Comment thread for Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity
NOTICE --
I have placed a new post on the general subject of Intelligent Design. I did not want to create confusion by having two threads on the same subject, but I felt it was best to make a new post. Copies of comments or complete discussions already posted on this thread are of course welcome under my new post. I am leaving this thread open for those who wish to continue their discussions here.
=====================================
I am establishing this thread for the benefit of those who wish to discuss ID or IC on this blog. Apparently there is a need for some neutral ground where commenters who have been censored by other blogs may freely discuss these issues. The establishment of this thread is not meant to discourage the discussion of ID or IC when appropriate in the contexts of other threads. Also, this thread is not like Panda's Thumb's infamous "Bathroom Wall" -- comments discussing ID and/or IC in other threads will never be moved here.
I have placed a new post on the general subject of Intelligent Design. I did not want to create confusion by having two threads on the same subject, but I felt it was best to make a new post. Copies of comments or complete discussions already posted on this thread are of course welcome under my new post. I am leaving this thread open for those who wish to continue their discussions here.
=====================================
I am establishing this thread for the benefit of those who wish to discuss ID or IC on this blog. Apparently there is a need for some neutral ground where commenters who have been censored by other blogs may freely discuss these issues. The establishment of this thread is not meant to discourage the discussion of ID or IC when appropriate in the contexts of other threads. Also, this thread is not like Panda's Thumb's infamous "Bathroom Wall" -- comments discussing ID and/or IC in other threads will never be moved here.
Labels: Intelligent design (new #1)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 4/23/2006 01:02:00 PM
90 Comments:
I think irreducible complexity is a bona fide scientific concept being held back by atheist scientists. The same thing has happened to non-spherical earth theorists (who despite using geometry as the base of their theory were derided as being a bunch of religious zealots).
We've got to raise up an army for christ and show that ID is not about religion.
speaking of not being about religion, here's a comment that was briefly on Uncommonly Dense moments ago, before Davetard or somebody yanked it:
I’m curious as to why this argument is used. This comment is not a good response so Dave should remove it but I hope for a reply.
The way I see it, in terms of credibility, even if this argument turns out to work, it is pointing out the overwhelming number of times where it doesn’t. Why would God choose do design a machine to allow a bacterium some advantage and yet leave humans to the vicissitudes of fate and evolution?
I can’t get past the most obvious way we can know about the designer: our innate sense of connection. We can literally feel our creator. So how is that not evidence? Now, I have one set of religious practices to enhance that feeling but others have different practices and all do feel it. We feel it when we are elated, ashamed, in awe; we feel abandoned by it when we are sad and strengthened by it when we strengthen our resolve; tibetan monks chant to it, hindu yogis express it as a word ohm, south american indians mutilate their bodies in homage to it. And on and on.
So why the flagellum? Why not the soul?
Comment by Doug — April 23, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
What I make of it is that it's not a comment describing a way to falsify the Neo-Darwinian theory that random mutation plus natural selection can create a flagellum.
So I deleted it because I said I would delete any comments that didn't answer that specific question.
I don't feel like answering yours either. Do your own homework. Do I look like the Shell Answer Man or something fercrisakes?
I couldn't agree more with dante's comments. Intelligent design may be about religion, but if those atheists say it's about religion, then maybe it isn't. As far as I'm concerned, Darwinists are in thrall to Satan, the great deceiver, and all they say is lies. If we have to say ID is science to drive secularism out of America's schools, we need to get it under the radar. And besides, it's obvious to everyone here that ID is science and Darwinism is not. A real science has testable theories that can be proven or disproven, and that is what ID has -- the Book of Genesis and parts of Leviticus proved intelligent design true long ago, while after 150 years neo-Darwinism is still nothing but religious fanaticism, which is now unconstitutionally penetrated into America's public schools. If you look at the history books, every year since Darwin wrote his theory we have suffered an increase in street crime, teenage pregnancy, socialism, pollution, rock and roll, atheism and venereal disease. A coincidence? I think not. Darwin set out to destroy the American family with his new cult religion, and we've been paying the price ever since. God bless you, Dante, and Larry. You are saving America.
"Do I look like the Shell Answer Man or something fercrisakes?"
No, but maybe the Dell man.
I will admit to you DaveScot, right here and now (gosh it seems so funny talking to you directly) that I am indeed the man behind such names as "MattDean" and "Dante Toscanini". Feel free to delete those accounts. Now that I have this blog, I won't need them anymore.
Larry, you don't know me, but I am a lurker on the Panda's Thumb who very rarely comments. I applaud you for your no-censorship policy. I honestly do, and other PTers reading this should too.
I'm betting Dave deleted it because it's piece of evidence #2837474 that ID is religion. Davetard often deletes comments which expose that fact.
Hey "Anonymous". You are a bit of a coward not using a name.
I agree with most of your comments, except the last one "Darwin set out to destroy the American family".
We know his goal was to destroy the ENGLISH family. This blatant oversight makes me think that you aren't really a crea..uh...ID supporter, but you just drifted in here to raise trouble.
Besides, we all know Darwin had nothing to do with rock and roll. That was Einstein.
Check your facts next time.
Check YOUR facts buddy. I not only worked for Dell, but Shell as well. I also murdered hitler. -ds
Do any of you fucking cocksuckers mind if I swear?
Go right the fuck ahead, retard.
I disagree. I think that David Scot's experience at Dell systems has prepared him for his work in evolution far better than any degree in biology, paleontology, chemistry or anthropology ever could. Biologists cannot understand evolution because they are just technicians and not trained in seeing (Christian) design, like an engineer is. Besides, most so-called scientists are just godless atheist muslims, and most engineers are CHRISTIAN Americans, which tells you something about what Darwinism really is. It's all in the Bible, people: ID is NOT religion.
