman's terms? |
| Date: 2006/02/10 07:18:45, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I'll bite: It's irrelevant to me. It doesn't mean anything. |
| Date: 2006/02/10 10:16:04, Link 66.153.41.2 |
| Author: improvius |
| If ID isn't religious in nature, why do these discussions invariably delve into ontology? And, I might add, it seems that the ID proponents are always the first ones to bring it up. |
| Date: 2006/02/11 04:43:31, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Well, there's the study of primate psychology... |
| Date: 2006/02/13 07:45:11, Link 66.153.41.2 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
One of the more blatant sites is Dr. Dino (Hovind). I mean, just look at it. It's an online store with the sole purpose of "bilking believers". Hovind's last press release boasted that he was speaking publicly over 700 times in a single year! Do you really think he's doing it for free? And ask Behe how many books he sold and speaking engagements he landed before he wrote his anti-evolution book. The opportunities are plnetiful. |
| Date: 2006/02/13 08:05:33, Link 66.153.41.2 |
| Author: improvius |
| ####, now you made actually go and look at the site. Unfortunately I started reading an article on snake spurs. Keeping snakes happens to be one of my hobbies, and I have a keen interest in the subject. So unfortunately, I read some of the article. I think doing so actually killed some of my brain cells. |
| Date: 2006/02/13 08:22:28, Link 66.153.41.2 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I thought the campaign was about establishing the compatibility of religion and reality - for the benefit of religion. |
| Date: 2006/02/13 09:23:53, Link 66.153.41.2 |
| Author: improvius |
| Here's something else for Artist in trainig to read: an article on Ken Ham. According to the article, Ham pulls down a cool $120,000 a year. Oh yeah, there's money to be made here. You'll never go broke telling people what they want to hear. |
| Date: 2006/02/13 10:24:09, Link 66.153.41.2 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
 2-->
Bull. He's pulling $120K a year. He's a shrewd con artist. |
| Date: 2006/02/13 12:40:07, Link 66.153.41.2 |
| Author: improvius |
|
This is why science can't get through to creationists. They are brainwashed at an early age - and for at least the duration of their childhood. Now ask yourself how a child who has been exposed to that kind of crap throughout their whole life can be expected to accept the science of evolution. That would mean accepting that your parents, friends, religious leaders, all of those people you've loved and looked up to ever since you can remember have been lying to you. Try to imagine the psychological trauma you would have to put yourself through just to accept one simple scientific fact. Could you do it? Or, instead, when faced with "evidence", would you come up with rationalizations and conspiracy theories to protect yourself from the pain. Face it. These kids are just screwed. No amount of reasoning is likely to change that. |
| Date: 2006/02/14 08:16:52, Link 66.153.41.2 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I think it means you misplace your keys for about a day or so. |
| Date: 2006/02/16 04:01:48, Link 66.153.41.2 |
| Author: improvius |
|
Ever since reading it in high school (some 20-odd years ago), I've been a fan of "Inherit the Wind". At one point in 1992 I was going to grad school to prepare for a career in teaching. I ended up taking a different path, but I learned a lot about teaching and schools in the process. Anyway, I was in a masters program at Vanderbilt - which, at the time, was the top-rated university for teaching and education. In one class we were discussing various issues about ethics and curiculum choices. For demonstration purposes, the professor took a poll on what should be taught - evolution, creationism, or both. I raised my hand for evolution, but I was in the minority. And maybe 1/3 of the class was for creationism only. That totally floored me - I suddenly felt like I was surrounded by cult members. I mean, I wasn't even a science person. I was an English major, planning to teach English in high school. But even I knew that you shouldn't be teaching creationism instead of evolution. Anyway, I didn't really do much research until recently, when the whole "ID" movement started to gain popularity in the news. When I first heard it, "teaching the controversey" seemed so, well, reasonable. So I decided to dig a little deeper on my own and figure out why so many people objected to it. It became obvious to me quickly what was going on: on one side you had mountains of research papers and hard evidence, and on the other side you had quote mining. The dishonesty was palpable. I became somewhat obsessed with the issue after that. See, I am very much a typical "Libra" in that I tend to see both sides of an issue. Especially with politics, I see most things as shades of gray. But this "kookiness" was different - one side was clearly right, and the the other side was clearly wrong. I think that's what ultimately got me hooked. It blows my mind that so many people can be so clearly, objectively, and demonstrably wrong. |
| Date: 2006/02/17 04:46:11, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
This is a clever little trap they've made for themselves. Even if they had an actual comparitive method, they'd still have to assume the existence of "non-design". We must be able to observe things that are not the result of intelligent design. In other words, there must be some things that God did not create. This necessary assumption seems antithetical to fundamentalist doctrine. |
| Date: 2006/02/17 06:17:11, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Apparently the designer is really PO'ed at Australia. Maybe we should ask Pat Robertson if he knows why. |
| Date: 2006/02/21 05:28:41, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| "This contest is good enough for Jehovah!" |
| Date: 2006/02/22 06:10:25, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
They should be footing the whole bill. This never would have gone to trial if Dick Thompson hadn't convinced the school board that it was a good idea. Dick was looking for a golden ticket to the SCOTUS and thought he found one in Dover. The TMLC's ability to offer sound legal advice was in conflict with their own agenda. |
| Date: 2006/02/24 02:27:13, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| It's easier to just start with the big points at the bottom. They have the last 5 covered easily. |
| Date: 2006/02/28 07:05:42, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
It's common descent... Does anyone else remember the Citizen Kane skit from Kids in the Hall?
|
| Date: 2006/03/01 08:06:19, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| That #### is crazy. I mean seriously, Time-Cube crazy. |
| Date: 2006/03/01 09:47:59, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
Seems Ruse is upset because Dawkins is critcizing religion. What does that have to do with ID?  |
| Date: 2006/03/08 05:20:13, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
...over the past 3 years. The DI commissioned another round of their Ohio poll, with pretty much identical results as the last time. 2006 Poll Details 2003 CSICOP Article |
| Date: 2006/03/10 02:30:24, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
It was resolved by logical analysis in a judicial ruling. And, might I add, "duh". |
| Date: 2006/03/14 11:03:46, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
[quote=Russell,Mar. 14 2006,16:55]
As far as I can tell, it just seems to be a rehash of the "limits of biological change" argument. Nothing new to see here... |
| Date: 2006/03/14 12:14:26, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| I think you just gave up. |
| Date: 2006/03/14 12:48:51, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| So I guess you could say that you're something of a modern-day Galileo, and that the scientific community is conspiring against you (and others like you) to prevent the world from finding out what a sham the present "science" really is. Does that sound about right? |
| Date: 2006/03/21 04:34:26, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| So you mean science without God is like a fish without a bicycle? |
| Date: 2006/03/21 08:30:41, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
It seems to me that science only aims at discovering practical truth. It doesn't have to be anything other than pragmatic, which it does very well. |
| Date: 2006/03/22 02:38:27, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Since no one else seems to have taken you to task on this, I'll take a shot at it. Your assupmtion is wildly off base. The truth is that nearly all of us here know and understand the subject very well. Most of us have examined ID in depth and know exactly what it's made of. This is not a case of something being dismissed out-of-hand. Rather, we are constantly scrutinizing ID. When we say "there is no there there", we do so after an extensive search for whatever "there" ID has to offer. One of the main misconceptions among ID proponents is that ID hasn't been given a "fair shake" by the scientific community. The reality is that it's been thoroughly shaken, stirred, poked, prodded, churned, filtered, weighed, sniffed, and sifted through before being deemed "thereless". |
| Date: 2006/03/22 08:57:03, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I always think of trees as a good example of this. Take any grown tree, and imagine its 3-dimensional outline, including branches, bark, leaves, roots, and all. Now try to figure out the odds of a given seed growing into that exact outline at that exact spot. I'd imagine they would look astronomically low. And yet, there's the tree! Against all odds, it has managed to fill that exact outline at that exact spot. Surely something as improbable as this must be evidence of a designer, right? |
| Date: 2006/03/22 10:04:10, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Apparently DS types with his tongue. That would probably explain a lot. |
| Date: 2006/03/28 05:01:14, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||||||
| Author: improvius | ||||||||
|
[quote=thordaddy,Mar. 27 2006,19:59][/quote] The biggest problem is that nothing you write makes any sense. There is no logic whatsoever connecting your statements. Examples:
So science simultaneously admits something and yet can't admit it. This makes no sense whatsoever.
This makes no sense AND demonstrates that you don't know what the word "empirical" means.
You're building on your previous nonsense, which obviously isn't getting you anywhere.
