Pharyngula

The only afterlife I anticipate

I wouldn’t mind if my corpse found utility in scaring small creationist children.

i-5df8f65818f5a4d32e9c7392f2e61bef-dramatized.jpg

Comments

  1. #1 Mikael Hiort af Orns
    October 30, 2008

    Make that two of us! Finally a reason to check the “use for scientific purposes” box when registering for organ donation :)

    And this actually makes me even more eager to go to the Creation Museum in Kentucky the next time I have the honour to visit the USA. That’ll be a laugh!

  2. #2 Brownian, OM
    October 30, 2008

    I want a DNA-shaped beer bong!

  3. #3 Kel
    October 30, 2008

    The irony being that while lions and grizzlies will get you to heaven faster, only an evolutionist will get you to hell ;)

  4. #4 Anon
    October 30, 2008

    Needs a beard.

  5. #5 Matt7895
    October 30, 2008

    Thanks for the preaching, ‘Charlie’.

    Also, thanks for the insult. If we are agnostic about god then we must also be agnostic about fairies and unicorns. We can’t categorically state fairies don’t exist, but that’s no reason for us to say, ‘oh let’s pretend they might exist’.

  6. #6 stavros
    October 30, 2008

    c^harl^ie wa^gn^er: are you agnostic or a non-believer towards Santa Claus/unicorns/fairies?

    If you are an agnostic, then there is something wrong in your logic.

    If you are a non-believer then why is that? And how is that different from belief/non-belief in God?

  7. #7 Eyeoffaith
    October 30, 2008

    It is funny how ignorance is somehow a good reason to think there may exist an invisible sky-daddy.

    I would rather see positive evidence for such a thing before I started to believe in it.

  8. #8 BobC
    October 30, 2008

    c^harl^ie wa^gn^er is probably the same lying stupid asshole who was thrown into the Dungeon for Wanking, Morphing, Stupidity, Insipidity, Spamming. “I joined Madalyn Murray” is bullshit.

  9. #9 stavros
    October 30, 2008

    OK, two things: c^harl^ie wa^gn^er suddenly disappeared! And second, Matt at #5 submitted the same argument while I was submitting mine…

    so, what happened to c^harl^ie wa^gn^er??? A little bit of censorship? :-)

  10. #10 Glen Davidson
    October 30, 2008

    Think of how much scarier it would be if the evolutionist were eating a cracker.

    Demand it in your will, PZ.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

  11. #11 The Swiss
    October 30, 2008

    Yes, PZ, explain to us neophytes how you vanish the bad guys…

  12. #12 Brian
    October 30, 2008

    Charlie Wagner’s been in the dungeon for some time.

  13. #13 Sven DiMilo
    October 30, 2008

    neophytes:
    Click on the “dungeon” tab at the top of the page for a clear explanation of who is “censored” and why.
    Hi Charlie!
    Bye, Charlie!

  14. #14 The Chemist
    October 30, 2008

    If you’re not going to allow comments without entering an email PZ, you may as well enact registration. It’ll make everyone’s life a little easier and keep me from having to enter my information every single time.

    Food for thought.

  15. #15 Glen Davidson
    October 30, 2008

    By the way, Charlie Wagner was tolerated at Pharyngula for years, so don’t think that he was hastily assigned to the dungeon.

    But he never engaged with other commenters intelligently or with any evident intellectual honesty. So although he was generally “polite” aside from his constant repetition of abject nonsense and failure to engage, he was ultimately deemed a useless hunk of junk who merely sidetracked thread after thread with both off-topic and pig-ignornant nonsense.

    He certainly acted like a sort of troll, interjecting his repetitious and uncomprehending garbage no matter the subject or undesirability of his comments. Because harrassment is not protected by any principle of free speech, he was at last banished to the dungeon, although he still lacks the decency to refrain from harrassing others, thus his appearance here yet again tonight.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

  16. #16 Nibien
    October 30, 2008

    BTW, you just blocked from your site millions of AOL users who use their proxy server in Kansas

    AOL users.

    Kansas.

    Wow, what a terrible loss of readership.

  17. #17 JohnnieCanuck, FCD
    October 30, 2008

    Vanish the bad guys. For a second there I read Vanquish the bad guys. That would have been much more exciting.

  18. #18 'Tis Himself
    October 30, 2008

    It’ll make everyone’s life a little easier and keep me from having to enter my information every single time.

