…and this is a 
Ken Ham of the Creation "Museum" linked to an old thread from June, prompting a sudden influx of dull-witted creationists regurgitating old canards. Normally I wouldn't mind — the poor dullards don't get much outlet on the creationist sites, which typically prohibit any kind of expression from their flocks — but in this case we've also got lots of fierce godless evolutionists who see an opportunity to sharpen their claws. That means the old thread is at a roiling boil and is now over 1300 comments, which is a bit excessive.
I'm closing that thread and inviting them to come here to carry on the discussion.
If you need a topic to prime the pump, how about conversing about the combination of charlatanry and ignorance that are needed to be a prominent creationist?
Comments
Posted by: mr-zero | December 10, 2008 9:37 AM
Bring it on!
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | December 10, 2008 9:40 AM
"intolerant" evolutionists? He's got it wrong. I thought we were "contemptuous" -- it's a whole different attitude.
Posted by: mr-zero | December 10, 2008 9:41 AM
Instead of picking holes in evolution how about you creationists show us one single piece of evidence which supports creationism.
Just one.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 9:42 AM
To all the Ken Ham worshipers who will undoubtedly come here after reading post with the link to here on the AIG webpage.
Before you spout off ignorantly about evolution being false, please provide us with the specific research you are refuting, then show your work as to how it is actually refuted.
Thanks.
Have a good day.
Tip your waitresses.
Posted by: clinteas | December 10, 2008 9:43 AM
Oh noooozzzzz...
More Don Quixotes fighting mindless windmills....
Im more interested in the psychiatric implications,the mechanisms that allow you to say no when yes is so obvious,and to stoically defend "no" in the face of overwhelimg evidence.
We should send psychiatrists to the US,maybe,to conduct some studies.
Posted by: strangest brew | December 10, 2008 9:46 AM
Obviously busy taking their Dino's for walkies!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 9:47 AM
Amen Rev. The work should cite the scientific literature too. Hint, AIG or any other creationist/ID web site is not scientific.Posted by: bob | December 10, 2008 9:48 AM
Interview with some neighbors of the family who were killed by the out-of-control military plane:
"It's just providence," said Johnson, who was at home with his daughter and grandchild when the fighter plane crashed two houses away, sending them fleeing out their back door. "Thirty feet higher and the plane lands in our living room instead of theirs."
Translation: "Thank god only those gooks died and my family's okay!" Horrible. Any input on how such a sentiment *isn't* nauseating and insulting, AIG folks?
Posted by: dead yeti | December 10, 2008 9:49 AM
couple of points:
Maybe creationists don't believe in evolution simply because they have quite managed to evolve into full blown Homo Sapiens yet?
Maybe they themselves are in fact missing links they love to bang on about so much?
how much should i tip my waitress?
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 9:49 AM
*burp*
Anyone got a toothpick? I think I have a creationist's brain stuck between my teeth.
Posted by: Corey Schlueter | December 10, 2008 9:53 AM
To creationists,
Get an education and do the research!
Posted by: strangest brew | December 10, 2008 9:54 AM
'I have a creationist's brain stuck between my teeth.'
You mean you actually found one!...or are you exaggerating ;-)
Posted by: Zeno | December 10, 2008 9:55 AM
Oh, come on, Emmet. You expect us to believe you found a creationist brain big enough to get stuck between your teeth? Everyone knows that zombies would starve to death trolling for brains at the Creation Museum or any other creationist venue (except, perhaps, on Evolutionist Laugh-and-Point Visit Day).
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | December 10, 2008 9:56 AM
Well, this should be interesting one way or another.
Posted by: clinteas | December 10, 2008 9:57 AM
13 posts and no lunatic yet,this thread doesnt feel right....:-)
Im going to bed
Posted by: azqaz | December 10, 2008 9:58 AM
Here, let me sum up the creationists "scientific" proof.
...
There you go, but what they will claim as "proof" is
GODDIDIT!
What more could you need? ;)
Posted by: Carlie | December 10, 2008 10:03 AM
The work should cite the scientific literature too.
