Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 The Progress of ID research -- 3rd year in a row
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2562 Posts

Posted - 01/02/2009 :  10:20:18  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
John Lynch is keeping track for the last couple of years.

Notice anything? Yep, B-F all research actually got done.


Anyone surprised?




>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.

Edited by - the_ignored on 01/02/2009 10:20:58

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 01/02/2009 :  11:03:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Interesting just how many promises of scientific papers that the "cdesign proponentsists" have promised, sometimes many years ago, but never delivered. These guys are serial liars. Nothing surprising in any of this, however. How can one deliver a scientific paper based upon no science at all?


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 01/02/2009 :  13:50:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Digging into the links of the OP, I find further and further links of interest. I especially like the following, from now-official-IDiot, Steve Fuller:
First, stripped of its current scientific scaffolding, Darwinism is a 19th century social theory that has been turned into a ‘general unified theory of everything', and as such belongs in the same category as Marxism and Freudianism.
I agree with every word.

Of course, some definitions of a few of those words, sadly by some oversight left undefined by Fuller, may be in order.

By "Darwinism," I choose to believe Fuller is referring to the biological Theory of Evolution, as it has evolved through modern science.

Thus it follows that by "19th century social theory," Fuller really means "established, evidence-based, biological scientific theory."

Of course, by "general unified theory of everything," Fuller clearly meant, "a foundational theory with broad implications in the sciences, including (but not limited to) biology, geology, and medicine."

Fuller has shown his genius in pointing out what one would have left over if one were to have "stripped" the scientific Theory of Evolution "of its current scientific scaffolding." Indeed, nothing would remain.

Since neither Marxism nor Freudianism are accepted by science as being scientific theories, such a nothing would be on an even plane with those ideologies from a scientific viewpoint.

So to rephrase, using my nitpicking definitions to help show what Fuller really meant:
First, unless it were stripped of its current scientific scaffolding, the biological Theory of Evolution is an established, evidence-based, biological scientific theory that has evolved into a foundational theory with broad implications in the sciences, including (but not limited to) biology, geology, and medicine.

But if it did have the "science" stuff ripped out, it would be no more scientific than Marxism or Freudianism.



Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 01/02/2009 14:03:30
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 01/02/2009 :  14:46:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
As I recall, I stated that ID was dead as far back as when Pedro Irigonegaray took ID apart like a clogged drain in KS. Oh, the corpse was lively enough to go on to yet more triumphs of asininity in Kitzmiller, but the knell had sounded in Topeka. Indeed, when Dembski slipped out of Dover, virtually if not actually in the dead of night, you could hear the audible death rattle that was to become the much hyped, little seen opus of Expelled. The corpse yet retains some action, but it is little more than necrotic gasses issuing from those of it's orifices that semi-recovered from the savage, multiple reaming that legitimate science gave them.

The Discovery Sanatorium Institute will produce no serious papers -- we all know this. They will only publish in in-house and some few other, like-minded journals, and on sites with which they are friendly. They will support no scholarships because they are not scholars themselves, despite several wasted PhDs -- notably Jonny Wells, the Moonie biologiographer.

I no longer bother to visit Uncommon Descent's blog all that often. It's become rather like being in an echo chamber; the same meaningless noise over and again.

I think that they have become as zombies, futilely searching for brains to devour, preferably young ones, and they are failing at even that. So plant a flower and, if 'tis your wont, shed a tear -- they're fucking dead!




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 01/03/2009 :  04:08:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
A case in point; after posting the above, I dropped by Uncommon Descent and found that it's worse (better? than I thought. Ms. O'Leary has, again, written:
The new atheists: Santa's sleigh came and went, and never gave them what they needed
O'Leary

In The Ottawa Citizen, Robert Sibley advises

From New Age cults to murderous fundamentalism, these are dark times for religion, and the ‘new atheists' are in the ascendant. The problem with their movement is that they don't understand the source of their hostility … (December 26, 2008)

Oh? In the ascendant? In the legacy mainstream media, maybe, but not in the world at large.

In fact, this year - for the first time in a long while - I noticed a decisive pushback against their efforts to stop people from saying “Merry Christmas!”

Be a Christian, don't be a Christian, … it's your choice. But December 25 is Christmas Day. In Canada, both December 25 and December 26 are statutory holidays - and pretty popular ones, too, so you need to keep that fact in mind if you intend to try litigation. No one is going to thank you for forcing them to work on one of those days, if they are not in an essential service field.
And thus, my point is made.

So now they are fighting the "War on Christmas " and having themselves an enthusiastic if only semi-coherent atheist-bash as well. If it was a really good atheist bash, I'd enjoy the read, but it's not even that. It's pitiful.

Denyse dear, I must remark that nobody gives a rat's ass about the imaginary Christmas war and Christmas greetings other than morons like Bill O'Reilly, who found themselves with nothing to do one day, and started it. This then, is what the Intelligent Design conjecture has become reduced to; no science at all, no scholarship, but merely the afore-mentioned, necrotic gasses passed with a little hand-waving to push them along.

I am reminded of the notorious and nonsensical Wedge Document. When all you have for a philosophical foundation is a creationist red herring, you really don't have a hell of a lot to work with, do you?

I repeat: fucking DEAD!




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2009 :  09:36:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Denyse O'Leary is something of an enigma. She is a self-proclaimed journalist writing mainly about ID/evolution. Thing is:

1: She knows bugger all about ID and evolution.
2: She is an absolutely terrible writer.

The blogosphere is obviously shocker-full of these kinds of people, but why on Earth would the premiere ID outlet on the Net possibly want to have her as one of their main contributors?

...

It's a bit of a rhetorical question, I suppose...

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13476 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2009 :  10:52:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Hawks

Denyse O'Leary is something of an enigma. She is a self-proclaimed journalist writing mainly about ID/evolution. Thing is:

1: She knows bugger all about ID and evolution.
2: She is an absolutely terrible writer.

The blogosphere is obviously shocker-full of these kinds of people, but why on Earth would the premiere ID outlet on the Net possibly want to have her as one of their main contributors?

...

It's a bit of a rhetorical question, I suppose...

Because she agrees with them.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

dglas
Skeptic Friend

Canada
397 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2009 :  11:52:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send dglas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hmmm.

--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.12 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000