    I just have to type “‘” for name and “m” for email address and Firefox fills the rest in for me. I don’t think that’s too particularly fatiguing or difficult.

  19. #19 tresmal
    October 30, 2008

    c^harl^ie wa^gn^er says:”BTW, you just blocked from your site millions of AOL users who use their proxy server in Kansas. (Proxy Reports IP as: 64.12.116.65)”
    I don’t think there are millions of AOL users.

  20. #20 Luftritter
    October 30, 2008

    To n5: Hmmm…I think agnosticism is still a respectable position but I don’t share your concerns.
    I think (and I believe that many others here have the same opinion) that the case against god it’s actually very solid.
    Because it`s not just biology, cosmology or physics that suggest a non designed universe. Humanities too (when they are done properly) like historical analisys of texts and history of religion show the man-made character of religious belief. The sum of evidences makes the atheistic paradigm credible. Kill the personal god, the god of the religions it’s not a very difficult task.
    However the god problem is puzzling when you start using a weird nebulous concept of deity like god is the universe or a kind of vital force across the universe that we cannot detect or perceive through our senses or our science. A faraway supreme being. In this situation words start losing its meaning and begin the non-falsifiable hypotheses. To this concept of god however I have something to say: that kind of supreme being has the same importance for us humans as a non existent one. With a god that we can’t perceive we cannot have any kind of meaningful relationship. So this supreme being does’tn concerns us and being called agnostic or atheistic about him, has no importance.
    By the way I use the Atheist label to myself because I am certainly atheistic to the god of the religions. That’s the one that we must fight because is dangerouse and is nonsense and its the one religious people want to impose at us. I’m agnostic about the other kind of god but I don’t stress that point because about that deity I don’t care!

  21. #21 Patricia
    October 30, 2008

    How many times do I have to remind you hell bound, godless heathens that unicorns and dragons DO exist? It says so in the Babble. That proves it. So there!
    Further more, it’s a stoning offence not to believe it –
    GET STONED.

  22. #22 Johan Swart
    October 30, 2008

    Materialism died long ago, but people still cling to it so fiercely? I can’t believe people still buy all of this “evidence”

    Michael Polanyi knew better…

    “The recognition of certain basic impossibilities has laid the foundations of some major principles of physics and chemistry; similarly, recognition of the impossibility of understanding living things in terms of physics and chemistry, far from setting limits to our understanding of life, will guide it in the right direction. And even if the demonstration of this impossibility should prove of no great advantage in the pursuit of discovery, such a demonstration would help to draw a truer image of life and man than that given us by the present basic concepts of biology.”

    http://www.culturaleconomics.atfreeweb.com/Anno/Polanyi%20Lifes%20Irreducible%20Structure%20Acience%201968.htm

    “As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule.” Like Polanyi, Voie argues that the information and function of DNA and the cellular replication machinery must originate from a source that transcends physics and chemistry. In particular, since as Voie argues, “chance and necessity cannot explain sign systems, meaning, purpose, and goals,” and since “mind possesses other properties that do not have these limitations,” it is “therefore very natural that many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans.”

    . A. Voie, “Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent,” Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

    I’m sorry to break it to you, but there is a limit to the information content natural processes can generate.

    Ouch….and while you’re still in denial, check out these sources which will help you greatly.

    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=17285015876

    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=29052380823

    Cheers

  23. #23 abb3w
    October 30, 2008

    Perhaps to give Jeremy Bentham some company?

  24. #24 The Chemist
    October 30, 2008

    @Tis,

    Doesn’t work so well for me, especially since I hate, hate, HATE autocomplete and its analogues.

    Besides, there are other benefits to registration.

  25. #25 Brownian, OM
    October 30, 2008

    So Johan Swart, does that prove the existence of Jehovah, Brahma, Marduk, Unkulunkulu, or Izanagi and Izanami?

    Don’t bother ‘proving’ anything else to us until you can answer that question and provide similar sources to support your claim.

  26. #26 Your Mighty Overload
    October 30, 2008

    Johan at 22

    It seems you are being lied to. There is no feeling amongst professional biologists that materialism has in any way failed. If that were true, medical research would be grinding to a halt. We wouldn’t bother sequencing the human genome, since there wouldn’t be any point, and we wouldn’t understand half of what we do about genetic diseases.