Larry can check the server logs to confirm that I have posted here as steve s, am in fact steve story, and did not post the above comment " stevestory said...
Go right the fuck ahead, retard. "
Someone (davetard?) is impersonating me. Poorly.
I can understand why Davetard would be upset with me. In the past 4 months he's humiliated himself, and I've been laughing at the spectacle.
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy. Feel free to update the page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose any major changes. Shortcut:
WP:TPG
When writing on a Wikipedia talk page, certain methods of communication are counterproductive, while others help make progress smoother. The following list is designed to help Wikipedians use talk pages effectively.
Contents
1 Central points
1.1 Behavior that is unacceptable on Wikipedia
1.2 In general
1.3 Disputes
1.4 What talk pages may be used for
2 General standards
2.1 Layout
2.2 Markup
2.3 When there is too much text
2.4 Other conventions
2.5 Headings on talk pages
2.6 Template talk page
3 See also
[edit]
Central points
[edit]
Behavior that is unacceptable on Wikipedia
Please note that the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being banned from Wikipedia.
No personal attacks This mainly means:
No insults: Don't write that user such and so is an idiot, or otherwise insult them (even if they are an idiot). Instead, explain what they did wrong, why it is wrong, and how to fix it.
Avoid ad-hominem attacks: Calling somebody a fascist or the like is generally not a good way of supporting your argument.
Don't threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you.
Don't make legal threats: Threatening a lawsuit is highly disruptive to Wikipedia, for reasons gone into at the linked page.
Don't misrepresent other people: As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc, please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Certainly don't edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing or deleting your own words is up to you. Also avoid putting others' comments in the wrong context. (See MeatBall:ContextSwizzling).
[edit]
In general
Assume good faith: In other words, try to consider the person on the other end of the discussion is a thinking, rational being who is trying to positively contribute to Wikipedia — unless, and only unless, you have firm, solid, and objective proof to the contrary. Merely disagreeing with you is no such proof.
Communicate: When communicating on a talk page, answer if somebody asks for further explanation of your edits. Don't just repeat yourself instead.
Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words and is not a detailed, point by point discussion (and if it is, see below), consider shortening the result. Long, rambling messages are frequently difficult to understand, and therefore difficult to deal with appropriately. As a result, rambling posts are frequently either ignored or misunderstood.
Read the archives: Many article talk pages contain links to archived earlier discussions. Often the archived discussions contain relevant information related to commonly contested content and the resolutions to previous content disputes. New editors to a particular article are encouraged to read any archives before posting their questions so that the talk page maintains a good signal to noise ratio, as opposed to one that is filled with repetitive postings. Talk pages that have a good signal to noise ratio are more likely to attract continued participation. An additional benefit to reading the archives is avoid resurrecting previously settled disputes prompted by commonly-made objections.
[edit]
Disputes
If you are having a disagreement or a problem with someone's behavior, please read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
[edit]
What talk pages may be used for
Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article.
Talk pages are also not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral. Partisan debates do not align with the mission of Wikipedia, and get in the way of the job of writing an encyclopedia. (For an alternative forum, see the m:Wikibate proposal.) Arguing as a means of improving an article is considerably less effective than an equal amount of time engaged in research.
For issues which have a verifiably correct and relatively undisputed answer, please do feel free to use the talk pages to facilitate fact checking (which sometimes includes resolving disputes over factual accuracy).
Often the talk pages of controversial topics can be very heavily used. See for example Talk:Abortion, Talk:Capitalism, Talk:Socialism, Talk:Jesus Christ.
[edit]
General standards
[edit]
Layout
Separate discussion topics, with new topics at the end: Put each new conversation topic or major thread at the end of the talk page, under a different section header (== Subject ==). This uses section headers like the "Subject line" in email messages. The "Post a comment" feature can be used to do this automatically. (If you're using the default Wikipedia:Skin, use the "Plus" tab to the right of the "Edit this page" tab.) Enter a subject/headline in the resulting edit page, and it will become the section heading. This allows section editing of the thread in question (see Wikipedia:Sections). The edit summary automatically includes section heading information, making it much easier to track a particular conversation. The section headers also appear in the talk page's table of contents (once there are several of them), giving a list of conversation topics in chronological order.
Proceed descendingly within topics: Within each topic, chronological order should also be preserved: the further down the contribution to talk, the later in time it was made.
Use indenting to keep the threads of the conversation straight: The first contributor is all the way to the left, the next person starts with one colon (:), the next person starts with two colons. Then, when the first contributor responds, they start at the left margin again, and the second and third persons continue to mark themselves with one and two colons respectively. In that way, who is saying what is clear. Other indentation systems are equally acceptable and widely used (such as a threaded tree format, like that often seen in email clients).
Use whitespace when making a point by point discussion: While conciseness in a talk page discussions is always desirable, sometimes, when engaged in point by point discussions, it is impossible to be brief. In such cases, use paragraph breaks when you've reached the end of your discussion of one point. This results in a much clearer post, that is also easier to respond to.
[edit]
Markup
Sign your posts: To sign a post, type three tildes (~~~), and they will be replaced with your username after saving, like this: Eloquence. Type four tildes (~~~~), and they will be replaced with your username and time stamp, like this: Eloquence 03:44 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC); comments can be further customized in Special:Preferences, like so: --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC). (The latter is usually preferred, to make it easy to piece together the chronology of a page.) No comments are really anonymous, because anyone can check the history of the page to find out what user or IP address posted any given text. Signing your post is a common courtesy which allows people an easy way to see who is speaking; unsigned posts are confusing.