Heck, you'd weed out 90% of them by just asking them to name two scientific journals, never mind being able to cite a specific paper.
Posted by: Robert W | December 10, 2008 10:04 AM
Faith is the antithesis of proof.
The creationist argument, based as it is on faith and conjecture, can never be proven. It can never be studied or tested or debated in any real sense other than a masturbatory one.
On the other hand, the Theory of evolution (please note capital T, as in, the end of the scientific process ... an accepted scientific truth, not a "theory" as George W likes to snicker) is well supported with actual evidence.
Please take your creationist babble to church and keep it out of our schools. If you want to abuse your own children with myth and dogma, that is your prerogative. Freedom of church and state has allowed your religion to prosper and mutate. Please don't pretend that your faith is somehow akin to science, or that it is an alternative "theory" worthy of equal exploration.
It is not. And faith is the antithesis of proof.
Posted by: strangest brew | December 10, 2008 10:05 AM
"Here, let me sum up the creationists "scientific" proof.
...
There you go, but what they will claim as "proof" is
GODDIDIT!
What more could you need? ;)"
I never realised it was so much...gonna have to have a rethink....
Posted by: ennui | December 10, 2008 10:07 AM
And remember, all you baby-raping, puppy-chipping, zombie-creationist-eating cannibal atheists, Wednesday is orgy night. Bring a friend; tonight's theme is snow.
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:07 AM
As Christians, we are trying to make the world better.
It's not fair for others to demonize us when we are trying to save them! Do you think it would be fair to attack paramedics?! NO! So why do you attack Mr Hamm ?
Our country is a religious country and it amazes me that we allow atheists to criticize us! Our children should be shown only what is right - how dare those people try to force our little ones to learn the evident falsehoods of evolution (the failed theory) and turn to Satan?!
Posted by: Matt7895 | December 10, 2008 10:07 AM
Well, the creationists' evidence really does come down to "God did it", but they arrive at that conclusion by saying, "The Bible says, it, the Bible is the word of god, therefore the Bible is true, god did it."
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 10:10 AM
looks like Virginie doesn't want Clinteas to go to bed.
Posted by: dinkum | December 10, 2008 10:10 AM
Virginie: Poe.
Posted by: Dmitry | December 10, 2008 10:11 AM
Virginie, I call Poe on you!
Posted by: FTFKDad | December 10, 2008 10:12 AM
Did anyone follow the Prof. Olofsson thread at UD? The one where Prof. Olofsson displayed the... ahem... patience of a saint in responding to one UD regular "PaV". There was one post from PaV where he said (and remember this is a posting on a paper by Prof O. on Bayesian statistics):
[Comment 252] "I don't care to learn all about Bayesian analysis-of what use is it to me?
And.....I don't need to learn it to come to the same conclusion that Bill [Dembski] has come to. I see, and agree to, his logic in all of this."
This is a perfect example of how a creationist mind not only thinks it knows the answers, it doesn't even need to understand the subject or even want to try to understand the subject before knowing all the answers! (The Prof. did a nice take down of this particular comment as well.)
Posted by: BGT | December 10, 2008 10:12 AM
I call Poe on #21.
Of course, given the implications of Poe, I could be wrong...
Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | December 10, 2008 10:12 AM
*scanning* *scanning* *scanning*
*** ALERT *** Possible Poe/Troll activity detected in post #21.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 10, 2008 10:13 AM
From the old thread:
Keith Allen believed:
Emmet Caulfield responded:
It does sometimes happen that a belief system advances science. One of the examples is that Michael Faraday's discoveries were based on the assumption of his sect that circles were somehow metaphysically important. In other words, it's possible to be right for the wrong reasons.
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:13 AM
Who is Poe ?
Posted by: freelunch | December 10, 2008 10:13 AM
I wonder how many creationists are able to admit to themselves that they are the victims of a massive con and that the con men who have stolen their money do not care at all about evolution or creation as long as they can find credulous fools who will give them money.
Ken Ham is a fraud and a charletan stealing money from those with a religious impairment.