    Unlike a book (a very unhelpful analogy), the massage of DNA IS its chemical constituents. And DNA is almost unlimited in its potential configurations. Imagine a circle on a computer screen, or a print out. The circle is about as perfect as can be imagined, nice and smooth. And yet it is made out of a binary system – just ones and zeros. And so too is it true of DNA, out of a very simple code, just 4 “letters”, using triplet codons, it can code for upto 64 amino acids (although only codes for 20, plus stop codons, with a high degree of redundancy), and almost any protein form imaginable can be made. We know protein and chemical gradients within developing embryos controls cell division and differentiation. We know brain activity is hormonally regulated and based upon potassium signalling – how much more materialistic can you get.

    If you want to posit a God or a soul or something of that kind, fine. But don’t expect anyone to take you seriously until you provide empirical evidence.

  27. #27 Kel
    October 30, 2008

    Materialism died long ago

    On the contrary, materialism is more alive than ever. There’s less and less reason now to suspect there is any other force at play as we learn more and more about the universe.

  28. #28 Nerd of Redhead
    October 30, 2008

    Materialism died long ago

    Godbots definitely are not afraid to show their ignorance. But I keep wondering why do they want to show the world they are ignorant liars? Must be a character defect from believing in imaginary beings.

  29. #29 tresmal
    October 30, 2008

    Johan Swart @22: There is an ancient Chinese saying that “it is better to lurk and be thought a fool than to comment and remove all doubt.”
    Polanyi, smart as he was, does not seem to have understood evolutionary theory. How did he explain the existence of this “Mind”? Would it not require an even greater mind to design it? And that, in turn, a still greater mind? etc.
    As for Voie’s “chance and necessity cannot explain sign systems, meaning, purpose, and goals,” would be more persuasive if “sign systems, meaning,purpose, and goals” had anything to do with evolution, DNA or anything else in Biology.
    Voie continuing:”therefore very natural that many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans.” Actually very few scientists believe that, and the more they know about evolution the less likely they are to believe it.
    Yourself:”I’m sorry to break it to you, but there is a limit to the information content natural processes can generate.” Now I don’t know if that is literally true, but effectively its false. Even if there are limits, the information and complexity we see in the natural world fall comfortably within those limits.
    Methodological materialism survives, and goes from strength to strength, in science because it works. Far from being dead, it is, in fact, on a roll.
    Here is a site: Talkorigins that you might find useful. It has an archive of all the arguments against evolution and their scientific rebuttals. Other commenters can possibly suggest others. Point is, you should check to see if your killer arguments haven’t been effectively answered before ignorantly posting them.

  30. #30 ThinkingApe
    October 30, 2008

    Johan,

    Alright, now keep in mind that I am but a lowly horticulturalist. I’ve read some intelligent design ‘theory’, but I can’t help but notice that all it does is decribe some scientific discovery, usually in great detail and using all sorts of big words, and then when it gets to the part that hasn’t been explained yet, says “it is impossible that this happened naturally” or something like that.

    I mean, even on your facebook link I found the line “During the last forty years, molecular biology has revealed a complexity and intricacy of design that exceeds anything that was imaginable during the late-nineteenth century.”

    Now as I understand it, molecular biology has revealed a complexity and intricacy of design that exceeds anything that was imaginable during the late-nineteenth century because scientists didn’t just sit back and say “Oh well, its impossible to explain that”.

    Do you understand what I’m saying? You need some actual evidense that there is a Designer or soul or whatever.

  31. #31 Kel
    October 30, 2008

    Johan, have you ever been on the Richard Dawkins facebook group by any chance?

  32. #32 BobC
    October 30, 2008

    A quote from #22: “many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans.”

    Johan Swart, what Bible college do these fake scientists work for? Life is a subsystem of a magic fairy? Grow up moron.

  33. #33 E.V.
    October 30, 2008

    Funny, when I read Johan Swart. all I could picture was Dieter from Sprockets on SNL. Would you like to touch my monkey? Touch it! Touch it! I feel like a little girl.

    (not an ad hominem so much as just a silly thought)

  34. #34 Spinoza
    October 31, 2008

    AHEM.

    Children OF Creationists.

  35. #35 Jason A.
    October 31, 2008

    Johan Swart:
    “I’m sorry to break it to you, but there is a limit to the information content natural processes can generate.”

    Just saying it offhand does not make it so. What is the limit, and what mechanism causes the limit? If you’re going to say it’s impossible to count to a million one number at a time, you better have a good explanation why.