Avoid markup: Don't use a lot of Italic text, Bolded text, or CAPITAL LETTERS. These are considered SHOUTING, and contribute to the view that you are RANTING!!!!!
In particular, Avoid HTML markup: Use of HTML markup where equivalent wikimarkup works fine is frowned upon, except the use of operator for redacting parts of your own posts that have since been superseded. (Using on another user's posts is covered by "Don't misrepresent other people", above.)
Voting: Various pages invite you to vote on a topic. Using the posting conventions of this section, add your vote as a bullet (*) underneath the relevant topic and bold (''') your actual vote. Your vote will typically not carry much weight unless you include your rationale for the vote. Make sure to sign your post (~~~~), as described above.
[edit]
When there is too much text
Archive rather than delete: Avoid deleting comments on talk pages, particularly comments made by others. When a talk page's content has become extremely large or the discussion of the issue in hand has simply died down and no one has a reasonable chance of adding to it, create a new page. (See Help:Starting a new page and Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page for details.) Place the page in a talk or Wikipedia talk namespace. Give it an explanatory name. Often people simply add "archive" to the original name. Explain on the archive page where the text you plan to archive will come from and provide a link. Cut the relevant content from the original page and paste it into the new page. Replace the text on the original page with a link to the archive. An alternative is to summarise the discussion and provide a link to the version with the full text.
Summarize ("refactor"): See Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages for details on why and how to refactor talk pages.
[edit]
Other conventions
Make links freely: Links to articles are as useful on talk pages as anywhere else, and links to non-existent articles can help get them onto the most wanted pages list.
Use UTC when referring to a time, e.g. the time of an edit or page move.
When discussing the name of the page, cite the current name: if the page is moved afterwards, the Talk page is usually also moved, so then it would not be clear what you were talking about and people may think e.g. that you are suggesting to change the new name, while you were referring to the old one.
Feel free to ignore typographical conventions: Do what you need to to make your points clear. The Manual of Style is for articles.
[edit]
Headings on talk pages
Please refrain from using headers to personally address people on talk pages. Headers should be used to facilitate discussion by indicating and limiting topics related to the article. For instance, you could make a header whose title describes in a few words one problem you have with the article. This will make it easy for people to address that issue, work towards consensus, and eventually resolve the issue or dispute and improve the article. Thanks and happy edits.
Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks, please refrain from being critical and negative in headings on talk pages. Keep in mind that you may think you are being critical about details of the article, but those details were written by individual editors, and thus you are criticizing their edits and them.
Article talk pages should be used for discussing the articles and how to improve them, not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article. This does not mean one should not use talk pages to propose improvements: Headings on article talk pages should be used to facilitate discussion and article improvement by indicating and limiting topics related to the article in a positive, fair, and NPOV manner.
Write headers whose titles in a few words describe the issue or problem you have with the article in the form of a question, through a broader issue, or as a positive assertion. For example: If your issue with the article Dinosaur is that it states that "All dinosaurs walked on two legs." Do not write a heading on the talk page: "This article is completely wrong and stupid," or, "Morons think all dinosaurs walk on two legs," or even "All dinosaurs did not walk on two legs." Rather, attempt to make your headings welcoming to those you disagree with. Try, "Did all dinosaurs walk on two legs?", "Dinosaur locomotion", or, "Brontosauri walked on four legs". This will make it easy for people to address that issue, work towards consensus, and eventually resolve the issue or dispute and improve the article. Thanks.
[edit]
Template talk page
One exception of the style guideline is the template talk page. This is because the talk page usually functions as two pages, so it's recomended to use level 1 headers to separate the issues. Example:
=Documentation=
=Discussion=
One major reason to do this is that using section=new will create a level 2 heading, and it's preferable to separate discussion and documentation so a new comment is placed under discussion. See also {{doctl}}
[edit]
See also
Wikipedia:Talk page
Wikipedia:Wikiquette
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines"
Categories: Wikipedia guidelines | Wikipedia style guidelines
The wiki article sums it up very nicely, DaveScott.
In my religion (Islam) we have 99 names for God, and "The Designer" is not one of them.
Told you ID wasn't about religion.
Dear Dante:
It was me who left those comments. I'm sorry I left no name first time, but I assure you, I am not a coward: I'm retired from my job as a security guard and rather old (77 years young!) and I've only owned a computer for a few months and I'm still not so good at it.
All that said, why all the hostility, young man? Your first message here made me think you were a sincere young Christian scholar, but now I don't know. I know many Christians and they aren't angry like you are, young man. You're not an Islam, are you? I've read that Islams believe in God, but are all very angry. Think about it.
I'm sure that Darwin was trying to destroy the American family, even though of course I know he was English. America is God's Chosen Country, and Satan's agents on earth have long tried to destroy America, and even in Darwin's time, the Great Deceiver (AKA Old Scratch) knew that America was his chief opponent in the forces of good on this planet. That is why Charles Darwin sought to destroy the American family, and not the English family. This should be obvious, I think. He even admitted on his death bed, I'm told.
I don't know who this Einstein fellow is you speak of, but I still know I'm right, since I know Jews were the people who put out the rock-and-roll records. This led straight to the upsurge in venereal disease that America struggles with to this day. Why aren't Darwinists addressing that fact???
bless you,
BF
I love that "Good Faith" spiel coming from the biggest two faced hypocrit of all time.