Posted by: Ouchimoo | December 10, 2008 10:14 AM
Carlie @ #17
The other 10% will quote-mine and take things so far out of Context it won't even make sense anymore. *see Ray Comfort's blog on Sex evolved after humans, and pulling a science journal about. . Bacteria . . .?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:15 AM
By lying about science and removing people's rights?
Edgar Allen ________
No it is not anymore than it is a White Man's country.
so you are in favor of teaching evolution!
Again, please show us what part of Evolutionary research is wrong and also show us why.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 10:15 AM
Maybe we should start spelling "theory" in the sense of scientific theory with a thorn (þeory) or a theta (θeory) If it doesn't underline the difference, at least it'll take them a helluva lot longer to write "just a þeory" as they rummage around the character map.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 10:16 AM
Buzz, wrong question. The right question is what is a Poe.Posted by: deep | December 10, 2008 10:17 AM
I have a hard time taking anyone seriously defending Mr. Ham when they can't spell his name right...
Evolution is a scientific theory, it works, it is not failed.
Evolution has nothing to do with Satan.
We attack creationists because what they are doing to our schools systems is wrong (if anyone is the "paramedics" it's us).
Our country is not a religious country (I assume you are talking about the U.S. the majority of the world is more civilized).
I do agree that children should only be shown what is right...what has all the evidence behind it...evolution.
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:20 AM
We love the real Sciences and will always defend people's true rights.
Polls show that there are less than 1.4% atheists, we can very well do without them, you know.
Evolution has been shown to be false : search "irreducible complexity", you might learn something.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:20 AM
@35: are you referencing that Man from U.N.C.L.E. episode?
Bad guy: Did U.N.C.L.E. send you?
Good guy: What is "Uncle"?
Bad guy: Most people would ask, "Who is uncle?".
Imprisonment follows.
Posted by: CosmicTeapot | December 10, 2008 10:21 AM
Emmet, þhat's a brilliant idea!
I þhink it should really be the þheta as it is more scientific, but I do love þhe runes.
Posted by: raven | December 10, 2008 10:22 AM
HUH!!! You death cultists don't speak for christians, just your own demented lying and hating cults. Most xians worldwide are OK with evolution, RCC, Mormons, protestants, etc..
As nihilistic, evil liars, who hate and oppose science you are in fact, making the world a worse place while simultaneously damaging xianity. Polls show that the majority of the US population are sick and tired of fundies. Most of those who are sick and tired of fundies are....other xians.
Posted by: extatyzoma | December 10, 2008 10:22 AM
virginie #30
'Who is Poe ?'
i think this is called 'poe, poeing'.
Posted by: deep | December 10, 2008 10:24 AM
So there are only that many atheists...but 60% of this country believes in evolution. Don't you think maybe you should stop falsely equating the two?And irreducible complexity? Don't make me laugh, do you even know what that means?
Posted by: E.V. | December 10, 2008 10:25 AM
Virginie isn't a Poe, she's TSTKSS*
*(Too stupid to know she's stupid)
Posted by: Sock | December 10, 2008 10:26 AM
Humanists are doing far more to make the world a better place these days than Christians are. There is a far more powerful and EFFECTIVE moral message being taught by humanist beliefs. That we can all be good and kind WITHOUT a God. If you only worship a God out of fear of Hell, because you expect to -get something out of it-, that doesn't seem to measure up nearly as high on the moral ladder as being good for goodness' sake, which is what Humanists are all about. Every last one of them.
Christians do not try to save, they try to enslave. You can teach your children what you want, but I want my children to learn that man is the greatest power in this world, because he is the only one with the ability to effect it.
Firefighters go into burning buildings to save children. They do it to save -animals- too. What has God done for you lately that even comes close to comparing to that?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:26 AM
@37: It's called "interlocking complexity" and it's a consequence of evolution, as shown by Muller: see for example http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep06.html . Just wanted to throw some facts into the mix.
Posted by: Graculus | December 10, 2008 10:27 AM
On the off-chance that Virginie is not a Poe:
1) Creationism is not Christianity.
2) Name a single objective thing about "making the world better" that is unique to Christianity and not shared by other faiths as well as non-faiths.