    Prove it or shut up.

  36. #36 HumanisticJones
    October 31, 2008

    Good catch there Spinoza, we should always be careful not to lump innocent children in with the crazy of their parents.

  37. #37 Kel
    October 31, 2008

    Prove it or shut up.

    If this is the guy who I think it is, then be prepared for long copy/paste answers from creationist websites.

  38. #38 Jason A.
    October 31, 2008

    “be prepared for long copy/paste answers from creationist websites.”

    Ah. I know the type. Copy/paste arguments over their heads and then, when the reply is also over their heads, just proclaim victory because they don’t understand that they’ve been checkmated.

    In that case, let me modify my request:
    Prove it or shut up.

  39. #39 Kel
    October 31, 2008

    He’s one great big appeal to authority. Find one geologist who says radiometric dating is inaccurate, therefore quote him and dismiss the entire science of radiometric dating. Find one biologist who says that there are no transitional forms, then quote him and dismiss all transitional forms. Find one biochemist who says there is design in the body, then quote him and dismiss any biologist who talks of natural selection.

    If it’s the same guy, he’s also a 9/11 truther and a holocaust denier. No matter what we say, he’ll just ignore it then go onto another mute point. Complete exercise in insipidity.

  40. #40 The Cheerful Nihilist
    October 31, 2008

    Fractals, people, fractals.
    _ _ _
    — —
    — —
    —- —-

    Etc. Do the math

  41. #41 Valis
    October 31, 2008

    Johan Swart is a South African fundie. I know the type, there’s no reasoning with them. A large majority of Afrikaners belong to the Calvinistic NGK (Nederduits Gereformeerde Kerk). These people are totally ignorant and narrow-minded, very much like the fundies you’ve got in the USA. I have to deal with these friggin people on a daily basis.

    These idiots have just this week had the South African tour of the band Devildriver cancelled. I am very pissed off as I was going to go see them.

  42. #42 Kel
    October 31, 2008

    Yep, it’s the same retard. You won’t communicate anything to this guy ever. He’s the ultimate moron!

  43. #43 The Cheerful Nihilist
    October 31, 2008

    “Ultimate” implies an end. Hhhmmm.

  44. #44 Emmet Caulfield
    October 31, 2008

    So Johan Swart, does that prove the existence of Jehovah, Brahma, Marduk, Unkulunkulu, or Izanagi and Izanami?

    It’s definitely Marduk, since he’s the only one that’s a character in Stargate-SG1.

  45. #45 Kel
    October 31, 2008

    “Ultimate” implies an end. Hhhmmm.

    Well embodiment of ignorance manifested. I mean, Young Earth Creationist, 9/11 Truther AND Holocaust Denier. To be any one of those three takes a certain aptitude of ignorance, to do all three at once is just insane.

  46. #46 s.v.
    October 31, 2008

    You have to love a troll who calls Facebook groups “sources.”

  47. #47 Johan Swart
    October 31, 2008

    lol!

    Facebook ‘sources’ are a collection of sources from other websites, I fail to see how this is so bad. Is it because you cling to evo-logic (magic) so dearly?

    Never did I say anything about a designer here, all I said is that materialism has been buried along with charlie’s “theory”, but there are so many in denial?

    And why am I a Holocaust denier? I never deny it, but it has been exaggerated. Gullible americans eat this up :O

    Cheers

  48. #48 Pierce R. Butler
    October 31, 2008

    DFtT – Don’t Feed the Troll!

    I wouldn’t mind if my corpse found utility in scaring small creationist children.

    It might even scare small rational children, if it’s bigger than a grizzly bear.

  49. #49 Kel
    October 31, 2008

    Yep, still 100% retard. There’s really no getting through to this guy, he’s already been banned from that facebook group multiple times for being insipid and came out of a dozen people explaining why his ideas were absurd without learning everything. Completely moronic twat and any effort to counter his claims is merely feeding his delusion.

  50. #50 Nick Gotts
    October 31, 2008

    And why am I a Holocaust denier? I never deny it, but it has been exaggerated. Nazi Johan

    Yep, he’s a holocaust denier. Fuck off and die, you filth.

  51. #51 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    October 31, 2008

    I’m sorry to break it to you, but there is a limit to the information content natural processes can generate.

    Ouch….and while you’re still in denial, check out these sources which will help you greatly.

    the only ouch is the sound your brain is making having to use facebook as a source.

    What a moron.

