AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: millipj

form_srcid: millipj

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 23.20.25.122

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is 23.20.25.122

form_author:

form_srcid: millipj

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2006/07/02 02:09:03, Link
Author: millipj
Quote (guthrie @ July 02 2006,06:41)
Quote (Renier @ July 01 2006,17:40)
Sounds a lot like ID huh? In fact, ID and religion have so much in common, it is one and the same thing :)

ohhh, controversial!

Anyway, an Id'iot of a church minister is claiming in my local paper letters page that Newton and all th emembers of the Royal Society were creationists.  Classic appeal to authority, I'm away to compose a letter asking why tens of thousands of scientists across all the major religions and denominations agree that evolution is correct, and, what evidence did Newton have to creationism?  And how did he find Newtonian physics in the bible?

Don't forget to mention that Newton died over 80 years before Charles Darwin was born and over 130 years before he published "Original of Species"

Date: 2006/07/08 04:27:37, Link
Author: millipj
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1297

Quote
Now that we have Miller’s words in front of us tell me again how this is a fair representation of my view that there was no intervention over the entire course of evolution on this planet.
emphasis mine

So Dave, can we conclude that i) Dembski is lying about what Miller said, and ii) you agree with the fact of evolution (if not, necessarily, the mechanism)

Quote
Ken Miller is a very confused ID supporter.


On the contrary, it looks like Dave is actually a very confused supporter of evolution.

Date: 2006/07/08 07:41:36, Link
Author: millipj
Quote
10. Dave,

If you believe in front-loading and no “tinkering” thereafter, am I correct to assume that you believe in natural selection and Darwinian evolution? If not, I would love to see your understanding of the biology of all that has happened if it only occurred because of a “seed” planted in the beginning. Either way this is very, very interesting: the czar of Bill Dembski’s web-site is either

1. A Darwinist, or
2. A person who believes that the grandeur of life that arose from the little “pond” evolved without any external intervention on its own by some mechanism other than natural selection…yet to be discovered.

I am also saddened that you don’t know the character of the Designer.

Thanks so much for your honesty and forthrightness.

Darrel

Comment by darrel falk — July 8, 2006 @ 11:48 am


Ouch :)

Looks like Dave has another of those damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't moments.

Date: 2006/08/09 08:05:04, Link
Author: millipj
Do we know when?

Any chance of another Christmas present like Dover?

Date: 2006/12/03 14:51:13, Link
Author: millipj
Quote
If a robodog is created by human intelligence; it's possible that the retriever also was created by an intelligence, he said.

And he's right isn't he. Retrievers were created by an intelligence - humans.

Am I missing his point? Dogs were created from wolves by man originally. And most of the retriever breeds seem to originate from the 19th century.

Using IDers favourite research tool (ie Google),

The Golden Retriever:  The breed was originally developed in Scotland, at "Guisachan", the highland estate of Sir Dudley Majoribanks later Lord Tweedmouth in the 1860s.

Chesapeake Bay Retriever: In the winter of 1807, an English ship with two Newfoundlands on board wrecked off the coast of Maryland. Everyone was saved, and the two dogs were given to a family of dog lovers. They were later mated with local retrievers. The new breed, which was first used for hunting in the Chesapeake Bay, proved to be excellent. Careful breeding over the years has created an outstanding retriever with incredible enthusiasm and endurance.

Nova Scotia Duck-Tolling Retriever (what a great name :) ) The breed was developed in the Little River district of Yarmouth County, Nova Scotia around the beginning of the 19th Century.

etc. etc.

Date: 2007/01/23 16:15:03, Link
Author: millipj
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 23 2007,10:46)
DaveScot:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1986#comment-86907

   
Quote



DaveScot

01/23/2007

11:30 am
austinite

     
Quote


There is nothing in that article to say that atheism is being addressed as a religion. Saying that it is going to be taught in RE classes is not the same thing.


History is taught in history class.

Science is taught in science class.

Math is taught in math class.

Art is taught in art class.

Religion is taught in religion class.

Atheism is taught in religion class. Connect the dots.



Houston, we have a TARD INFERENCE

And

"ID is taught in religion class."

Wonder if Dave will connect those dots.

Date: 2007/01/23 16:26:27, Link
Author: millipj
Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 02 2007,10:02)
Best place for it, as long as the teachers dont abuse it, but then I expect that it will be abused since some teachers are lying scum.  
The tricky bit is that as some people have pointed out, it will allow ID'ers to rant on about the science behind theri view, yet in a religious setting without allowing real science to answer.  This could cause problems.  Actually, to me it smells of a typical uneducated compromise.

Now that it has been thrust into their arena the mainstream religious groups in the UK will not be happy.

The bad teachers who were peddling YEC will still peddle it and ID. The good teachers (who undoubtedly are the majority) will rip it to shreds as bad religion (its based on lies) and bad science.

I think that this is a major own goal for Truth in Science and ID

Date: 2007/02/08 16:20:42, Link
Author: millipj
Hey, there might even be a definition of what the Theory of Intelligent Design actually is.

Date: 2007/03/02 12:57:27, Link
Author: millipj
Saw this on the Guardian site. You may already have seen it but it is so breathtaking in its dishonesty that it is worth a browse if not
     
Quote
A website founded by US religious activists aims to counter what they claim is "liberal bias" on Wikipedia, the open encyclopedia which has become one of the most popular sites on the web. The founders of Conservapedia.com say their site offers a "much-needed alternative" to Wikipedia, which they say is "increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American".

Compare and contrast
Quote
Dinosaurs
Wikipedia,
"Vertebrate animals that dominated terrestrial ecosystems for over 160m years, first appearing approximately 230m years ago."

Conservapedia
"They are mentioned in numerous places throughout the Good Book. For example, the behemoth in Job and the leviathan in Isaiah are almost certainly references to dinosaurs."

US Democratic party

Wikipedia
"The party advocates civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, fiscal responsibility, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention."

Conservapedia
"The Democrat voting record reveals a true agenda of cowering to terrorism, treasonous anti-Americanism, and contempt for America's founding principles."

and of course the quotemine filled
Evolution
and
Intelligent Design
   
Quote
Intelligent Design is the theory that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause (God), rather than natural processes, such as evolution. [1]

To date there have been over 40 peer reviewed articles supporting Intelligent Design in such notable publications as the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and internationally respected scientific journals such as Rivista di Biologia. [2]

Date: 2008/02/27 12:25:24, Link
Author: millipj
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:10)
But I can say that several scientists we talked to in our film--especially cell biologists--are finding the assumption of design quite useful in their work. And I don't mean useful in terms of creating a grand explanation for life. Merely in their day to day lab work.

Using an assumption of design is not the same as thinking that they (cells) were designed. To pretend that it does shows a misunderstanding of how most scientists work.

I work as a chemist. For much of my day-to-day job I can use a simple "ball and stick" model of how a molecule behaves. I can treat electrons as charges on the atoms.

When I need to consider how a molecule bonds to a surface I use a different model involving electrons filling bonding and anti-bonding molecular orbitals.

However, I know that these are both merely useful approximations but that neither of these models is a correct representation of the molecule as described by quantum mechanics.

 

 

 

=====