This doesn't seem to have ANYTHING to do with your previous statements. The term "unique phenonmenon" is also confusing. It is unclear what you are trying to say about psychology. |
| Date: 2006/03/28 18:00:36, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Maybe he should look next to his square circle. That's where I usually leave my unobservable empircal evidence. |
| Date: 2006/03/29 05:40:52, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
One assumes that this formula would also apply to things like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabras, alien cow mutilations, etc. |
| Date: 2006/03/29 09:27:33, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| As a Fundamentalinest, all I have to say is that you are all going to heck for forsaking the holy line and embracing the evil of tumble-dry. Today it's sucking your socks. Tomorrow it will be sucking your souls. |
| Date: 2006/03/29 09:51:05, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Well, I HAVE started fires in the past. And I guess there's no denying that I've walked or driven past several chruches. I've even set foot in a few of them. And I can't hide the fact that I've used the words "church" and "fire" in daily speech. And wouldn't you know, I just used them both in the same sentence! I suppose that's all the empirical evidence anyone needs to lock me away forever. I should just head down to the police station and turn myself in right now... |
| Date: 2006/03/29 11:05:09, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Now now, you know hateful language like that can only serve to inspire violence. And believe me, the last thing you ever want to see is socktarian violence. |
| Date: 2006/03/29 17:47:12, Link 72.225.9.83 |
| Author: improvius |
| Is anyone else wondering why td is obsessed with Susan Smith? |
| Date: 2006/03/30 03:59:52, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
No, you dolt. It is entirely possible (and easy) to observe, verify, and perform experiments to prove that people have made these claims. |
| Date: 2006/03/31 02:40:18, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Making #### up doesn't help your cause. |
| Date: 2006/03/31 03:55:29, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Clearly this is a question about semantics. As TD himself demonstrates, there are multiple "correct" answers to the question. It all boils down to how you want to define your terms. |
| Date: 2006/03/31 10:50:26, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Sorry, I couldn't resist: Devastatin' Dave |
| Date: 2006/04/04 02:46:35, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
You should get right on that. Please let us know as soon as you come up with new empirical evidence and analysis tools. |
| Date: 2006/04/04 03:25:02, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Feel free to flounder around on this topic to your heart's content. |
| Date: 2006/04/04 03:28:29, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I think that I shall never see A naturally-growing symmetrical tree. |
| Date: 2006/04/04 04:06:36, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
A nightmare on elm leaf. |
| Date: 2006/04/04 04:26:46, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I think this crab is just going to fiddle around with symmetry for a while. |
| Date: 2006/04/04 04:40:06, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
It's never too late to start. |
| Date: 2006/04/04 06:14:21, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Clearly, zero's posts have as much point as a sponge. |
| Date: 2006/04/04 06:42:22, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I'm just doing it for the halibut. |
| Date: 2006/04/04 09:16:01, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Please, please PLEASE post a link to that site. EDIT: Nevermind, found it. Here 0 Is Real |
| Date: 2006/04/04 18:02:33, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
You cannot produce a single example of an elementary age student in a public school being taught that anal sex is not dangerous. Good day sir. |
| Date: 2006/04/05 07:04:04, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Well, he hasn't refuted it yet, so I'm inclined to answer "no." And, as a side note, I didn't even know Mike Gene was gay until I read it here. EDIT: Not that there's anything wrong with that. |
| Date: 2006/04/05 17:49:33, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
An educated public is crucial to a functioning democracy. One of the reasons we need objective educational standards is to produce adults who can make reasoned, informed choices when voting. So, in a sense your "democratic" educational system could work contrary to democracy if there are students receiving poor educations (creationism being an obvious example of such). I'm not saying that our current system is doing a fantastic job at this, but it's certainly something to consider before eliminating public schools completely. Our goal is to educate each student as best as we can using objective standards. Our goal is NOT to let parents teach their children whatever they want. Sometimes the parents' desires must take a backseat to civic responsibility. Of course, this is not to say that parents shouldn't have any choice in what their children learn. But there has to be a balance. |
| Date: 2006/04/05 17:56:30, Link 72.225.9.83 |
| Author: improvius |
| You'll have to pardon my ignorance, but I don't see how what you describe is necessarily in conflict with any accepted ToE. |
| Date: 2006/04/06 02:30:24, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
That seems a rather odd thing to say. Who exactly are you referring to by "those benefiting from that system"? I could more easily understand complaints of incompetence in executing the state standards. But, for the most part, it seems that the people in charge of determining those standards do a good job. We've seen instances lately in which those standards can get messed up when politicians with political agendas get involved, but I think the actual educators do a pretty good job. |
| Date: 2006/04/06 02:40:09, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Measurement. |
| Date: 2006/04/06 03:50:17, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Tim put it very well, I think. You can measure the quantity of milk in a fridge, and it might come up zero. You can measure for the quantity of "bacteria with 5 legs and 2 ears" on a given slide under a microscope, and that might be zero as well. It's a matter of whether or not the quantity in question can be practically measured. |
| Date: 2006/04/06 17:33:55, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Well, part of me thinks that would be pretty sweet. Because then I wouldn't have to pay school taxes anymore since I don't have children. On the other hand, I appreciate the advantages of living in a well-educated society. (Although I admit sometimes it doesn't feel like it.) All of these children, supposedly, are our future. I, for one, would like to make every effort to give them a good education. I think "just cutting them loose" is a poor choice in the long run. There are some cases in which we should be trying to break the cycle of ignorance. |
| Date: 2006/04/07 07:26:52, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Unless, of course, you define "new" as having more than 50% new parts. Or 66%. Or 75%. In which case you can determine exactly when it becomes a "new" boat. But that would only be because you've defined it as such. which is why, as has been pointed out to td over and over, this is a question of semantics. Once you define meaningful terms, science gives you the tools to evaluate. |
| Date: 2006/04/07 08:39:13, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
What, praytell, is the past incompatibility that has gone unacknowledged in this case? |
| Date: 2006/04/07 09:35:15, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
They looked for and ultimately found this fossil right where they thought it would be - in an area with lots of exposed Devonian rock. I still have no idea what you think is not reconciled. |
| Date: 2006/04/07 09:57:08, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
No. I still have no idea what you think is unreconciled. Please explain. |
| Date: 2006/04/07 10:21:16, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||||
| Author: improvius | ||||||
You aren't crazy, you're just having trouble understanding English. Here's a hint: in the English language, "is" and "becomes" are two different words with different meanings. |
| Date: 2006/04/07 10:30:33, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
But I thought the find was being hailed as a rare and exciting event. |
| Date: 2006/04/12 17:08:00, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Your argument (or complaint, rather) seems to be against science itself - or at least against methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism wins out not because it is a more appealing worldview, but because it works. |
| Date: 2006/04/14 03:42:53, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
I think a more accurate analogy would be: Pink pigs are pink. Therefore pink pigs are pigs. |
| Date: 2006/04/17 11:57:55, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||||
| Author: improvius | ||||||
|
Serenity In a nutshell, she neither appreciated nor agreed with her portayal by the media. She also got a TON of nasty comments, which apparently lead to her taking the blog down temporarily.
|
| Date: 2006/04/18 06:59:07, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| I don't understand what the hold-up is. Why don't we just burn Dinoland down like we do all the other churches we don't like? |
| Date: 2006/04/20 09:03:37, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
Cool. Can I use the mind control radio to get Dave to make me a sammich? Poof! You're a "sammich". More specifically, you're a banned-on-rye. -ds |
| Date: 2006/04/20 10:41:05, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Judge who? |
| Date: 2006/04/20 10:58:35, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Which would be what, exactly? |
| Date: 2006/04/20 11:08:48, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||||
| Author: improvius | ||||||
"I find 'intelligent design' guilty of extreme fooishness. I hearby order you to stop being pitiful and start teaching real science." |
| Date: 2006/04/21 02:39:11, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Just to point out the obvious, TD still hasn't explained why he thinks traditional male/female marriages are so special. They simply are, and anyone who doesn't know why is apparently an idiot. |
| Date: 2006/04/21 09:50:30, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
|
Billy D posted commentary on and a link to Luskin's latest: Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones's Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum
Well, this certainly sheds some interesting light on the definition of IC. Apparently, you can only test for IC by "reverse-engineering a system to test for function at each transitional stage." This assumes, obviously, that one already knows the exact transitional pathways by which the system evolved. That's pretty funny, since I thought the IDers were the ones who kept asking biologists to provide those detailed, step-by-step pathways. Maybe Behe should tell Luskin that he isn't helping. |
| Date: 2006/04/21 10:26:02, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
If you can't come up with any specific, unique value for this "standard-bearer", why are you defending it? |
| Date: 2006/04/21 11:29:04, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
But obviously this is not exclusive of 1 man + 1 woman couples. |
| Date: 2006/04/21 19:27:21, Link 72.225.9.83 |
| Author: improvius |
| It's funny to see them all clucking over there about how the flagellum supposedly predates the TTSS. I guess it doesn't occur to them that that could be evidence of systems becoming complex by losing parts. |
| Date: 2006/04/24 10:12:34, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| I agree with Ghost. Gay extemeists have already tried to blow up the white house once. Letting them marry will only encourage more attacks in the future. |
| Date: 2006/04/24 11:32:54, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Seriously, don't you libtards get it? If we let gays get married, it will just encourage them to rape and murder more and more 13-year-olds. |
| Date: 2006/04/25 04:32:10, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
So his point is that ID proponents are like actors pretending that what they do is real? Yeah, I think we already knew that. |
| Date: 2006/04/25 04:48:34, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| So is Brangelina an irreducibly complex system? |
| Date: 2006/04/25 06:15:44, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
To put it as simply as possible: homophobic men are scared of teh buttsex. |
| Date: 2006/04/25 12:52:20, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| The bias is obvious. I am sick and tired of hearing all of these news stories about missing black children, when you never hear anything if something happens to a white child. |
| Date: 2006/04/26 02:42:35, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
This is true. Clearly thordaddy has great admiration and respect for homosexuals. He has been asked several times to explain how heterosexual couples are somehow better than homosexual ones, yet he has refused to even acknowledge such a hateful question. It is obvious that thordaddy loves gay people just as much as he loves straights. |
| Date: 2006/04/26 03:32:33, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Yes, it's EXACTLY like all of those people in WW2 who thought Hitler was a mythical creature from a fairy tale. |
| Date: 2006/04/26 04:53:23, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
In Larry's latest thread, I managed to convince at leat one person that Luskin is arguing against ID. Unless, of course, kizzmet is joking. (In which case I must say he's very convincing, and he got me! This new blog is great fun! |
| Date: 2006/04/26 07:41:52, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
It was a few pages back, you must have missed it. Something about damaging everyone's nude connections, I think. |
| Date: 2006/04/26 10:24:53, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| I'm still not totally convinced that kissmet is serious. That stuff is pretty far out there. |
| Date: 2006/04/26 12:01:53, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I think this deserves a spot in the top 10 list of "Stupidest AtBC Posts Ever". |
| Date: 2006/04/27 03:06:50, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
If you're looking for a good definition for marriage, I'd suggest "domestic partnership". "A domestic partnership is a legal or personal relationship between individuals who live together and share a common domestic life." (Obviously I've ommitted the marriage exclusion from the original statement.) By the way, I think thordaddy's sheep marriage has to be thrown out, since animals can neither consent nor enter into a contract. Plus, there's the whole animal abuse thing, but let's not get into that. As for the racial issues brought up, I'll just say that any discussion of inequality is pointless if you don't include ecnonomic fators. |
| Date: 2006/04/27 04:59:03, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
This seems WAY too easy, but I'll bite: 1. True 2. True 3. Economic issues were often trumped by religious intolerance at a time when the church had a tremendous amount of power. |
| Date: 2006/04/27 08:26:29, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I'm sure he has. They have an excellent selection of them for sale at www.drdino.com. |
| Date: 2006/04/27 09:02:58, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
There's a new thread on anti-semitism? I can't find it. But if you post a link, I'll be more than happy to re-post my response there. |
| Date: 2006/04/27 10:59:05, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
So he's saying Coulter is the Howard Stern of Christian conservatives? By golly, I like it! |
| Date: 2006/04/29 06:55:09, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I don't want to waste too much time on this nonsense, but I'll dismantle one of your predictions on the incredibly off chance it will help you.
Let's look at just ONE major assumptions this involves: It is impossible for such a Supernatural Being to exist unless that Being sends written messages. Now, does this actually make sense to you? |
| Date: 2006/05/01 03:43:48, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Agreed. He is not here to learn. He is here to prove to himself how right he is by rationalizing away any logical objections to his faith. |
| Date: 2006/05/01 04:04:06, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
So your argument could be accurately restated as: -If there is a God, he MIGHT send written messages. -People who claim they receive written messages from God MIGHT actually be receiving written messages from God. -Since there are people who claim they receive written messages from God, there MIGHT actually be a God. So you can either make this a logical argument built on ridiculous assumptions, or render it meaningless by accepting the above ambiguity. Or you can just change the meaning of "logic" to help you rationalize this junk. I guess we shouldn't be surprised, since IDers have already tried changing the meaning of "science". |
| Date: 2006/05/01 12:07:35, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
Ok, since anecdotal evidence counts in Dave's book, I will provide some: I heard a couple of people saying Dave caused the tsunami. At this point, I think that puts it on equal footing with your God hypothesis. |
| Date: 2006/05/02 03:22:40, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
That's not the real Bevets. |
| Date: 2006/05/02 06:40:59, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| And, obviously, she would have no concept of a "creator". But if she happened to notice that, by coincidence, thunder struck once when she was near a particular rock or something, she might attribute supernatural powers to the rock. |
| Date: 2006/05/02 06:54:43, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Just stop. None of those things constitue data. They all represent bias before the fact. I mean, really, you are just insulting us here. "Surprising fact" describes an emotional reaction, not emprical data. There is no way to measure the tuning of a cosmos. And what scale are you using to determine how holy a given book is? |
| Date: 2006/05/03 11:20:39, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Yep. Once they make it clear that they reject methodological naturalism, there's really no point in continuing the discussion. |
| Date: 2006/05/04 08:23:45, Link 64.80.9.206 |
| Author: improvius |
|
Not to belabor the point, but it seems Davey is very confused about the term "testable predictions". He's expecting Nostradamus-type predictions, like how many fingers humans will have one million years from now. He doesn't seem to appreciate actual scientific predictions, like human/chimp DNA similarity, chromosome fusion, finding specific fossils, etc. Of course, this is certainly a minor complaint compared to his dismissal of methodological naturalism. |
| Date: 2006/05/04 16:06:20, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
It's actually depressing to see another human being so gleefully embracing ignorance and lies. The worst part is that many of us feel helpless to do anything about it. We can argue until we're blue in the face, but nothing ever seems to snap you true believers out of that trance. Any anger you sense is just coming out of our frustration. |
| Date: 2006/05/04 18:33:08, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Well, actually, none of the research is affected by your debate. |
| Date: 2006/05/05 03:29:52, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
This is utter bs, Dave. But I'd love to see you Godwin this thread, so I'll ask you what evidence you think you have to back this up. Someday you'll regret having lied to your children about all of this. |
| Date: 2006/05/05 04:21:37, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
FYI, quote mining is probably the single best way to demonstrate your own dishonesty.
