Pharyngula

Daniel J. Lewis has left the building

But of course, he had to go somewhere else. That creationist who bailed out of his very own personal thread here turned up at the Calladus blog, only to get crushed there, too.

He’s a very silly man. We’re glad to be shed of him; anyone else want to invite him to visit your blog?

Comments

  1. #1 Markus
    November 30, 2006

    Looks like he has masochistic tendencies.

  2. #2 John Pieret
    November 30, 2006

    That creationist who bailed out of his very own personal thread here turned up at the Calladus blog, only to get crushed there, too.

    Gee, imagine that.

    Did anyone point him toward talk.origins?

  3. #3 Shirley Knott
    November 30, 2006

    He really ought to join the perfectly incompetent afDave on ATBC.
    They appear to be birds of a feather, although not yet evolved to the status of ‘bird brained’.

    no hugs for thugs,
    Shirley Knott

  4. #4 Corey Schlueter
    November 30, 2006

    Is he really a creationist or he is just making trouble?

  5. #5 Daephex
    November 30, 2006

    He’s welcome to come examine my music blog for signs of blasphemy, if he has a free day or two. Why just last night, I managed to post about blues, acid, AND the Voyager Spacecraft.

  6. #6 Orac
    November 30, 2006

    He’s a very silly man. We’re glad to be shed of him; anyone else want to invite him to visit your blog?

    I don’t need another crank at my blog. I have my own corral of antivaccination loons and Holocaust deniers, who are all too numerous, thank you very much.

  7. #7 George
    November 30, 2006

    Daniel J. Lewis: “But a culture based on evolution is one that would naturally embrace survival of the fittest. And the extreme of that thinking, is that if I can increase my chances of survival or improve my living by killing you, then I am justified.”

    So God wiped everyone out during the flood, but it was justified, because he could start all over again with his hand-picked man, Noah, and survive as a powerful, relevant, intimidating God.

    It’s not like the Bible is “survival of the fittest” free.

  8. #8 Doc Bill
    November 30, 2006

    Mr. Lewis epitomizes the poster child of Ignorance. That’s why “these people” are so dangerous and disturbing: a complete lack and, perhaps, disdain or fear, of learning. Lewis talks about his “worldview” which is so laughably narrow I’m surprised he can inhale.

    Fortunately for us, his irrational fear of Hell will prevent him from becoming a soccer hooligan.

  9. #9 Stephen Erickson
    November 30, 2006

    In Mr Lewis’s defense, it *is* very difficult to debate someone when the facts aren’t on your side.

  10. #10 Robin Levett
    November 30, 2006

    John Pieret:

    Did anyone point him toward talk.origins?

    You have a nasty mind, catshark. I like that…

  11. #11 Mena
    November 30, 2006

    I saw a quote that reminded me of him yesterday, supposedly from Galileo: “The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”
    As for bailing out, what do you expect from a guy who wrote this? He’s lost. Not as lost as that guy who wants to donate his eardrum to Rush Limbaugh on that link from the Stephen Colbert thread but still lost.

  12. #12 Hank Fox
    November 30, 2006

    I missed the Daniel Lewis thread when it first appeared. I just went back and read it.

    Jeez, pathetic. It’s true Lewis was faced with a deluge of arguments and questions, and that would be intimidating, but he didn’t answer a single ONE of them.

    Heh. I’m thinking of a tweaked version of the fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”

    The emperor walks out and says “Look at my finery! See the beautiful embroidery on my vest!”

    Onlookers instantly begin pointing out that he’s naked.

    Miffed, he repeats, “I want to talk about these beautiful clothes. This embroidered vest has to be more beautiful than anything ever seen by man!”

    “But you’re naked,” someone in the crowd says. “Look, we can see your belly, we can see your chest hair. There is no vest.” Someone else says “I can see your belly too! Look, there’s an appendectomy scar.” Another chimes in with “I can see your big ass. You’re not wearing ANYTHING.”

    “You’re not being fair. I can’t answer all these objections at once! I wanted to talk about my beautiful embroidered vest, but since you’re bringing up all this irrelevant stuff, I guess I’ll just leave.”