It's hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
Larry can check the server logs to confirm that I have posted here as steve s, am in fact steve story, and did not post the above comment " stevestory said...
What a little fucking girl. Did you tell your mommy too, you sniveling shit? You make me sick.
I love that Davetard's million-word post includes this "Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words and is not a detailed, point by point discussion (and if it is, see below), consider shortening the result. Long, rambling messages are frequently difficult to understand, and therefore difficult to deal with appropriately."
Like I've said before. In terms of unintentional irony, these guys are Major Leaguers.
-steve s
I hope Dembski never replaces you Davetard. You are without peer.
Hello Doctor ASSociate Professor Davison. Let your hair down. Tell these fist bangers what you really think of them. Don't mince words.
Hey Davetard, I'm waiting for your refutation of Heddle:
http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/04/call-for-maverick-id-bloggers.html
Yer godamn fuckin A skippy right I'm without peer.
And if you'd get away from me I'd be without queer too, homo.
Anonymity ROCKS.
Fuck moderation.
This is exactly what we needed.
Okay, you goddamn church-burning faggot punks, I'm giving you TEN SECONDS to quit impersonating me. I come from Texas, I was in the Marines, I used to work for Dell, and now I run a blog: I CAN FUCK YOU UP.
Your mother sucks cocks in hell, anonymous.
Are we having fun yet?
I swear to GOD William Dembski told me that he and Dave Springer have Butt Sex all day long.
Signed Doug Moran
Uh-huh. I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, I forgot myself in all this excitement. But being as this is the .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and could blow your head clean off, you have to ask yourself one question, "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do you, punk?
Nick Matzke and Wesley Elsberry tell their wives they go out in the woods to play with their birds.
In a way, it's true.
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK
F
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
U
C
K
F
U
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
UU
U
U
C
K
My THREAD! What happened to my THREAD? It was supposed to be a thing of beauty, not this... ABOMINATION!
Jesus, those last 3 posts contained a lot of uracil. Which would make them unhuman.
Hey, ballbark frank, Frankfurters are german. So is Einstein. Einstein spoke German. Know who else did? Hitler.
It is on that basis I am reporting you to the Department of Homeland Security.
This thread has gone to hell, just like all you atheist satanists are. -Larry
Hmmm. Dave Scottttt. You, are, an, idiot.
Larry,
he is jealous because you have a better blog. He is mean and nasty and that is why he is banned from most of the world. Unfortunately, he probably won't stop. Don't let that stop you from pursuing your blog.
Settle down, children.
Seriously.
Interesting.
Larry, if you post a list of IP addresses associated with these messages I'll search for them in the Uncommon Descent database to see if we can attach names to any of them. Most of the regular suspects have posted there at least one time and if they have fixed IPs they'll be caught red handed.
My IP database won't be as recent or inclusive as say that of "After The Bar Closes" so maybe one of the admins there would be willing to do the same. It won't take more than a minute if there aren't more than dozen IPs to check.
I have a few saved comments of yours, Mr Springer, which seem to illustrate the hypocrisy of your last post.
By the way, how much are you charging now for those boat trips to spy on the nudist beach?
@ Larry
Congratulations on a truly open forum. It certainly contrasts with and highlights the cowardly and deceitful practices of Uncommon Descent.
@ Larry
Congratulations on a truly open forum. It looks a bit f***ed at times but hey that is what freedom is all about! I'll check back here if I feel like reading about anarchie an chaos again :) .
@ Alan Fox
"It certainly contrasts with and highlights the cowardly and deceitful practices of Uncommon Descent."
Lets not exclude P. thumpy here and their deceitful practices. I guess that is why Larry started this blog in the first place :)
Dave as far as I know from my experience of using a free blogger site the admin has no access to ip addresses nor is there any type of server info available to the admin.
For Larry: Maybe you should change the name of this blog to "When nerds attack". The nerd lunatic asylums at Pandas Thumb and Pharyngula are there for a purpose; to keep them busy at being nerdy blowhards in a constant circlejerk of nerdosity while the rest of us try and elevate people's understanding beyond their current level of brainwashing.
The mega nerds have found you and they have decided to mark their territory the way they usually do i.e pissing and moaning and gesticulating their tiny minds in some kind of bizarre show of nerd machismo i.e acting like 12 year old boys who are just so gosh darn sure that the adults are all stupid and lame and who just don't get how cool and grownup they are...don't they know how freakin cool the Backstreet Boys, Eminem, and Darwin are? Parents just don't understand.
Larry your problem is that you went to the insane asylum and tried to tell them that they are all crazy. What did you think would happen? You can get away with it if you are very crafty and know what you are doing, you didn't, in fact most ID people don't as well. And even for people who do know how to walk into the fire without getting burned...why do it? Ya gotta figure that anyone who spends time on those mega nerd sites are pretty set in their nerdy little gay way. They are for the most part a lost cause and not worthy of your time and effort. That time and effort is better spent here and elsewhere where mega nerds under the influence of their gay nerd machismo do not have control over the situation. When they do they will abuse their power because at heart they are mostly intolerant of truth if that truth bursts their bubble boy's bubble delusion of mental superiority...it's an ego thing for the mega nerds...capsice?
@ Kizzzmet
Oh, of course every nasty comment here was from PT people... I think YOUR side was responsible for the childish behaviour. But then, it never crossed your mind, did it?
Anyway, I think this blog is a good idea Larry. Keep it up. Sort of nasty seeing someone derailing your threads eh? Deja Vu? However, here you can say your say. Also, good to see your blog generating traffic. Give the blokes at UD some tips. I am sure their comments per thread would double if DaveTard stopped deleting his own bloody posts/threads.