Someday you'll regret having lied to your children about all of this. |
| Date: 2006/05/05 04:39:35, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Not at all. The more the merrier. I'd be happy to see EVERYONE here give Dave a smack for that one. I mean seriously, quote mining Dawkins? Dave is getting worse and worse with each new post. I'm just waiting for him to trot out the alleged connection between evolution and you-know-who. |
| Date: 2006/05/05 08:15:46, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
|
[quote=afdave,May 05 2006,11:24][/quote] Dave, try to stop lying. You are trying to come across as being impartial when it is clear that you are not. You cannot reconcile statements like this:
With statements like this:
Your objections stem from an emotional reaction, not from rational thought. There is NO WAY we can reasonably convince you because your objections are not based in reason to begin with. |
| Date: 2006/05/05 12:54:54, Link 67.109.101.226 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
It's semantics, you idiot. The law defines at as years since birth. It is "years since birth" simply because it is defined as such. |
| Date: 2006/05/05 13:36:36, Link 67.109.101.226 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
(Sigh.) Yes, thordaddy, of course you are right. The law stems from ancient storkist beliefs. |
| Date: 2006/05/06 19:12:25, Link 12.164.142.172 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
BS. You said that you resented the idea itself. Is this true or not? Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes offensive? |
| Date: 2006/05/08 06:00:28, Link 12.164.142.166 |
| Author: improvius |
|
Yay! Godwinned! Which allows me to throw in this tidbit: The anti-semitic attitudes that allowed for various attrocities - including the Holocaust - came directly from Christianity. The notion that Hitler just came up with the idea of killing off jews all on his own is simply absurd. Christians had been discriminating against and killing jews for well over a thousand years before Hitler was born. Hitler was just continuing a popular tradition, and adding his own spin to the process. Linking any theory of evolution to the Holocaust is a tremendous stretch, and ultimately a useless exercise. If you are looking for an ideology to blame, you need look no further than Christianity. |
| Date: 2006/05/08 07:15:34, Link 12.164.142.166 |
| Author: improvius |
|
Since you seem to have abandoned the previous thread, I'll repost my simple, unanswered question here: Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes offensive? |
| Date: 2006/05/08 19:49:11, Link 12.164.142.173 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
You are still avoiding the question. I mentioned nothing whatsoever about teaching it. Now let's try this again. Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes (as are, for Flint's benefit, all present-day apes) offensive? |
| Date: 2006/05/11 06:13:13, Link 64.134.150.67 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Well, since the single greatest contributing factor to the Holocaust is over a thousand years of Christians hating Jews, Christianity is the obvious answer. It seems you are disregarding the facts in favor of a pet theory. Here's a hint: if your pet theory is in conflict with known facts, then it's probably your theory that's wrong - not the facts. |
| Date: 2006/05/16 10:16:08, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| This is either the funniest thing you've ever seen, or the stupidest thing you've ever seen. |
| Date: 2006/05/18 04:39:17, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
How is PR a requirement for starting research? |
| Date: 2006/05/18 04:58:46, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
But as you said, they already have MILLIONS. And you cannot name one specific research project for which they are trying to raise money. In the case of ID, the PR is the end, not the means. |
| Date: 2006/05/19 10:54:45, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| But, clearly, it appears (if only to Dave) to be a mixture of French and Spanish. And as we've seen in every one of his posts, that's really all the evidence Dave needs. |
| Date: 2006/05/22 12:37:55, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Are you kidding? Kim Jong-il gets published in Science practically every other month. |
| Date: 2006/05/23 08:35:06, Link 64.80.9.206 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I... You know, this one's just too easy. Even I have standards. |
| Date: 2006/05/24 07:23:07, Link 64.80.9.206 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
...in lieu of doing any research whatsoever. |
| Date: 2006/05/24 07:34:26, Link 64.80.9.206 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Yeah, I guess modifying a theory to conform to actual data is a bizarre concept - to creationists. |
| Date: 2006/05/24 07:55:52, Link 64.80.9.206 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Sweet. I think EVERYONE here would love to see your abstract. |
| Date: 2006/05/25 10:44:16, Link 64.80.9.206 |
| Author: improvius |
| Edit - Ladlergo beat me to it. |
| Date: 2006/05/26 06:30:51, Link 64.80.9.206 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
That's completely unnecessary for the purposes of science. Science doesn't have to be anything but pragmatic, so it easily avoids the trap of solipism. We use methodological naturalism because it works. |
| Date: 2006/05/26 06:50:55, Link 64.80.9.206 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I will give Dave credit - his experience and knowledge on this particular subject is unsurpassed. |
| Date: 2006/05/26 06:57:51, Link 64.80.9.206 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Thanks. I could tell you didn't like the rational ones, so I figured I try something different. |
| Date: 2006/05/26 07:48:55, Link 64.80.9.206 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
And again, this is irrelevant for scientific purposes. We rely on methodological naturalism because it works. |
| Date: 2006/05/30 11:52:56, Link 64.80.9.206 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
It seems that either skeptic is just making this up, or he is using a significantly different definition of "multitude" than that of most biologists. Maybe that's what Rilke is really getting at. |
| Date: 2006/06/06 07:04:52, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Compassion. |
| Date: 2006/06/06 17:56:04, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
You know all of those gay couples out there who keep trying to get married? We're voting to let them do so. |
| Date: 2006/06/06 18:04:14, Link 72.225.9.83 |
| Author: improvius |
|
Here's a fun one: What, if anything, does the inerrant bible tell you about snakes? |
| Date: 2006/06/06 18:07:08, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I'm confused. Do you want a list of names, or what? I can probably dig up quite a few from varioous articles if you like. |
| Date: 2006/06/06 18:17:59, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Don't forget hairy. |
| Date: 2006/06/07 02:55:49, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Here are a few: 44 gay and lesbian couples in NY Debra Gold, 43 (and her wife), and Carly Nielsen, 22 and Allie Delaney, 20 Curtis Woolbright and his partner Daniel Reyes, and Michael Elsasser and Doug Robinson Do you get it now TD? Or should I find some more examples? |
| Date: 2006/06/07 04:02:12, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Could we all just agree that Portuguese shares is roots with and is very similar to Spanish, but does reflect a certain amount of French influence. Calling it a mixture of the two is a gross oversimplification (probably based on superficial observations), yet it would also be wrong to deny French influence on the language. |
| Date: 2006/06/07 06:48:07, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| ...or thit down, athuming he'th a catcher. |
| Date: 2006/06/07 12:45:51, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Ok, now it's YOUR turn. Just who are these threesomes and brothers who are clamoring for the right to get married? As I've demonstrated, there are plenty of REAL same-sex couples affected by this issue. So please put up some names/numbers/links for the people you think we're discriminating against. |
| Date: 2006/06/07 13:07:32, Link 72.225.9.83 |
| Author: improvius |
| Yes, eventually even the most important criteria will become irrelevant: the desire to marry someone. In this post-gay-marriage-apocalyptic world, not even that will matter. People will just randomly become married to each other, whether they want to or not. |
| Date: 2006/06/08 02:38:44, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| I answered your questions, TD. Now it's YOUR turn. Just who are these threesomes and brothers who are clamoring for the right to get married? As I've demonstrated, there are plenty of REAL same-sex couples affected by this issue. So please put up some names/numbers/links for the people you think we're discriminating against. |
| Date: 2006/06/08 12:15:22, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
Please, TD (or anyone who cares to try), finish this sentence: The intrinsic societal value of (recent) traditional heterosexual marriage, as opposed to homosexual marriage, is ____. The only condition is that you use some sort of noun phrase. Predicate adjectives will not count for credit. (This means you can't just use the word "obvious", TD.) |
| Date: 2006/06/08 12:41:25, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
thordaddy- Take a deep breath, relax, and try to focus on what I actually wrote. If you can't come up with an answer, that's fine, just say so and we can move on. |
| Date: 2006/06/08 12:46:59, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
You know what, I'll even rephrase it to make it more obvious for you: The intrinsic societal value of (recent) traditional heterosexual marriage which differentiates it from homosexual marriage, is ____. |
| Date: 2006/06/08 16:15:45, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
So are we to take it that your criteria for determining the value of a marriage is based on the ability to raise children? Or is it simply producing children that makes the marriage valuable? |
| Date: 2006/06/10 12:13:17, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
|
More detailed info on "Giants". This looks pretty #### funny. I like this part, emphasis mine:
|
| Date: 2006/06/12 04:57:41, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
You have this exactly backwards. Since we're comparing the differences, 40% is the more accurate figure. You are just being mentally blocked by what you call your own "common sense" - which is really just another way of saying "willful ignorance". I suspect you are just trying to brush off the "1/2%" amounts as margins of error, when that is simply not the case. |
| Date: 2006/06/12 05:27:28, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
This is simply fascinating. I'd love to know how Dave comes up with this assessment. |
| Date: 2006/06/12 05:41:15, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I thought we were all discussing genetic similarity. What, praytell, are you referring to, Dave? |
| Date: 2006/06/12 08:54:09, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| The funniest part of this is that Dave's argument boils down to something like, "humans, chimps, and gorillas are all essentially the same thing." Which actually is true, if we were comparing them to all other organisms. But since we are focusing ONLY on humans, chimps, and gorillas, the 40% figure is obviously much more significant. |
| Date: 2006/06/13 07:51:00, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
So what, exactly, is your basis for that statement? |
| Date: 2006/06/13 09:01:19, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||||
| Author: improvius | ||||||
I'm afraid he is. Where's that jaw-dropping emoticon? Followed by the one that's rolling around laughing. |
| Date: 2006/06/14 05:42:25, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Good point. Because chimps and gorillas crossbreed all the time. Right, Dave? Sorry, but until you can come up with something other than "it's so obvious," we're just going to keep laughing at you. |
| Date: 2006/06/14 05:56:54, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Just like Stephen Colbert, Dave doesn't tell the truth to us. He feels the truth at us. |
| Date: 2006/06/14 06:13:48, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Super. And how, exactly, do those things pertain to the subject of determining common ancestry? |
| Date: 2006/06/14 07:50:39, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
And what do you think motivates these conspirators? (Sorry, folks, I just want to see how much candy is left in this piñata.) |
| Date: 2006/06/14 08:01:09, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I think you meant it was creationist dogma that forced creation scientists to discard 'uniformitarianism'... |
| Date: 2006/06/14 09:16:15, Link 64.80.9.206 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
I'm saying you shouldn't get your geological information from CreationWiki. |
| Date: 2006/06/14 10:06:54, Link 64.80.9.206 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I think most of us are just trying to see how bizarre of a response we can get out of him. It's still kind of interesting to see how he rationalizes some things. |
| Date: 2006/06/14 11:50:21, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
So what, in your mind, Dave, would possibly make you think that the nuclear decay rate would be less reliable than the diffusion rate? Because it seems to me that if you're rejecting the presumption of uniformity, diffusion rates would be meaningless. For bonus points, try to answer this without quoting something. |
| Date: 2006/06/14 12:04:48, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
I prefer the term "con artists". |
| Date: 2006/06/15 05:56:07, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Curious - what exactly did you perceive as a "cheap shot" by either Wesley, Chris, Alan, Flint, or JMX? |