  52. #52 Johan Swart
    October 31, 2008

    This is so typical. They post against the messenger since they have no good arguments. am I suprised? Afrikaaners are not retards, could it be a matter of seeing things from a different angle?

    I will leave this comment board alone now, but i suggest you face the music here..

    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=17285015876&ref=ts

    Cheers

  53. #53 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    October 31, 2008

    And why am I a Holocaust denier? I never deny it, but it has been exaggerated. Gullible americans eat this up :O

    Oh really? How so. Tell us in your obvious wisdom how it has been exaggerated?

    Please enlighten us.

  54. #54 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    October 31, 2008

    I will leave this comment board alone now, but i suggest you face the music here..

    That link fails in the very first sentence.

    Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action.

    Intelligent Design is not scientific.

  55. #55 Kel
    October 31, 2008

    This is so typical. They post against the messenger since they have no good arguments. am I suprised?

    I fought you for months. You posted utter falsehoods, copy / pasted argument after argument from creationist website, played “appeal to authority” on any Ph.D scientist who backed your view, and argued ideas you didn’t understand in the slightest. And after more than half a dozen people tried to carefully explain to you where you were mistaken you came out of it still knowing nothing at all. I treat you with contempt because you are a contemptuous character. You’ve proven over a long period of time that you will not change your mindset, which is a shame because your mindset is further from the truth than the andromeda galaxy is from earth.

    You don’t grasp basic physics, you don’t understand biology even in the slightest yet you feel the need to proclaim your ignorance from the highest rooftop. You are the embodiment of human stupidity, Einstein joked that human stupidity was infinite, if he had met you maybe he would have thought it pan-dimensional.

    Cheers Johan, I mean Michael, I mean Kel

  56. #56 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    October 31, 2008

    To quote the kids from a few years back

    Oh snap

  57. #57 Emmet Caulfield
    October 31, 2008

    That link fails in the very first sentence.

    Yes, it’s another vapid restatement of the “ID is a scientific theory” canard. One must assume that Johan’s monumental ego and propensity for delusion lead him to the conceit that his inane regurgitation is somehow “different” from the eleventy billion near-identical pages by other deluded imbeciles.

  58. #58 OrbitalMike
    October 31, 2008

    Uhh, did Johan even read the journal articles he posted?

    At the very end of the referenced article, Voie concludes, “It is therefore very natural that many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans or symbolic number cruncher referred to by [25].At least as observers we are left taking life as an axiom as Niels Bohr [27] suggested in a lecture published in Nature “life is consistent with, but undecidable from physics and chemistry” [19].
    [19] Yockey HP. Origin of life on earth and Shannon s theory of communication. Comput Chem 2000;24(1):105-23.
    [25] Svozil K. Computational universes. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 2005;25(4):845-59.
    [27] Bohr N. Light and life. Nature 1933;308:421-3. p. 456-9.

    It seems to me that Voie is stating that Life is not a “subsystem” of natural laws, but rather that Life IS Chemistry and Physics. Also, where exactly does, “Voie argues that the information and function of DNA and the cellular replication machinery must originate from a source that transcends physics and chemistry” ??

    Reference [25] Discusses the “Matrix” idea of the Universe, and the abstract states, “Suspicions that the world might be some sort of a machine or algorithm existing “in the mind” of some symbolic number cruncher have lingered from antiquity. Although popular at times, the most radical forms of this idea never reached mainstream. Modern developments in physics and computer science have lent support to the thesis, but empirical evidence is needed before it can begin to replace our contemporary world view.”
    Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the view that Johan believes NOR does this state the “many scientists believe” line that is mentioned in Voie. Also note the need for EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

  59. #59 Lycosid
    November 2, 2008

    If creationists mined coal as well as quotes, they could power China indefinitely.

  60. #60 Verster du Plessis
    January 20, 2009

    @ Valis: Dude, don’t lump all Afrikaners in with this moron. Most of us are reasonable educated people. Like every group, we have a few nuts, but that’s no reason to paint us all with the same brush. Your comments are offensive and bordering on racist.

    Secondly, I don’t think you’ve met many NGK members. To most of them the whole religion schtick is more a hobby than anything else. Kinda like the Anglicans are in the UK. There are hardcore evangelicals amongst he Afrikaners, but they’re in the minority.

  61. #61 hery
    January 26, 2010

    the information and complexity we see in the natural world fall comfortably within those limits

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.