@Jad - about DaveTard, you were warned.
renier
I know all about Stravid Dinger and I welcome his comments. They reveal the real Dinger. That is what internet communication is all about don't you know.
"A man in in armor is his armor's slave."
Robert Browning
I love it so!
It is a shame somebody is trying to derail this thread.
Alan
Scenic tours of Lake Travis are free for my friends and I'm quite sure you don't have enough money to buy your way aboard otherwise you wouldn't need to ask. The nude beach is okay but just one bit of the nickel tour. It's a curiosity like Mansfield Dam which is along the same route.
Devil's Cove is the main party hangout with the best scenery. I was anchored for two days at the July 4, 2004 party blogged below.
http://blog.manontheground.net/traveller/2004/12/lake_travis_dev.html
Dinger obviously missed his calling, He should have been a professional photographer.
What school or scientists (make believe like Behe or real ones) are conducting ANY ID testing or research right now? Name any college or research center that is conducting ID related research and/or testing.
Don't tell me about idiots like Dembski who are reasearching a new book, I'm talking about legitimate scientific research. Who?
Tell me, you lying bass-tards!
ps: Does William Demsbki still believe in the bible codes and think they are closely related to intelligent design? He hasn't written on the subject in a while.
I am surprised Dave Tard hasn't banned Larry from his own blog yet.
Larry's days are numbered, but you just made your last post here, asswipe! -ds
anonymous
All current research favors a past Intelligent Design and none has ever favored a role for chance. Intelligent Design is evident in every aspect of the universe and never should heve been presented for debate in the first place. That was the dumbest thing the IDists could ever have done. We all know what it means when when something is presented for debate. It indicates a profound lack of resolve so debate teams spring up like mushrooms and, as in all debates, nothing ever gets resolved as internet forums so clearly prove.
It is only when one accepts the obvious, as Einstein so wisely claimed, that "Everything is determined" that any rational pursuit of the evolutionary problem will be meaningful. There is mountimng evidence from several molecular and chromosomal sources that "preferred" pathways and "hotspots" of chromosmal restructuring characterize the entire evolutionary scenario. There is now and never was a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
Neither allelic mutation nor natural selection ever had anything whatsoever to do with creative organic evolution beyond contributing to ultimate extinction. That of course was essential to ensure the next step. There are no further next steps. Just as ontogeny terminates with the death of the indivisual so evolution has terminated with its ultimate products most if not all of which are doomed to ultimate extinction. I am not the first to realize that evolution is finished and have published as much. If the omnipotent Stravid Dinger had not purged my papers in a fit of pique, I could direct you to the appropriate sources on the side board at Uncommon Descent. I have just informed Dembski that his blogczar refuses to even respond to my request. Just find my paper "Is evolution finished?" for the details. It is easily found on the internet.
I love it so.
I just noticed something profound.
Without the ID creationist crowd around to promote irreducible complexity, AND without evolutionary scientists to point out the several ways in which IC could evolve naturally, then this thread would not exist.
You see? The odds of both of these points of view coming together simultaneously by chance alone is next to impossible, and may as well be zero for all practical purposes. This thread should not exist at all, ergo IC is correct.
This thread is supposed to be discussing IC, not be an example of it!
This blog is hot.
improvius
Your comment is typical of the sort that I delete on my blog after calling attention to everyone that it was completely without sigificance and contributed nothing to our understanding. Thanks for giving me this opportunity to do it here. Maybe Larry will get the picture eventually.
Who is next?
I love it so!
is improvious a homo?
So JAD, what you are admitting is there is not a single scientist in the entire world who is actually doing any legitiamte intelligent design testing or research (other than researching a new book to selll to naive dopes).
I love it so!
You're outta here! -ds
Anonymous
The answer to your question is yes. What kind of a damn fool would regard Intelligent Design as an "inference"? Dilliam Wembski would of course. He has a whole forum and a bunch of silly books dedicated to just that. Believe it or not he even claims to have proven it mathematically! Otto Schindewolf never regarded it as an "inference" and said so in no uncertain terms. He just flat out claimed that the saber-toothed tiger's skull was "designed." Chance never designed anything and only atheist intellectual idiots (Darwinians) could ever claim that it did. Guys like Wembski, and there is a whole slew of them, decided to make Intelligent Design their personal claim to fame. They even are so bold as to call it a "movement." It's a movement all right, like a bowel movement. Wembski has milked that empty udder to death and is even getting paid for it. It is disgusting. Both factions in this idiotic debate are living in worlds they have designed just for themselves, oblivious to the fossil record, the experimental laboratory, a long and rich legacy from several biologists far greater than themselves and, last and not least, ordinary common sense.
It's hard to believe isn't it?
Who is next?
I love it so!
Who's next ?
Maybe you, Johnny.
'I declare ID is not questionable therefore any observation supports ID'
A scientist are you?
LOL
JAD, in the words of my favorite rock and roll musician (David Partridge), I think I love you!
BTW, do YOU think the intelligent designer is God or a space alien or a time traveler. My money still says time traveler.
I think he (time traveler) goes back and forth in time and makes adjustments as needed. For instance, here in the year of our Lord 2006, he might note some defect or something within a certain species and then travel back in time to correct that defect. Then he returns to the present and whammo, that defect is no longer there.
I love it so!
anonymous, the coward who is afraid to divulge his identity.