| Date: 2006/06/15 07:30:15, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Perfect, that's exactly what I was expecting. So in order to test your hypothesis, you simply throw out any and all data that conflicts with it, then keep whatever anomolous and/or erroneous scraps remain. I very much like the analogy of throwing out the signal and listening to the noise. I'm sure you will disagree, but for the rest of us, it is perfectly clear that this is your methodology. (EDIT: oops, used wrong quote the first time) |
| Date: 2006/06/15 07:49:27, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
He actually has answered this. His argument is that we can't know or measure pre-flood anything, because the laws of nature changed completely in that event. It wasn't just a flood, it was a complete rending and rebuilding of the very fabric of the universe. |
| Date: 2006/06/15 08:39:52, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
And this is it folks, the BIG question: why don't all of these scientists want to believe in the literal, scientific truth of the bible? |
| Date: 2006/06/15 11:20:48, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
I thought he said they were "Blinded by what they want to believe." Still no answer on why he thinks these people are so eager to disprove a literal, inerrant bible. |
| Date: 2006/06/16 02:47:32, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Are you kiding? Ken Ham makes over $100K a year. |
| Date: 2006/06/16 06:04:31, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
The counter is a bit off. You can get around this and see the latest posts by adding 10 to the start page in the url. It's the last part of the URL - so instead of "st=2020" type in "st=2030". EDIT: Argy beat me to it. |
| Date: 2006/06/16 07:37:30, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Fascinating how Dave still isn't telling us why so many scientists would wand the earth to be very, very old... But I'll give him another chance before I just answer for him. |
| Date: 2006/06/16 10:13:08, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
Since Dave still doesn't want to address this, I will. The heart of his whole argument is that the vast majority of scientists simply don't want a Christian God to exist. They don't want Him to exist because if He did, then they would have to answer to Him. They think that if they can disprove His existence, then they can rationalize living a life of reckless abandon, rejecting morality and embracing their basest desires. This is the reason why people invented things like evolution, old-earth dating systems, and methodological naturalism. It all boils down to finding a way to weasel out of getting judged by God. Is that about right, Dave? Go ahead and correct me if I'm off base here. |
| Date: 2006/06/16 16:32:18, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
No, you have it all wrong. You're ignoring what's really important: the immeasurable, non-mechanical differences between the two bikes. For example, lots of people think Harley's are "cool", therefore Dave wins. |
| Date: 2006/06/17 17:35:15, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I can answer for him. The scientists are all just seeing what they want to see, because they really, really want to prove that the Christian God doesn't exist. Because they don't want to have to answer for their sins. So they can party down without having to worry about the consequences. Here's a great question that Dave probably won't answer: How would you test to determine whether or not an object is over 1 million years old? My first prediction is that he'll ignore the question. (I think he's kinda POed at me for pegging him on the "athesit scientist conspiracy" issue.) My alternate prediction is that he'll say such a test would be absurd because nothing could possibly be that old. |
| Date: 2006/06/19 06:49:41, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Dave, can you move on to something else? We've covered your C14 arguments thoroughly and refuted all of them. What else you got? |
| Date: 2006/06/19 17:04:59, Link 72.225.9.83 |
| Author: improvius |
|
Not bad, but I have to be honest. The posts where you try to be "sciencey" are WAYYY funnier. I especially love the one about the worldwide conspiracy of atheist scientists. |
| Date: 2006/06/20 03:48:03, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Come on now, Dave. Don't hold back on us. You keep telling us how important it is for the great atheist scientist conspiracy to prove that the world is so very old. You are the one insisting that they "see what they want to see." You are the one telling us about the hundreds of thousands of disagreeable data samples that are disposed of in secret. So just go ahad and say it. Tell us more about these atheist scientists who are conspiring to make the world seem older than it is. Why are you so afraid to put your conspiracy theory into words? Are you afraid that we'll somehow think less of you? That we'll think you're suffering from some sort of paranoid delusion? |
| Date: 2006/06/20 04:24:00, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Yes, I can. It's the only reason I can think of to explain why you are so reluctant to discuss the motives behind this conspiracy. |
| Date: 2006/06/21 09:22:50, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I take this as an admission that you were mistaken when you accused scientists of being "Blinded by what they want to believe". And when you referred to evolution as a con. And when you accused scientists of falsifying data so that they could prove the Earth is billions of years old. |
| Date: 2006/06/21 10:14:32, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
We've sufficiently shredded RATE, so I don't think anyone needs to go back to that. Let's just jump right into Genesis stuff. Here's my first open question: what, if anything, does the bible tell us about snakes? Give me your answers, and then we'll see how the bible compares to reality. |
| Date: 2006/06/21 10:40:37, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
That's pretty obvious. They wanted to help their own book sales. And since that's really the heart of the ID movement, I think it's a fantastic idea. |
| Date: 2006/06/21 11:15:18, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Flood + magic. Any other questions? |
| Date: 2006/06/21 11:24:14, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Can you tell the difference between Ann Coulter and Adolf Hitler? |
| Date: 2006/06/21 11:44:53, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Well, then it wouldn't be magic, now would it? |
| Date: 2006/06/22 05:00:49, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| I agree with his position that a good way to make creationists look smart is to compare them to Beavis and Butthead. |
| Date: 2006/06/22 06:58:36, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
For the most part, it seems they will mis-categorize their concepts as "praxis". |
| Date: 2006/06/22 07:08:44, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Woo-hoo! Now that's the stuff I've been waiting to hear. Man, I thought Dave was never going to come right out and say it. EDIT: I see now that I was wrong about Dave believing in a conspiracy per se. Rather, he believes that the vast majority of the world's scientists are wrong because they are so very full of hate. They need to prove that the Earth is billions of years old because they hate God. So while they share a common motivation, methodology, and goals, they all do so as autonomous individuals rather than as an organized group. Nope, no conspiracy here. |
| Date: 2006/06/22 09:25:15, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Dave could have saved everyone a lot of time if he'd just posted a Chick tract right at the beginning of the thread. |
| Date: 2006/06/22 10:43:30, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
As a follow-up, what kind of test would you perform to determine whether or not an object is older than 10,000 years? How about a test to see if an object were older than 1,000,000 years? 1,000,000,000 years? |
| Date: 2006/06/23 03:41:40, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
THAT much I believe. |
| Date: 2006/06/23 06:16:30, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Ok. So what, if anything, does the bible tell us about snakes? |
| Date: 2006/06/23 06:39:44, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Let me make it easy for you. If any data somehow conflicts with biblical timelines, it's because: 1) Your data is in error because you didn't figure in Flood changes. or 2) Either consciously or unconsciously, you have fudged the data so as to disprove the existence of God. Dave allows for no other option to explain conflicting data. The 3rd possibility, which would be that the conflicting data is correct and the bible is in error, is not a possible outcome of Dave's mental filter. It is, therefor, impossible to convince Dave that the bible is not literally accurate in all scientific matters. |
| Date: 2006/06/23 08:26:22, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
This isn't possible because your brain simply won't accept any such data. As you've clearly demonstrated, you will attribute any conflicting data to human error: either somebody forgot the flood, or they're trying to disprove God. The mental shield you have constructed is impenetrable. There is no conceiveable way to convince you of anything that goes against a strict, literal interpretation of the bible. Think of it this way: Assume, for a second, the Earth really IS billions of years old, and some brilliant scientist had come up with a conclusive test to demonstrate that age. Now, how would you be able to tell whether or not this scientist had really discovered the truth? How would you be able to discern if he was correct. or if he was deluding himself, or if he were simply some sort of con artist? The fact is, Dave, that there would simply be no way whatsoever for the scientist to convince YOU that his old earth theory was true. So you see, whether you realize it or not, your "challenge" is utterly disingenuous. It is impossible to convince you of biblical inerrancy because your mental constructs simply won't allow for that possibility. You can answer the question about snakes if you want, or simply ignore it like you do so many other questions here. I am merely proposing another test of biblical inerrancy for my own amusement. I have no doubt that you will remain unaffected by it, whether you respond or not. |
| Date: 2006/06/23 12:52:56, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
See? You can't even answer the question. Your mind is incapable of it. |
| Date: 2006/06/23 16:42:57, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Dave, you are simply unable to process anything that would refute your beliefs, and that's all there is to it. You are incapable of recognizing evidence. As I've pointed out, you can't even begin to explain how you might recognize it. See? I'll ask you again: How would you discern true from false evidence refuting your beliefs? |
| Date: 2006/06/24 03:43:26, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Try to be more accurate, Dave. What you really should say is, "I've never accepted the existence of an archaeological find that controverted a Biblical statement." You are mentally incapable of accepting such evidence. See? I'll ask you again: How would you discern true from false evidence that would refute your beliefs? I'll bet that questions like that one just show up as "fnord" for Dave. |
| Date: 2006/06/24 06:59:54, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Of course, you still don't get it. It is impossible for anyone to present evidence that you would accept, because your mental fitlers will not allow for any such evidence. You are mentally incapable of accepting such evidence. See? I'll ask you yet again: How would you discern true from false evidence that would refute your beliefs? I'll bet that questions like that one just show up as "fnord" for Dave. |
| Date: 2006/06/24 18:15:59, Link 67.128.46.150 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
See, Dave? You STILL can't answer the question. Your brain just can't handle it. |
| Date: 2006/06/25 04:09:39, Link 67.128.46.150 | ||||||||
| Author: improvius | ||||||||
Guess what? Dave STILL can't answer it. |
| Date: 2006/06/25 04:13:37, Link 67.128.46.150 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Only in the REAL world, PI isn't exactly 3. Oh wait, maybe PI is one of those things that changed during the flood. |
| Date: 2006/06/26 14:14:48, Link 67.128.46.150 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
(Ahem) |
| Date: 2006/06/28 03:52:25, Link 67.128.46.150 | ||||||||
| Author: improvius | ||||||||
... |
| Date: 2006/06/28 08:44:11, Link 15.227.137.69 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Dave has demonstrated that he is incapable of discerning accurate from inaccurate sources. At no point has he been able to describe a process by which he can evaluate source information. Based on his behavior, his only criteria seems to be whether or not the source in question agrees with his bible. |
| Date: 2006/06/29 04:16:02, Link 67.128.46.150 |
| Author: improvius |
| There are a few snakes that can mimic color changes simply by stretching or inflating their bodies and displaying more underlying skin than scales. The Australian green tree snake is one such example. But this sounds like something completely diferent. I think I'll join Lenny in remaining skeptical for now. |
| Date: 2006/06/29 05:49:13, Link 15.227.137.69 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Dave's brain is still short-circuited by this simple question... |
| Date: 2006/06/29 07:56:18, Link 15.227.137.69 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Well, we HAVE data like this, but you keep dismissing it is misguided or fake or whatever. The question that you keep DODGING is what criteria are you using to evaluate the data? The answer would seem to be that you simply dismiss any data that disagrees with your bible. |