  13. #13 Warren
    November 30, 2006

    Is he really a creationist or he is just making trouble?
    Posted by: Corey Schlueter

    He’s the real deal. I poked around on his site for a few minutes before losing my taste for the internets for several hours. He’s got examples there of technically competent but largely uninspired graphics that support his church and various creationist causes.

    Bleh.

  14. #14 Stanton
    November 30, 2006

    He never did answer my questions about where the Bible says that the world is only 6,000 years old, where the Bible says that the Great Flood occured 4,000 years ago, and what the Bible says about Man’s ignorance of the presense of living Bothriolepis.

  15. #15 argystokes
    November 30, 2006

    He really ought to join the perfectly incompetent afDave on ATBC.
    They appear to be birds of a feather, although not yet evolved to the status of ‘bird brained’.

    no hugs for thugs,
    Shirley Knott

    Indeed, which is why I invited him to do that very thing. But it looks like he won’t show.

  16. #16 John Pieret
    November 30, 2006

    You have a nasty mind, catshark. I like that…

    It comes with the professional territory … as you well know.

  17. #17 Southern Fried Skeptic
    November 30, 2006

    I just adore those amusing little people with their imaginary friends. There seems to be a limitless pool from which I can draw to satisfy my sadistic urges to grab my belt of reason and take them out behind the literary woodshed. He is more than welcome to join us in the secular south for discussion.

  18. #18 J Daley
    November 30, 2006

    I went to his blog to ask him, again, to explain the firmament of heaven in regards to our aility to (somehow) blast spacecraft through it. (It’s a stumper, believe me. Perhaps collapsed quantum waves in yellow flowers have something to do with it. Or maybe the angels above Mecca tear it open for us. But then wouldn’t the seas above come rushing in? I thought rainbows were God’s promise that that wouldn’t happen again.)

    Either way, I very politely asked him to explain that phenomenon, and also, more seriously (I know) to explain the Hubble redshift and cosmic background radiation from a biblical world view. Apparently he either won’t or can’t (what’s your money on?) because there’s been no reply save a snooty “I’ll get back to you later, when I’m not so busy!”

    It’s annoying. How busy could he be?

  19. #19 Stanton
    November 30, 2006

    J Daley, I think he’s too busy trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the edge of a Sacajawea dollar.

  20. #20 Sastra
    November 30, 2006

    Daniel J. Lewis: “But a culture based on evolution is one that would naturally embrace survival of the fittest. And the extreme of that thinking, is that if I can increase my chances of survival or improve my living by killing you, then I am justified.”

    “But a culture based on magnetism ia one that would naturally embrace the attraction of opposites. And the extreme of that thinking, is that if I find someone with tastes and interests similar to my own, I should repell them, and seek out and live with my opposite, someone with whom I have nothing in common.”

    Why do people constantly mix up an explanatory mechanism which explains behavior with a Mandate from Nature on How We Ought to Behave? Bottom line, this seems to be a form of magical thinking, with the macrocosm of the universe reflected in the microcosm of humanity.

  21. #21 Ed Darrell
    December 2, 2006

    Stanton, if you’re really curious, the Bible doesn’t say those things anywhere. Creationists hate to be reminded, but the 4,000-year and 6,000-year things were calculated by a geologist named James Ussher in the 17th century (creationists and a few others try to make hay out of the fact that Ussher was also Archbishop of Armagh, but don’t get sidetracked). Ussher had a few rocks, but no good methods of dating them, and a library that, while good by 17th century standards, was limited severely in science and especially geology.

    He ended up using verses from the Bible to establish the minimum age of the Earth, offering warnings that he knew the figures were off and likely to be revised with new information (he knew the genealogies in the Bible were off by at least 400 years, for example).

    I always find it odd when people claim that the Bible is “the Word of God” and not to be mucked with, and then claim that 17th century science should triumph over any other rational interpretation of the stuff, thereby mucking with the Bible and what it says and means. Were they familiar with the Bible, they’d know that the Bible denies it is the Word of God in all cases (nor does it claim to be the Word of God in most cases, nor rarely the words of God). It’s most vexing.

    We knew Lewis to be ignorant of course when he came. PZ was just probing the depths of that ignorance. Alas, PZ’s pole is so short in comparison to the depths.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.