If you had read my papers or my posts you would realize that I have rejected a living personal God just as Einstein did. Like Einstein, I too have better sense than to ever deny that at least one most certainly must have existed. That is all that is required to ultimately understand the universe. Don't confuse me with the Fundies. Like the chance worshipping Darwimps, they also want nothing to do with me which is the way I want it. Got that anonymous? Write that down. The truth of the matter is that both camps are scared stoolless of me and my sources. That is why my name is not to be mentioned by the self-annointed professional evolutionists like Dilliam Wembski and Dichard Rawkins. There are no experts concerning an event that has never been observed and there never will be until evolutionary novelty is created under controlled conditions. I have pointed the way as to how that might be achieved. If no one is interested, it becomes their defect not mine. It sure as hell will never be done through mutation, sexual reproduction and that idiotic cornerstone of Darwinian mysticism - Natural Selection. Dobzhansky proved that beyond any doubt.
Now go vent your spleen on someone else, Spravid Dinger for example.
I love it so!
NOTICE --
I have placed a new opening post on the general subject of Intelligent Design. I did not want to create confusion by having two threads on the same subject, but I felt it was best to make a new post. Copies of comments or complete discussions already posted on this thread are of course welcome under my new post. I am leaving this thread open for those who wish to continue their discussions here.
No, Anonymous, you may not copy your "U UU" garbage over to my new thread -- if you do I will delete it, and I don't care if you call me a hypocrite for breaking my no-deletions policy.
JohnADavison said...
Dinger obviously missed his calling, He should have been a professional photographer.
and..
There are no experts concerning an event that has never been observed and there never will be until evolutionary novelty is created under controlled conditions. I have pointed the way as to how that might be achieved. If no one is interested, it becomes their defect not mine. It sure as hell will never be done through mutation, sexual reproduction and that idiotic cornerstone of Darwinian mysticism - Natural Selection. Dobzhansky proved that beyond any doubt.
Mr. JAD,
A) Dave did not take those pics. He was busy cleaning his bathroom at home in his leather French Maid's outfit for his wife.
B) Is a tomato just a nightshade with some fatty juicy fruits? have you ever crossed them? I have. Go figure that one out. People made the damn tomato. Does that make farmers the only true experts? (or is that micro-evolution?)
C) If Gay Dave blows another goat does anyone care?
bwe
It is Doctor not Mister and has been for over a half century.
"A past evolution is undeniable. A present evolution is undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
"There are more horse's asses than horses."
ibid
I love it so!
John I've not read very much of your writings on evolution but one thing did make me wonder.
You wrote that you don't believe in a living personal God. At the same time you seem to be advocating some form of intelligent design.
How can there be any question of design without intellect and intelligence and mind guiding the design? How can there be intellect and mind without a living person?
What kind of God is a non living non person? What lind of intellect and mind comes from a non living non person?
If there is a "God" (there is cuz I know da bum) how can that entity design anything without a mind and intellect utilizing intelligence?
An entity which we would call a "God" would have to possess mind and intellect and intelligence otherwise it couldn't design anything and we wouldn't be here. How is that entity a non person? What is the sine qua non of personhood? Self awareness plus mind and intellect. Without that how could any type of entity be labled a "God". A God who has designed the natural world and every living creature has to be a person i.e. an entity with self awareness plus mind and intellect. Otherwise God is a retard.
kizzmet
My God (or Gods) is the God of Einstein, an impersonal intelligence beyond our comprehension. I feel there is no need for a living, intervening God and neither did Einstein, Broom or Grasse, A goal seeking front-loaded system or systems is all that is necessary to postulate in order to understand both the phylogenetic and ontogenetic sequences. Both have proceeded entirely from within. "Somethings" had to write those programs. I cannot deny a living God but I'll be damned if I will postulate one when it isn't necessary. That is for the Fundies to insist on and the atheist Darwimps to flat out deny. Both factions are full of it right up to their eyeballs. The truth lies elsewhere and I think I know where that is.
I hope that makes my position clear.
"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."
Albert Einstein
I love it so!
I'm sorry John but your position makes no sense to me, and yes I know Einstein and many others have the same view...problem is it makes no sense.
Intelligence does not exist in a vacuum. Knowledge does not exist in a vacuum. In order for any type of intelligent entity to "frontload" evolution or the laws of nature it would have to have intelligence and knowledge and ability.
Intelligence is not something which is independent of a conscious living entity.
Knowledge is not inherent in anything. Knowledge is gained through experience or through some other process. Knowledge can only be acquired.
The only thing which can acquire knowledge is an living conscious enitity. Non conscious non living substance has no ability to acquire knowledge nor any intelligence to put it to use.
Thirdly in order for a knowledgable intellect to be able to "frontload" anything it would have to have the ability.
How can a "God" or anything for that matter, do anything with purposeful intelligence if it is not a conscious thoughtful entity?
Is that "full of it"? I think not. It's not just "fundamentalists" who think God is more then some ethereal notion, it's almost all people who believe in God. If you want to call almost all Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc morons, go ahead, don't expect them taking you ot anything you have to say too seriously though....just a heads up doc.
type. How can a non living non person have intelligence?
You live in your world and I live in mine. We all live each in our little world. We are all victims of our "prescribed" fates.
I have never denied anything. I have only accepted that which cannot be denied - a past very real evolution and a past very real intelligence. Sorry you can't see that. To deny the fossil record is anti-intellectual, blind and accordingly unforgivable.
I love it so!
John you avoided my questions.
What do you mean by the reference to the fossil record? What am I denying exactly?
Organic evolution as near as I can tell.