| Date: 2006/06/29 08:12:37, Link 15.227.137.69 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Sorry, Dave, you keep dodging this one. You don't get to turn it around on us. You can answer it, or just admit that you automatically dismiss anything contrary to the bible. We will, of course, take your continued dodging as the above admission. |
| Date: 2006/07/01 07:19:06, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Ahhhh... sweet, sweet creo candy comes pouring out of the Dave-piñata. It just doesn't get any better than that. Well, since we finally got Dave to admit that he uses the bible to filter out any data that might contradict the bible, I don't think there's much else left to do. Either he'll get it or he won't. But at least it's been an interesting exercise in exploring and exposing the mental constructs that keep creos immune to logic. |
| Date: 2006/07/01 11:18:11, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Of course you do. Because you assume it is. |
| Date: 2006/07/02 05:35:48, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Yes, Dave. And, as you've clearly admitted, you evaluate archeological data based solely on whether or not it agrees with the bible. So, of course, your methodology precludes you from finding contradictory data. Because you start by assuming the bible is correct. |
| Date: 2006/07/05 04:01:47, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Hey, Dave, this is what Derek Ager thinks about you:
|
| Date: 2006/07/05 05:24:46, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
That's an easy one. Those terms don't mean what you think they mean. They do not support your position. |
| Date: 2006/07/05 05:38:36, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
I don't even know how to address this sort of insanity. I thought others were going a bit over the top with the comparisons to schizophrenia, but Dave's comment here has convinced me otherwise. Is there a doctor in the house? |
| Date: 2006/07/05 11:56:38, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
That seems pretty unlikely, given that the roots of anti-semitism are buried deep in Christianity. Even going back as recently as the Holocaust, the greatest contributing factor was the longstanding tradition of Christian hatred for Jews. If you want to make the case that the theory of evolution has somehow supplanted Christianity in its capacity for inspiring hatred, be my guest. But the case is yours to make, not ours. |
| Date: 2006/07/05 13:57:09, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Yep. This is why I kept pushing Dave to acknowledge his methodology for determining fact from fiction in regards to any data which could potentially refute biblical inerrancy. When pressed, he finally said that the bible itself was his best resource for making such evaluations. Short of pointing out this "strange loop", I don't think anything has a chance of getting through to him. |
| Date: 2006/07/06 03:01:18, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
That's because it has already been made crystal clear that you completely misunderstand the the term as it is used by Ager (who, by the way, thinks you're a "bible-obsessed fanatic"). |
| Date: 2006/07/06 06:40:01, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Dave, those aren't answers. That's just you putting your hands over your ears and crying, "na na na I can't heeeaaarrr you!" |
| Date: 2006/07/06 07:27:18, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| It's been a fascinating exercise in examining strange loops. We all have seen how Dave has built a mental filter that prevents him from acknowledging any information that could possibly contradict his interpretation of the bible. He is simply incapable of accepting such data - for him it is not a matter of evaluating whether or not it is accurate, but of determining which "out bin" he should toss it into. I find it especially interesting that, if he can't figure out what else to do with it, he simply files it under "lies". |
| Date: 2006/07/06 07:49:23, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| I think this topic sets off too many alarm bells for Dave. I don't think he'll address it. |
| Date: 2006/07/10 10:42:59, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I did a little bit of poking around on some AN sites, and I found far more references to Christianity than to both Darwin and the theory of evolution combined. The following quote, attributed to Darwin, came up a few times. I have no idea if it's accurate or not, but for the sake of research, here it is:
|
| Date: 2006/07/11 07:21:21, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I guess you missed my earlier post: "I did a little bit of poking around on some AN sites, and I found far more references to Christianity than to both Darwin and the theory of evolution combined." So far, I think even that beats your "I found this post on a message board." |
| Date: 2006/07/13 19:10:49, Link 206.172.50.131 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Sorry, I had no idea the Aryan Nation was such a marginal component of the white supremacist movement. And I didn't know anything about their Christian affiliation until you mentioned it. Even so, that affiliation would certainly seem to harm your hypothesis. But ok, whatever. We'll play it your way and do some quick metrics on the Stormfront forums. Searching the past 3 months yields over 1000 hits for "Christian", 406 hits for "evolution", and 134 hits for "Darwin". The search engine only returns a maximum of 1000 hits, so I don't know how many it actually found for "Christian" for the 3 month period. But doing a search for only the past 1 month returns 662 hits for "Christian". |
| Date: 2006/07/16 16:29:15, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Actually, Dave, he's pretty accurate about your line of reasoning. You methodology for testing biblical accuracy consists of discarding data which disagrees with the bible. A more detailed model would go something like this: dave: The Bible is scientifically accurate. k.e.: How do you know? dave: All reliable data supports it. k.e.: How do you determine if the data is reliable? dave: I compare it to what the Bible says. |
| Date: 2006/07/16 16:35:22, Link 72.225.9.83 |
| Author: improvius |
| bump to tempt dave |
| Date: 2006/07/17 11:43:06, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| G, did you ever offer an explanation for why Christianity seems to come up more than 3 times as often as evolution in white supremacists' discussions? I must have missed it when you addressed that. |
| Date: 2006/07/17 12:23:53, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
Stormfront current stats: Traditional Christianity (7 Viewing) 16,000 posts Christian Identity (7 Viewing) 12,154 posts Pre-Christian Indo-European Religions (4 Viewing) 5,626 posts Agnosticism/Atheism (2 Viewing) 4,715 posts Theology (29 Viewing) 74,782 posts Science, Technology and Race (33 Viewing) 51,737 posts How would you phrase the poll questions? |
| Date: 2006/07/18 04:36:49, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Hovind is 100% con artist. I think a lot of you are giving him way too much credit. It seems pretty clear to me that he's grandstanding for the sake of his "followers". If he keeps up the act, no matter what else happens, he'll ALWAYS have supporters (or customers or marks or whatever you want to call them). But if he even begins to acknowledge that he might possibly have knowingly done something wrong, the con is up. His problem was that he bought into his own crap a little too much and got greedy. He was too smug. He thought he could con the government. |
| Date: 2006/07/18 04:43:19, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Ahem: For starters, Ken Ham and Kent Hovind have done exactly that. Though the latter is currently going through some rough times, he's certainly made a lot of money from the YEC "paradigm". |
| Date: 2006/07/18 05:19:45, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Shell Oil |
| Date: 2006/07/18 05:32:45, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Here's a link for BP, in addition to the one for Shell that you apparently missed. |
| Date: 2006/07/18 05:38:03, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Um, Baja, California? What do I win? |
| Date: 2006/07/18 06:20:44, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
How does that even begin to make sense to you? |
| Date: 2006/07/18 07:19:01, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| ...and by "much more satisfactory manner", Dave really means, "in a way that agrees with my interpretation of the Bible." |
| Date: 2006/07/18 09:26:32, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| If you copy and paste the source URLs of his pics into a new browser window, they should show up. |
| Date: 2006/07/18 09:37:06, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Probably a bandwidth limitation where the pics are hosted. The pics come up intermittently for me. |
| Date: 2006/07/18 09:42:09, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I'm certainly not an expert, but that would be my first guess, based simply on the obvious change in shape and coloration of the layer at the top of the wall. To a layman like me, it looks like a soft layer dumped on top of a harder layer. |
| Date: 2006/07/18 10:21:21, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| I just want to say that I think the posts ridiculing Denyse O'Leary's physical appearance are in very poor taste. I mean really, isn't that sort of thing beneath us here? |
| Date: 2006/07/18 10:48:14, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Yeah, but that doesn't really bother me. I think Dave opened the door for that kind of crap himself, what with the "girly man", "rumors", and similar posts. But there's just something about going after a woman based on her looks that seems over the line to me. |
| Date: 2006/07/19 05:42:05, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| I remember building a model of the battleship Missouri when I was a kid. So I guess in Dave's world, a child with some glue, a pair of tweezers, and some appropriately-shaped plastic pieces can produce a full-scale, functioning WWII battleship in just a couple of days. |
| Date: 2006/07/20 03:49:26, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
So Dave, explain why you believe today's geologists when they say the Palouse scablands were formed rapidly, but you don't believe them when they say the most recent flood was 13,000 years ago. Or that the source of the flooding was Lake Missoula, and not a global flood. Or that the flooding occurred multiple times. Hmm... could it be because you ignore any data that might conflict with your interpretation of the Bible? |
| Date: 2006/07/20 04:32:51, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
You are wrong. |
| Date: 2006/07/20 07:02:49, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
No, Dave, we're getting to the heart of the matter by calling out your game. Your game consists of grasping at anything that might possibly help support your interpretation of the Bible, and rejecting anything that might contradict it. In your case, data is indistinguishable from interpretation. You have no capacity to tell the two apart. Your sole basis for evaluating ANYTHING consists of comparing it to the Bible. |
| Date: 2006/07/22 05:54:55, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Are snakes today descendants of the serpent as described in the bible? |
| Date: 2006/07/23 05:10:57, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
So you believe the bible because some people who you don't know tell you it's accurate? And yet, when there are far more p[eople telling you of its gross inaccuracies, you refuse to believe them. Now, what is it that makes this tiny little former group so much more credible than the latter one? Could it be because they're telling you exactly what you want to hear? |
| Date: 2006/07/25 02:36:23, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
They also described methodologies for distinguishing between genuine and fruadulent data. Now, what was that methodology that you use, Dave? Oh yeah, that's right. You just compare everything to what the Bible says, and throw away anything that seems contradictory. |
| Date: 2006/07/25 07:51:18, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Dave, you've already told us that the only thing you find convincing is the Bible. In your mind, it is impossible to be convinced of anything contrary. Such challenges are disingenuous when you present them because you will simply disregard contradictory evidence. Doesn't that seem a bit... stupid? |
| Date: 2006/07/25 08:24:06, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Bull. You were repeatedly asked how you would evaluate information that might contradict the Bible. You finally replied that you would evaluate it by comparing it to the Bible. Your methodology is completely circular - it begins and ends with the Bible. It is impossible for you to be convinced of anything contradictory to your little strange loop. |
| Date: 2006/07/25 18:07:06, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Here's your problem. You're using the book itself to evaluate the evidence to determine if the book is right. THAT'S your circle. |
| Date: 2006/07/26 03:10:00, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Nope, you're totally off base. What you do, Dave, is believe anything someone tells you as long as it supports your interpretation of the Bible. You dismiss anything that contradicts it. When presented with contradictory data, all you have to do is find the best trash can to throw it into. Either they're interpreting the data wrong or they're just flat-out making it up. Whatever the case, it doesn't really matter, because you already just know that they're wrong. You do not use the methodology you described. You simply compare everything to the Bible. |
| Date: 2006/07/26 12:41:06, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||||
| Author: improvius | ||||||
Yes, and it was describing 1 single figure used as an example - NOT the entire article. God, you're dumb.