John that's not an answer to the question of explaining what you mean in your claim that I "reject the fossil record". The fossil record exists...there I said it. So I don't reject the fossil record. What I reject is the unsupported speculations which some people derive from the fossil record. There is no evolution in the fossil record. There are simply fossils of various creatures which ill motivated people speculate are evolving from one into another. Without the fossil record showing the actual process of evolution i.e. showing a series of mutations within a species leading to a change of species, then there is no support in the fossil record for evolution of any type. All there is in the fossil record is various species without showing the mutative process.
If in 10 thousand years from now after life on earth has been wiped out by an asteroid if earth is visited by aliens and they were to dig up parts of old cars from the 20th century say parts from 1910, 1930, 1950, 1970, and 2000, if they were looking for support for the theory of the evolution of cars they could speculate about how cars evolved. They could come up with a theory about how the cars all seem to use the basic engine and parts. They could conclude that cars ruled this planet and that they evolved over time from the Model T to the Range Rover. The evidence they would use is exactly the same evidence that is used to claim that the fossil record supports evolution. Even though other aliens may object and say that the evolution of cars is impossible due to the discovery that cars cannot evolve into new models still some will still cling to the unscientific fantasy that cars evolved.
Kizzmet, are you for real? Where do you think the fossil forms came from - outer space?
This is unbelievable.
i love it so!
John, So what your saying is that the existence of fossils are proof of evolution? Wow, why don't the evolutionist's make brilliant points like that when debating ID proponents? I think you've got something there with the whole "Fossils prove evolution just because they exist" routine, kudos. Keep up the good work :)
I wank it so!
I intend to. What do you intend to do with the rest of your life, continue exposing your monumental ignorance for all to see?
John you have been whining like a little girl about how UD removed the links to your work, actually I'm quite surprised they put them up in the first place. Let's face it, the only major difference you have with a common evolutionist is you believe in the "front loading" hypothesis about some etheral non living non person who somehow "front loaded" the process of evolution to play out the way it has. When asked how can a non living non person have the intellect or knowledge to do anything, especially the ability and knowledge and intelligence to program evolution into the simplest form of life, you simply ignore the question as if it has no bearing on your dogma.
The "front loading" hypothesis has no scientific credibility because there is no sign of it in research. It is simply an extrapolation of a theory. ID is based on scientifically verifiable reality wherein they reject the evolutionary hypothesis altogether (Dembski does anyways). You on the other hand accept most of evolutionary theory (minus the role of natural selection) with an addition i.e a resort to a speculative theory with no science to back it up whatsoever.
That is probably the reason your links were removed. The fact that you're internet writing style is overly combative may have played a part in that decision, but most likely they realized you're theories are just too different from their own i.e. front loading. Your dogma is not the same as Dembski and most ID people, it is radically different.
kizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Eh what? Oh right. Excuse me for dozing off there.
Kizzzmet
Davison's papers were removed because of his behavior. He was using the fact that I had them on Uncommon Descent while denying him the right to make his potty mouth combative insulting comments there as a bludgeon against me. I don't need that kind of abuse from an obscure sociopath like Davison so his papers followed him out the door.
Dave (if that is really you) thanks for the update on the sitch.
The real DaveScot lies in his teeth. My papers were removed from the side board for one reason only. I posted a comment that was ever so slightly critical of Dembski. I don't even think DaveScot did the deletion. I think it was Dembski or another one of his devoted subjects. God knows he has enough of them. But the Big Brave Bloward Bully from Texas takes the credit, all the credit, as he always has and always will. You see he has finally found the only place in cybersace where he can flex his mighty muscles and treat everybody but himself like crap. He needs that power. Without it he is nothing. And Dembski needs him to silence anyone that might be critical of the Great God Dembski, who never did an experiment in his life and probably never looked through microsope or examined a paleontological specimen. It is as plain as the nose on your face.
What is really hilarious is Dinger, to protect his enormous empty ego has to declare that "this is the real DaveScot."
By so doing he has in effect admitted it was he that was mimicing me and God knows who else with his cowardly tactics. What a homozyugous "prescribed" loser.
Since when can it ever be justified to remove a man's published peer reviewed scientific papers just because you don't like something he may have said or done? My papers support Intelligent Design a lot better than anything Debski ever said in all his books put together. My God Dembski's hero is Phillip Johnson, a lawyer, who apparently doesn't believe in evolution in any form.
Can you imagine someone trying to prove mathematically that which is obvious to any rational observer. The whole "ID movement" is nothing but a giant publicity stunt cynically designed to seek notoriety by a bunch of lightweight non biologists who need to have their egos stroked. What a joke.
Intelligent Design doesn't need hype. It has been obvious since long before Darwin. Just because the congenital atheists on the other side led by Dawkins, another egomaniac, is dead wrong doesn't mean that the evangelical Christers have it right. Both factions are so far gone there is no hope for either of them. A pox on both houses I say.
Why else would they have to ban the only published real bench scientists like Peter Borger and myself from their mindless forums?
You are a joke Dinger. You are so insecure that you couldn't stand not finally exposing yourself as the culprit pulling a lot of infantile, devious, unethical, disgusting tricks just to gratify your own desperate need for attention. We all know what and who you are. What are you going to do when Dembski shuts down his closed union shop? He will you know just like Elsberry will close his. It is just a matter of time and not much of that either.
And Dinger calls me the sociopath. What a hoot that is.
Drop in over at "brainstorms" and observe some real intellectual dialogue instead of pure venom for a change. Try to pull some of your despicable stunts over there and see how far you will get. Be sure to use your right name too. Fat chance.