Wow. Just... wow. I can't argue with that. |
| Date: 2006/07/27 05:26:11, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| I was trying to track down that Stalin reference. Most places are citing it from Yaroslavsky's "Landmarks in the Life of Stalin", 1940, pp. 8-9. It's a real book, and seems to be in several university libraries. Can anyone locate a copy and see if the quote is accurate, and also if there is more to the context? It seems fishy to me. |
| Date: 2006/07/27 09:55:27, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
That seems incredibly far-fetched. The simplest reading is that he's just saying "God is everywhere to a truly pious person". |
| Date: 2006/07/27 10:20:28, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| And where's your connection to Darwin in that mess? |
| Date: 2006/07/27 10:30:03, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Just out of curiosity, if they were soft at the time, wouldn't those sediments have slumped and concentrated towards the valleys of those folds? |
| Date: 2006/07/27 12:18:25, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| I dunno, I think GoP might have a point afterall. I mean, everyone knows Christians and Jews - especially in Europe - got along famously well prior to Origin of Species being published. |
| Date: 2006/07/31 06:34:46, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I still don't see how you can ignore hundreds of years of antisemitism in Europe. It's not like trying to solve your country's problems by getting rid of the Jews was an original thought for Hitler. |
| Date: 2006/08/01 05:12:30, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| I guess Davie had us fooled. Turns out he's just another con artist. |
| Date: 2006/08/01 07:36:24, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| If we donate a penny using a credit card via Paypal, does it actually end up costing the recipient more than that for the transaction? |
| Date: 2006/08/01 07:51:20, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
There doesn't seem to be any connection between the two data sets you are discussing. You can't use data on children in the UK to predict the outcome of African immigrants in the US. Your comparison makes no sense. |
| Date: 2006/08/01 09:20:24, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Again, you're looking at students in the UK. How does that have anything to do with US immigrants? |
| Date: 2006/08/01 10:29:05, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
And what makes you think the BA group comes even close to representing children of first-generation immigrants in the UK? |
| Date: 2006/08/03 06:47:15, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
In my mind I can picture Dave reading that and then nodding thoughtfully. |
| Date: 2006/08/08 10:26:59, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Hmmm... how thin of a line am I walking here? |
| Date: 2006/08/08 13:46:51, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Yeah, but pointing that out would have a 99% chance of getting you banned. I'm still pushing my luck and trying to remain non-confrontational:
|
| Date: 2006/08/09 07:26:08, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Christian school's lawsuit against UC system to go to trial |
| Date: 2006/08/09 08:11:43, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| I haven't been able to find anything else. I'm assuming the fundies will base their case on the notion that evolution is a religious belief. It should be a laugh riot. |
| Date: 2006/08/09 09:18:30, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Read the references. |
| Date: 2006/08/09 09:59:03, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Arguing good! Learning bad! Dave smash! |
| Date: 2006/08/10 07:26:40, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Dave, have you ever considered that maybe it isn't a good idea to get your geology degree from an internet flamewar? |
| Date: 2006/08/10 07:30:06, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
I find his lack of faith... amusing. |
| Date: 2006/08/10 08:16:08, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Obviously, your question is nonsensical because nothing can be older than 8,000 years. |
| Date: 2006/08/10 10:26:46, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I think it was supposed to be some sort of joke based on GC erosion. In any case, it's just Dave trying to avoid learning anything. Remember, he's not here to learn. He's here to argue. |
| Date: 2006/08/10 16:32:25, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Seriously, though, what do you people expect him to say? We know his job is selling creo tracts to kids. Is it in any way feasible for him to just say, "Gosh, you science people really do have a point. My life and livelihood are based on ignorance and lies. I guess I'll just find something else to do instead." Dave is invested in creo propaganda - both psychologically and financially - up to his beady little eyeballs. There is no way whatsoever he can back out of it now. |
| Date: 2006/08/11 03:09:43, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Oh, come on, Dave. We know the only way you investigate anything is by comparing it to what the Bible says. The idea of you actually doing field research is absurd. |
| Date: 2006/08/11 08:16:36, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Not once do you explain why you expect it to be linear. |
| Date: 2006/08/11 08:22:02, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Get back to us as soon as you're done with that. |
| Date: 2006/08/11 09:06:55, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Nope, you're still not explaining why you expect it to be linear. What processes are you assuming that would cause it to be linear? Feel free to just shrug and say, "I dunno." At least that would be an honest answer. |
| Date: 2006/08/12 20:57:29, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
If the arguing is limited to people with data, then I'm afraid you'll have to STFU, too. |
| Date: 2006/08/15 09:03:09, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Bull. You previously stated that you suspect scientists around the world (a majority of them, it would seem) are falsifying data in an attempt to disprove the existence of God. What, exactly, is the difference between that and a conspiracy? |
| Date: 2006/08/15 09:35:21, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
And in a huge surprise to nobody, Dave demonstrates his inability to distinguish between "PR" and "scientific research". BTW, how's that lab work coming, Dave? Shouldn't you be conducting field research right now? |
| Date: 2006/08/17 04:50:17, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Nope, no conspiracy theory here, folks... |
| Date: 2006/08/17 05:06:20, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
And again, bull. Your entire hypothesis hinges on the existence of an unsubstantiated global conspiracy to disprove the existence of God. But you are forced to assume it, becaue otherwise you would have no reason whatsoever to doubt the dating methods. |
| Date: 2006/08/17 05:54:36, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Cheer up, Dave. There are lots of other people out there who don't understand radiometric dating. Just because you find it difficult is no reason to cry. |
| Date: 2006/08/17 07:29:26, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
And Dave comes to this conclusion not by looking at any evidence, of course, but by assuming the existence of a global atheist conspiracy. Well done, Mr. Holmes. They would have gotten away with it for sure had it not been for your keen powers of imagination. |
| Date: 2006/08/17 08:21:46, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Ok, genius. So which of the dates would you have used, and why? |
| Date: 2006/08/18 03:26:12, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
No, actually I doubt very much that he knows on any conscious level. |
| Date: 2006/08/18 08:00:57, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Again, Dave, you are criticizing an imaginary conspiracy rather than a methodology. What is your criticism of the methodologies used to determine the dates? Which of those dates would you have chosen, and why? |
| Date: 2006/08/18 09:36:39, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
You have presented zero evidence of such. You have written pages and pages claiming that there is some sort of ambiguous conspiracy to establish false dates, but you have not written a single word of criticism for the dating methods themselves. You're just chasing shadows. |
| Date: 2006/08/18 10:53:24, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I doubt he'd be interested. Dave has been quite clear in telling us that he is here to argue, not learn. |
| Date: 2006/08/19 13:56:16, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
That's not a microscope, Dave. It's a ViewMaster with a "Bible Stories" disc inside it. Anyway, you've been asked the question multiple times by multiple people, but you keep avoiding it. What is your criticism of the methodology used to find the Tuff dates? And which of the dates would you have chosen, and why? |
| Date: 2006/08/19 16:02:22, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Why shouldn't it? |
| Date: 2006/08/19 16:05:18, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Yo, I'm not even making this up. |
| Date: 2006/08/19 20:20:05, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
In other words, you have no objections to the dating methods. All you have is a conspiracy theory. |
| Date: 2006/08/21 05:26:36, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Your posts are riddled with these types of hand-waving phrases. Whenever you use them, it just tells us that you ran across something that your mental filter couldn't handle and had to somehow reject. |
| Date: 2006/08/21 08:02:38, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
As usual, you have provided zero evidence to back this up. What is your criticism of radiometric dating methodology? All you can do is wave your hands and avoid answering this question. |
| Date: 2006/08/21 09:23:47, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Right, because we all know that the ACLU is really out to put limits on our personal freedoms. |
| Date: 2006/08/22 07:12:24, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Now maybe we're getting somewhere. So what do you read when you want to find out how the layers got there? And why do you choose it over the "mumbo-jumbo" sciency stuff? |
| Date: 2006/08/22 10:56:37, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Your hypothesis is intriguing, but I'm not convinced. I think a series of lab tests is in order. Who can bring the elephant? |
| Date: 2006/08/22 19:21:47, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Repeating until an answer is given:
Now maybe we're getting somewhere. So what do you read when you want to find out how the layers got there? And why do you choose it over the "mumbo-jumbo" sciency stuff? |
| Date: 2006/08/23 03:00:53, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Yes. Keeping things civil is the last thing Dave wants us to do. He really believes we are like the blustering science teacher in that Chick tract. I guarantee that his favorite thing in the world (besides lying to children, of course) is showing his church buddies how emotional "Darwinists" can get. |
| Date: 2006/08/23 04:20:56, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Ok, Dave has indirectly answered the first part. AIG is what he reads when he wants to find "the truth about how the layers got there". So the question remains, Dave, out of all of the different possible resources you could use to find this information, why are you going to AIG? |
| Date: 2006/08/23 04:25:29, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
No you didn't. You were asked specifically and repeatedly to show us why, but you refused to do so. All you did was show us your unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. |
| Date: 2006/08/23 04:53:59, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
So there we have it. Dave evaluates his information sources based on whether or not they agree with his literal interpretation of the bible. As we've been trying to explain, Dave, this is your entire problem. You automatically reject something if it doesn't mesh with your religion. |
| Date: 2006/08/23 05:21:11, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Your "worldview" is only consistent with your evidence because you filter and shape the evidence based on your "worldview". YOU are the one making the unsupportable assumptions in this case. |
| Date: 2006/08/23 06:42:58, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Your notion that there exists an irrational bias towards "long ages" is a nothing more than a paranoid figment of your diseased mind. You will never be able to support this delusion with factual evidence. |
| Date: 2006/08/23 06:53:32, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
There is no leap. It's a robust chain of evidence and logic. What point in the methodology do you think constitutes a "leap"? |
| Date: 2006/08/23 06:58:38, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
So you're saying that this entire industry is, what, imaginary? |
| Date: 2006/08/23 10:12:37, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
You're forgetting one very important thing: Meert's worldview is blasphemous, so he loses automatically. |
| Date: 2006/08/23 10:23:54, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Were Gentry's observations ever submitted for review? I thought he just put them in a book. But please correct me if I'm wrong about that. Your statement would seem very misleading if his model were never "in the scientific literature" to begin with. |
| Date: 2006/08/24 03:06:28, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Yeah, I looked through some of them and noticed the same thing. They all just seem to be along the lines of "there doesn't seem to be an explanation yet for these things". |
| Date: 2006/08/24 03:57:44, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
This has been answered. You dismissed the answer given as being "too sciencey" or something. Your only objection to the dating method is that you think there was a conspiracy. This is not evidence, Dave. It is your imagination. |
| Date: 2006/08/24 04:03:15, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
There's nothing to admit. None of our evidence has anything to do with a "Materialistic Worldview". |
| Date: 2006/08/24 04:13:10, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Ok, sorry, you're right. You dismissed the dating methods by saying "come on". |
| Date: 2006/08/24 04:36:26, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
You've already told us that we can't convince you of anything. You'll dismiss whatever we tell you because we aren't YECs. |
| Date: 2006/08/24 04:50:04, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||||
| Author: improvius | ||||||
No. You said quite clearly that you evaluate evidence based on the worldview that you think is attached to it:
Therefor, whatever we tell you is always going to be wrong in your mind because we do not share your YEC worldview. You will simply NOT accept evidence that conflicts with your worldview. |
| Date: 2006/08/24 05:54:58, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
That's the whole point. As you said, whatever evidence is presented to you gets weighed against your worldview. Therefor it is impossible for you to be convinced of anything that contradicts your worldview. Anything suggesting that your worldview is wrong gets rejected without further consideration. Basically, you're stuck in a loop. |
| Date: 2006/08/24 07:53:08, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Yes, Dave rejected methodological naturalism at almost day 1. I think it conflicted with his worldview. |
| Date: 2006/08/24 11:25:23, Link 64.80.9.206 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Folks, while discussing actual research is no doubt the best part of this thread, we should all be clear in understanding that it will have no effect on Dave. The only possible way to reach him is to make him aware of the Strange Loop in which he is trapped. No amount of facts and logic can possibly reach him while he is operating in his loop. You see, Dave? THIS is your paradox. Your belief is that we cannot date sediments radiometrically. If we could, it would conflict with your worldview. Therefor, accurate radiometric dating must be impossible. Now, if someone comes along and shows you exactly how RM dating works, you know that he is wrong, since RM dating is clearly impossible to you. No amount of evidence can convince you otherwise. I'm sure this all just comes up as fnord to you, but contemplating the paradox is, as far as I can tell, your only hope of connecting with reality. |
| Date: 2006/08/24 16:21:32, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Yeah, he makes an argument in the 2nd piece, which appears to be just the record of his speech. The published pieces don't say much other than "I don't know how these things got here." |
| Date: 2006/08/24 17:08:32, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I'm not sure what you mean. It looks like he refuted it pretty well to me. |
| Date: 2006/08/24 18:14:39, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I think you twisted the challenge around so that he would have to convince you. I don't think those were his original terms. And in any case, as I and others have clearly demonstrated, you are incapable of being convinced of anything that conflicts with your own worldview. |
| Date: 2006/08/26 15:58:39, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Wow, I think this is the closest Dave has ever come to a testable hypothesis! |
| Date: 2006/08/28 03:55:41, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| I thought "b" was already being taught in most schools. Don't most of the basic philosophy classes cover ontological arguments? |
| Date: 2006/08/28 04:02:28, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Wow, that's a tough one for him to get out of. I'm guessing Dave is going to go with the "doctored and/or cherry-picked photos" defense. |
| Date: 2006/08/28 05:07:03, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Ok, so the fossil forests buried upright "in situ" should provide excellent eveidence of the pre-flood/flood barrier, right? Everything below formations of predominantly upright-buried plants should be pre-flood. Right, Dave? |
| Date: 2006/08/28 06:37:13, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
No, you said you came here to argue. |
| Date: 2006/08/29 02:44:41, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
You should add logic. |
| Date: 2006/08/29 04:58:49, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
No, he's actually correct about this. Every time anyone here presents evidence that contradicts his view of reality, he says, "I'm guessing that I can find a way to reject that evidence." And, of course, he always does. The problem is that he always rejects things based on his own irrational, unsubstantiated assumptions. Maybe the evidence is tainted by atheistic bias. Or maybe it sounds too "sciencey". Or maybe he just doesn't understand it. But, in every instance, his "guess" is correct - he can always conjure up some way to reject the evidence. |
| Date: 2006/08/30 05:05:07, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
Dave, you need to try and see things from where we are. I don't think it's even remotely possible for you to do this, but I'll suggest it anyway. Here's what it looks like to us: You come in here expressing a sincere desire to learn about evolution, and welcome criticism of your own theories. Instead, you irrationally reject the information and criticism we give you. You initially told us that you were not religious. You tell us that you won't trust anything we tell you (at least with regards to evolution and the age of the planet) because we don't share your worldview. You've been spreading disinformation to your children. You were, at best, less than forthcoming about your creationist store website, which bears a striking resemlance to those of well-known con artists like Ham and Hovind. You are a deacon at a church that has, as far as we can tell, lost millions of (presumably) donated dollars through questionable investments. These are only a few things off the top of my head. To us, these things all add up as evidence that you are not to be trusted. What else are we to think? |
| Date: 2006/08/30 10:53:19, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I think the current character analysis is mainly a result of Dave not having posted any new claims lately. Despite what Dave may think he sees, any ad-hominem attacks here are presented in addition to rational, substantiated arguments - not instead of them. I haven't seen a single claim of his so far that hasn't been refuted based on science. |
| Date: 2006/08/30 11:35:44, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
That's really what I consider to be "true" faith - and not at all what Dave seems to have. Faith is something that you decide to trust when you have to go beyond the point where logic and reason can help you. It's always a "leap" in that sense, and you have to be aware of it as such. Instead of faith, Dave has some sort of mental construct that he thinks is a result of evidence (whereas conditioning is the more likely source). In Dave's mind, his "God" is an inevitable conclusion, rather than an incredibly difficult choice. Faith shouldn't be easy. |
| Date: 2006/08/31 10:06:41, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
"Jerry" has some good ones today:
Followed a little later by:
|
| Date: 2006/08/31 12:20:54, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Don't feel too bad. My parents told me that chiggers would burrow under my skin. whenever I got chigger bites, my mom would cover them with nail polish to "smother" them. They also fed me, among other things, Spam sandwiches. |
| Date: 2006/08/31 16:39:37, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||||||||||
| Author: improvius | ||||||||||
Holy crap, I dove in just for one day and already the stupid is simply unbearable over there. I think "Jerry" wins today's award for the most mind-bogglingly absurd post. His first post in the thread:
His LAST post in the thread (as of the right now, emphasis mine):
I... I just don't know what to say anymore. |
| Date: 2006/09/01 04:39:08, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Not so fast, Dave. You have to start with a testable hypothesis. Besides which, you never even addressed the issue of faith. Is your relationship with God based on faith or evidence, Dave? |
| Date: 2006/09/01 05:15:13, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| I hardly think WAD is the kind of person who should criticize others for falling for pranks. |
| Date: 2006/09/01 05:51:48, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
In such hypothetical displays of power, I would probably go with one of Clarke's laws: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic [or, in this case, a 'god']." |
| Date: 2006/09/01 06:07:12, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| I was thinking of that thing about the ACLU suing the military to stop prayers. |
| Date: 2006/09/01 07:10:42, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
This is not faith. |
| Date: 2006/09/01 07:20:47, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
That's not a leap. That's just shuffling your feet a few inches. Pathetic. |
| Date: 2006/09/01 08:07:13, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
You forgot about something even MORE convincing: the very existence of water! If water didn't exist, then a flood would clearly be impossible. But we DO have water, therefor the flood MUST have happened. I mean, sure, the details still require closer examination, but the fact that we water exists is a dead giveaway! Don't you people get it? |
| Date: 2006/09/01 08:35:02, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Why bother? It always evaluates to zero. |
| Date: 2006/09/03 03:45:24, Link 206.172.50.131 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Nothing, really, when you compare it to the "peanut-butter and brown sugar sandwiches" that my mom made me for lunch every OTHER day. |
| Date: 2006/09/05 03:47:04, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
But hey, relax! It's just happening in Iran. Nobody in America thinks like this, right? Anyway, here's the article. |
| Date: 2006/09/05 05:52:16, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
They are the same samples in both "papers". |
| Date: 2006/09/08 08:29:18, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
And how exactly do you arrive at that number? Because it sure looks like you're just making it up. |
| Date: 2006/09/08 10:04:07, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Your analogy would only begin to make sense if Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jim Walton, and maybe a dozen or more other billionaires had homes in New Orleans, and if Koppel had mentioned that the average Katrina survivor would have no financial difficulites whatsoever. |
| Date: 2006/09/08 17:52:46, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Wow. If you wave your hands any harder, you're gonna lift right off. |
| Date: 2006/09/11 03:45:07, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||||
| Author: improvius | ||||||
I'm sticking with Jerry:
|
| Date: 2006/09/12 17:37:57, Link 72.225.9.83 |
| Author: improvius |
| I love the way he proceeds to tell us where the stones of Tyre can be found, right after quoting something that says they will never be found. |
| Date: 2006/09/13 03:17:45, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Here is a much less-biased account of the current Pope's position:
|
| Date: 2006/09/13 03:52:57, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||||
| Author: improvius | ||||||
Neither. The article Dave quotes is BS. Here's what the Pope actually said:
|
| Date: 2006/09/14 04:29:46, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||||
| Author: improvius | ||||||
Now hold on a minute. I think Dave is actually approaching an important point. Let's examine this thought. It seems to me that Dave is really trying to figure out who he should be placing his trust in. Because, honestly, for laymen like Dave and me, that's what this boils down to. Neither I nor Dave is going to take the time to get an advanced degree and build our own radiometric dating lab just to determine who is right or wrong. Instead, we are forced to determine which side of the "debate" is more credible. Here are a few of the factors I've used for this purpose, in no particular order: 1) Quote mining. The creationist camp is littered with demonstrably misleading citations. This is perhaps one of the most damning features of creationism in that it is so <i>easy</i> for anyone to objectively evaluate. Creationists seem to use this tactic with remarkable frequency. And Dave's Pope article is, of course, a perfect example. 2) Motive The creationists have a clear and distinct motive for attacking evolution (and the 4.5 billion year age of the earth). In fact, they frequently state it outright. Dave stated it earlier in this thread. Quite simply, they see these things as attacks on their religious beliefs, and on the moral fabric of society as a whole. The motivation is subjective and emotional rather than objective and scientific. The evolution side has no such motive. The notion that there is an anti-theistic conspiracy in the scientific community is ludicrous. There may be a handful of people who are outspokenly hostile towards religion, but they are certainly not in the majority. The creationist movement, on the other hand, seems to be comprised almost exclusively of religiously-motivated individuals. 3) The scientific method. The science side fully embraces the logic and practicality of the scientific method. Most creationists (Dave included) do not. There are other factor's of course, but these were the first 3 that came to mind. I think these 3 items should be obvious to anyone, regardless of their science background. It just takes the time to do a bit of research, but no additional knowledge is required other than rational thought. |
| Date: 2006/09/14 12:24:15, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Wow, that takes me back. I had no idea these guys were still around. I used to DJ when I was in college - one of my shows was called "Homicide", and I used theirs as the theme song. Most of their songs were crap, but they had a few good ones. I always liked their version of "Little Red Riding Hood". |
| Date: 2006/09/14 12:36:23, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Homicide. You better believe it. |
| Date: 2006/09/15 03:13:57, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
How do you tell the difference between a "pre-Flood" and "post-Flood" event? |
| Date: 2006/09/15 03:31:32, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Well, it's a darn shame you weren't there to edit it for them before they signed it. I'm sure if you were, it would have clarified a lot of things for this generation. |
| Date: 2006/09/15 04:04:43, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
So you're saying that if I give you a rock, you can somehow look it up in the bible and tell me if it formed pre-Flood or post-Flood? |
| Date: 2006/09/15 04:11:30, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||||
| Author: improvius | ||||||
You are ridiculously dishonest. The Pope never said anything about Darwin. He did not "slam" the theory of evolution. Anyone with half a brain can see this. Oh wait... |
| Date: 2006/09/15 04:58:43, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Dave, YOU are the one who keeps referring to the foramtion of rocks as "pre-Flood events" or "post-Flood events". If you don't like the terminology, feel free to stop using it. |
| Date: 2006/09/15 05:08:54, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||||
| Author: improvius | ||||||
No, you idiot. He's just saying that he believes in God rather than a random cause for the universe. The fact that you interpret this as a "slam on the theory of evolution" only further illustrates how grossly ignoarant you still are as to what the theory of evolution actually is. He's talking about theology, not science. |