As another unfulfilled egomaniacal lightweight, P.Z. Meyers, once said of me just before he banned me -
"Your stench has preceeded you."
Put my papers back where you so proudly placed them in the first place you cowardly hypocritcal blowhard.
I love it so!
"A man in armor is his armor's slave."
Robert Browning
Eat shit, Davison. Post your precious papers yourself. You blew your opportunity at Uncommon Descent because you're a monumental ass with a mouth to match. That's been the story of your life. Lots of opportunity all squandered because you can't control your pie hole. And if you're interested in true intellectual exchange what the bloody fuck are you doing here? You're suffering from paranoid delusions. People ignore you because you're deranged not because they fear what you have to say. Got that? Write that down.
Listen here Spraavid Dinger.
I am here because I was invited by Steohen Elliot be come here and I appreciate that opportunity to continue to expose Spravid Dinger as the sociopathic bully that he is. It is one of the greatest joys of my ancient life. Got that Spravid? Now slither back to Wembski's Fundy Palace, the only other blog that can tolerate you and put my papers back on the side board where you had so proudly placed them you cowardly hipocrit. I just had to delete you at my blog. I hope others had a chance to read what you said first. From now on any anonymous derogatory comment about me, my distinguished predecessors, or my papers came form one source only - Spravid Dinger, the biggest moutheist, most vicious, two-faced bully in all of cyberspace. Got that? Write that down.
I love it so!
Come on back here Dinger you cowardly trashbag. Continue to show the world the real Dinger. I don't think they have had quite enough of you yet you yellow blowhard. When are you comning up to Vermont to give me that thrashing you overstuffed homozygous pile of intellectual and ethical garbage.
I see Wembski is weaning you off. You only have one out of twenty of the last posts at UD. What happened to his mighty self-proclaimed iron-fisted blogczar I wonder. Maybe Dilliam is finally waking up about you: better way too late than never at all.
Come on you pig. sockittomesomemore. That is one word, not a typo. Make my day. I love dealing with trash like you.
Mark Catesby the great British naturalist and artist had the bullfrog named after him - Rana catebieana. I just named a brand new species of pig after you - Sus springeriana. How do like that you moral degenerate, you lying two faced hypocrit.
Now put my papers back where you were so proud to have put them or you will get some more of the same here and anywhere else I am allowed to take you on. Got that? Write that down.
I love it so!
This for Spravid Dinger
If you think you can treat over rwenty years of a man's scholarship with cavalier, personally inspired nasty nonchalance, you are sadly mistaken. That goes for your boss too. He is directly reponsible for every last thing that he allows his "readers" to do on his forum and that includes you, especially you, his great iron-fisted blogczar. The pair of you need a damn good lesson in professional ethics and I am the perfect person to give it to you. You have made it very easy for me.
Now if you are smart you will restore my several papers on the side board and this time do it in chronologiocal order as it makes it much easier to see how the PEH evolved.
Until you or Wembski do just that I will expose the pair of you everywhere I am allowed to present my opinions and that may very well include hard copy in a refereed journal. Got that? Do as your told or be prepared for the consequences. This time I will give you a week, lets say until May 7th. I hope someone will relay this ultimatum to Wembski. I would do it myself but I have been banned (for the secomd time). He refuses to answer my email and always has. So now does Dinger.
I love it so!
While I am in the mood I would like to remind another iron-fisted dictator, Der Fuhrer Herr Doktor Professor Esley Welsberry (pronounced Velsberry) that today, April 30th, is the 60th anniversary of the suicide of another Fascist dictator, one Adolf Hitler. Go for it!
I love it so!
Notice the deafening silence folks? Cowards are like that.
I love it so!
With an as yet undetermined appendage John A. Davison wrote:
I appreciate that opportunity to continue to expose Spravid Dinger as the sociopathic bully that he is. It is one of the greatest joys of my ancient life
Wow. How sad. What a pathetic life if that's the greatest joy in it.
It is only one of several which you would know if you could comprehend a simple English sentence you illiterate moron.
I love it so!
Dinger
I am here because I was invited to be here. You are here because it is one of the few places left for you where you are allowed to vent your stinking spleen. I will pursue you and your boss and all the other professional banners wherever I can get at them. Got that? Write that down dummy and put my papers back you cowardly two-faced lying swine. You are running out of time. You want war? You got war!
"War, God help me, I love it so!
General George S. Patton
So do I George, so do I.
I love it so!
War?
[laughing my ass off]
You don't know what war is you impotent little pissant. You provide a small amount of entertainment like an organ grinder's monkey.
JohnADavison said...
>>>>Dinger
I am here because I was invited to be here. You are here because it is one of the few places left for you where you are allowed to vent your stinking spleen. <<<<
No one was "invited." All commenters are welcome.
> All commenters are welcome. <
I am happy to see that.
Larry
I beg your pardon. Stephen Elliot invited me or I would never even have known about this glorious no-holds-barred experiment of yours. Perhaps Stephen will back me up. We'll see won't we?
I love it so!
Spravid Dinger, using another alias of course, is so yellow that not only will he not restore my twenty-two years worth of publications that he purged in a fit of personal pique, the slimy phony piece of crap won't even explain why he purged them. What a loser. Remember folks, he was the one that put them there in the first place and announced why he did it. Don't take my word for it. Follow the evidence. Trace the threads. That is what science is all about. He is the biggest crock of lying crap that ever appeared on the internet.
I love it so!
I guess Stephen Elliot doesn't choose to admit that it was he who invited me to join this blog.
I love it so!
Post a Comment
<< Home