| Date: 2006/09/18 11:40:30, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I thought is was obvious:  |
| Date: 2006/09/18 18:12:08, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Um, don't you mean Noah? Major slip-up there, Davey. |
| Date: 2006/09/20 05:59:30, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
You didn't read carefully enough, and you were trying the wrong link. Use this one. |
| Date: 2006/09/20 06:02:46, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
You mean with a single, distinct line? Wow, you're doing a great job of making the case against yourself. |
| Date: 2006/09/20 07:44:54, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
He posted plenty of evidence on that. You just dismissed it because it was too "sciencey". |
| Date: 2006/09/20 09:30:23, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
The red dots represent Dave's imagination. |
| Date: 2006/09/20 10:28:04, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| I hope somebody is saving copies of Dave's graphs. I think Dave's Imaginary, Random Red Points (or DIRR Points) will go down in ATBC history as one of the stupidest creationist arguments ever made. It would be a shame if Dave took the pics offline. |
| Date: 2006/09/20 10:39:47, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| "That's gold, Jerry. Gold!" |
| Date: 2006/09/20 11:11:50, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Steve, that's brilliant. I'm in tears right now. |
| Date: 2006/09/21 03:06:00, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Dave thinks it's cherry picking. |
| Date: 2006/09/21 04:19:20, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
|
Sorry if I ruined the surprise, Mike. I've been over this with Dave, and frankly I haven't found a way to get past his paranoid delusions. In his mind, anyone who shows him ironclad evidence of the actual age of the earth must be lying. It is impossible for the graph in question to be accurate, therefore the data must be invalid. Dave simply has to use his imagination to come up with a reason for it to be invalid. His imagination, no matter how bizzare, must be correct because the alternative goes against everything he believes. Honestly, I don't think Dave is ever going to find his way out of the mental prison he has constructed for himself. I'm out of ideas. |
| Date: 2006/09/21 07:11:27, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Dave, when we said "all" we didn't mean "including the stuff in your feverish imagination". |
| Date: 2006/09/21 08:52:44, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
| Steve is a selfish bastard and he just wants you to quit before anyone tops his TARD chart. |
| Date: 2006/09/22 10:14:53, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Looks like the methodology described on TO wins again:
|
| Date: 2006/09/23 03:29:40, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I think another important question would be whether or not Dave accepts the basic science of half-lives and daughter elements. He probably doesn't, since that alone would blow his 6000-year hypothesis. |
| Date: 2006/09/23 03:53:55, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
If you really want to pursue this, Dave, you need to make a case for why the scale on your chart is more appropriate in this instance than JonF's. But so far you haven't come up with any supporting reasons to think so. |
| Date: 2006/09/23 09:01:16, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||||||||||
| Author: improvius | ||||||||||
Oops! Looks like he already has:
And again:
And radiohaloes? Oh yeah, Dave went there, too:
All of which leaves me to wonder why Dave didn't just skip past all of the "sciencey" stuff and dismiss the dating methods based on accelrated decay right off the bat. |
| Date: 2006/09/24 05:41:23, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Wow, it looks like something finally got through to Dave. And I thought he'd never admit the folly of a literal interpretation of the Bible. That's excellent progress, Dave my boy! Now I want you to try expanding on that concept. Meditate on this question: how can you tell the difference between literal and figurative passages in the Bible? |
| Date: 2006/09/24 09:12:37, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Super. Then how long does, say, a quartz crystal take to form? |
| Date: 2006/09/25 09:32:50, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
This first of which is, of course, "there is no God." |
| Date: 2006/09/26 05:00:13, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
...except for when it's figurative. How do you tell the difference, Dave? |
| Date: 2006/09/26 05:44:34, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Just like Dave. |
| Date: 2006/09/26 08:18:31, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Then it makes no sense whatsoever that you were not following up and reading all of the links and source material that people were citing here. The truth is that you don't really want to know that stuff. All you want to do is dig up little tidbits so you can use them out of context to support your own rationalizations. You don't really want to know the truth. You just want to know that you're right. So, Dave, how do you tell the difference between the figurative and literal parts fo the Bible? And how long does a quartz crystal take to form? |
| Date: 2006/09/26 09:45:28, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
So are suggesting that, at the time the Bible was written, it was customary to assume that the Earth circled the sun, and not vice versa? Also, how long does a quartz crystal take to form? |
| Date: 2006/09/26 11:47:29, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Dave, you said we could discern between literal and figurative statements "by knowing something about customary usage." So you must be able to tell that any biblical statements WRT the sun rising are figurative because it was the "customary usage" at the time of writing. |
| Date: 2006/09/26 14:18:00, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
For your viewing pleasure:
|
| Date: 2006/09/27 03:04:17, Link 69.55.65.100 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
You have not shown one iota of evidence for your fossil overlord conspiracy theory. |
| Date: 2006/09/29 03:57:58, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
This seems to be the core of your Grand Evolutionist Conspiracy hypothesis. But I don't think you have any supporting evidence for it. In fact, the reality seems to be exactly the opposite of what you are saying. I think I have a fairly objective view of the whole situation, and it seems obvious to me that the YECs such as yourself have far more of a psychological stake in the age of the earth than any of the "evolutionist" scientists. As far as I can tell, the only people who are "seeing what they want to see" in regards to science are the fundamentalist Christians. I'll grant you that there has been a lot of idle speculation WRT your personal life and issues, but I think that's beside the point. Such things are already acknowledged as emotional reactions to your inability (or unwillingness) to comprehend simple logic. But, as far as I can tell, the science discussed here (with the exception of any YEC claims that you present) bears no such bias. YOU are the one who is desperate to match facts to your beliefs - not the scientists. |
| Date: 2006/09/29 09:05:17, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Dear Uncommon DescentHouse, I never did believe anything I ever read on your website until just the other night... |
| Date: 2006/09/29 09:53:39, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Steve, I think you may have inadvertently stumbled upon the latest ID research methodologies. |
| Date: 2006/09/29 10:52:17, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
I think I found instructions for a meteorological simulation that he made:
(Credit where credit is due: I snipped it from this site.) And Aftershave, the Penthouse parody was my work. Well, actually I cribbed it from some John Prine lyrics. |
| Date: 2006/09/30 04:26:21, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Not at all, assuming (as you do) the numbers are arrived at arbitrarily. Or do you have an objection to Diogenes' scenario as an accurate representation of your reality? The only one who needs x number of years is you, Dave. |
| Date: 2006/09/30 06:24:44, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I'm trying to recreate your chain of logic, Dave. Tell me specifically where I'm getting this wrong: 1) The theory of evolution began as (and continues to be) a tool for atheists to disprove the existence of the Christian God. 2) Other "sciences" (and you use the term loosely) either grew up around or were hijacked by evolutionists in order to support their atheistc tool. 3) The only requirement WRT age of the eart is that it be significantly longer than whatever the Bible says. 4) Observed data is irrelevant because these "scientists" can carefully select and/or alter it to match whatever evolution requires. Now, given all that, how exactly can 4.5 billion years be a required period of time? If that number is neither based on evidence nor arrived at arbitrarily, then how do you think it is calculated? How would you begin to accurately calculate the "minimum time required for all of this?" If "all of this" is completely fictional and nonsensical to begin with, how could you possibly come up with a real time frame? |
| Date: 2006/09/30 09:57:55, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
It seems that somehow, Dave, you've come around to agreeing with nearly everyone here. You've done a complete about-face and are now acknowledging that evolution and deep time make perfect sense and fit observed data perfectly well. And the only thing getting in the way of all of that is a belief in magic and/or miracles. All right then. So I guess we're done? |
| Date: 2006/09/30 12:29:36, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Well, at least we're all on the same page now, right? That is, evolution and deep time are the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence. You know, if you'd agreed to that early on, it would have saved us all a lot of time and effort. |
| Date: 2006/09/30 13:30:22, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
Excellent. So now that you've finally acknowledged the logic and science behind evolution, deep time, and whatever, we can dispense with further discussion along those lines. At long last, we can return to the stated topic of the thread. Please, by all menas, get on with presenting your overwhelming supernatural evidence. |
| Date: 2006/09/30 15:16:54, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||||
| Author: improvius | ||||
You are quite clearly stating here that evolution and "billionsofyearsism" is the logical conclusion based on material evidence:
|
| Date: 2006/10/02 05:09:41, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
You need to take a step back at this point and show why evolutionists need evolution. Right now you have failed to provide evidence of any bias towards evolution. If there is no "need" for evolution as opposed to any other explanatory theory regarding origins of species, then you still don't have a point. |
| Date: 2006/10/02 06:43:56, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
So then you agree that there is no bias towards favoring evolution over any other theory in the scientific community? |
| Date: 2006/10/02 06:48:29, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Your chart represents present-day worms and fish. No present-day organisms are ancestral to humans. Everyone keeps telling you this, but you just don't seem to get it. |
| Date: 2006/10/02 06:54:15, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
None of which are represented on your chart. |
| Date: 2006/10/02 12:09:15, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||||||||
| Author: improvius | ||||||||
|
Points of agreement. I'd still like to acknowledge and explore what I think was a huge leap for Dave just a couple of days ago:
As I stated previously, I see this as tremendous progress from his previous position that biologists, geologsts, anthropologists, etc. were "blinded by what they want to believe." Dave then follows up by affirming the evidence and logic behind evolution and radiometric dating:
Now, aside from the bizzarely inexplicable Holocaust reference, I think we can all agree with Dave on this point. Indeed, without the influence of religious belief, what else would Joe and Bob do other than follow the physical evidence at hand? Without something like the Bible to contradict the evidence, they have no reason whatsoever to doubt or disregard whatever conclusions they may arrive at by way of methodological naturalism. Again, unless I am very much mistaken, we can all safely go along with this assesment. At this point, it seems that we only disagree when it comes to methodology:
Again, I think we can all agree that this is a major point (if not the point) of disagreement between Dave and, well, the world of science. What I am proposing now is that we begin from this common ground. We should accept Dave's implicit concession to the "materialistic" science behind evolution and "deep time", and allow him to get on with presenting his Supernatural evidence. Now, Dave has previously defined "supernatural" as "simply natural things which we don't presently understand," so I'm not entirely sure on where and how he is trying to break from methodoligcal naturalism. But that's Dave's problem, not mine. I am proposing a shortcut. We could continue arguing the finer "sciencey" points to Dave, but I think we all know where that's going to end up. As Mike PSS is demonstrating, ultimately Dave will have to formally concede on all of the technical, materialistic elements of your theories. So why don't we just take that as a given and get right to the heart of Dave's "hypothesis": positive evidence of natural things which we don't presently understand. Once again, I think everyone here will agree that, eventually, that's what Dave's "hypothesis" boils down to. It's only a matter of time before he ends up there, so why don't we just jump right to it? |
| Date: 2006/10/02 12:38:23, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Your God is like Hitler? WTF. |
| Date: 2006/10/02 12:42:58, Link 70.101.63.44 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
Well, obviously I know you don't think it's "true", but you agreed that evolution and "deep time" were the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence. That was really my point. |
| Date: 2006/10/02 15:59:48, Link 72.225.9.83 | ||
| Author: improvius | ||
I think Dave is implicitly conceding that, based on scientific evidence, they are not results of mixing. Most likely he is referring to the possibility of unkown "supernatural" forces that could have somehow caused mixing. In other words, Mike, you can't rule out that your crystals were not formed by miracles. |
| Date: 2006/10/03 04:54:50, Link 70.101.63.44 |
| Author: improvius |