3) If paramedics were draining people of blood instead of administering medicine, you bet your arse we'd attack them.
4) Mr. Ham (not Hamm) is a liar and charlatan. Good Christian values?
5) The US is rather specifically NOT a religious country. I suggest you look up "seperation of church and state"
6) Freedom of speech. You get to yarf on about us evil atheists, we get to point and laugh at you. Deal with it.
7) Yes, let's teach *your* children only the Biblically correct stuff. Like pi=3.0, the world is flat, bats are birds...... by your logic, reality is Satanic, but reality was created by god, so God is Satan. Who *are* you worshipping again?
Posted by: Robert W | December 10, 2008 10:27 AM
"Our country is a religious country and it amazes me that we allow atheists to criticize us! Our children should be shown only what is right - how dare those people try to force our little ones to learn the evident falsehoods of evolution (the failed theory) and turn to Satan?!"
Our country is religious? Um, actually, our country was founded to ESCAPE religion and to establish freedom to believe what we want (no more Church of England).
Our children should be shown only what is right? And who are you to decide what is right and by what means? By numbers? By faith? You can huff and puff all you want, but saying you're "right" doesn't make it so!
Evident falsehoods? State ONE. Back it up with evidence. (No, Satan is not evidence.)
The only failed theory around here is that a giant humanoid figure in the sky is watching over us and created us in his image and the world in seven days. Give me a break.
You have the right to believe whatever you want, but keep your beliefs to yourself and stop JUDGING other people because they want the same right to believe what they want (based on evidence, their own senses, sound reasoning, and judgment).
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
Galileo Galilei
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 10, 2008 10:28 AM
Define True Rights
What polls? Show your work. What's the cut off on the percentage of people you can do without?
bzzzzzt. Wrong. You should actually do some research. IC is garbage.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:28 AM
@39: I think you meant "Emmet, þat's a brilliant idea! I þink it should really be þe þeta as it is more scientific, but I do love þe runes." þ=th
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:29 AM
It means the cell contains elements that are far too complex to have come by chance, otherwise that would be like magic. They must have been designed. You don't believe in magic do you ?
Posted by: Mobius | December 10, 2008 10:30 AM
Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrip!!!
"Next???"
(Come on. Where are the creationists? There's blood in the water and I hunger.)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:31 AM
oh define real sciences as well.
Posted by: Rich | December 10, 2008 10:31 AM
Let's put up this excellent ERV video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbbh1P6DW5I&eurl=http://scienceblogs.com/erv/
Hat tip to abbie and the ERV scienceblog.
Creationism - not true.
Posted by: deep | December 10, 2008 10:31 AM
Awww, that's nice of you. It's a shame that it rarely works though. One of the most disappointing times in my life was when my friend forwarded me one of those crazy fundie emails that looked like a joke (alas, Poe's law) and I spent three hours typing up a rebuttal with sources and links only for my friend to later tell me that she was too lazy to read it all and that it was all just a big conspiracy anyway. *sniff*Posted by: NoFear | December 10, 2008 10:31 AM
"Ken Ham is a fraud and a charletan stealing money from those with a religious impairment."
Exploiting the mentally challenged. How pathetic.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:32 AM
@Virginie: you really, really need to read that link about interlocking complexity. Or rather, sane people who actually want to learn something need to read the link. Complexity is not design.
Posted by: ennui | December 10, 2008 10:33 AM
Evolution contains elements both stochastic (mutation) and deterministic (selection).
No, Virginie, there is no Santa Claus.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 10:33 AM
#29 David Marjanović, OM,
My objection is a categorical one in the sense that advances are actually made by concrete individuals or concrete groups of individuals, not by abstractions like "Christianity". I would have a similar objection to a bald assertion that advances are made "by universities" -- they're not, they're made at universities but by the people working there. The latter is not so objectionable, of course, because universities, with a few exceptions, don't generally have roaming bands of disingenuous cretins blabbering misinformation to the public at every opportunity.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 10:34 AM
Everyone got your "Creationist ignorant buzzword bingo cards" ready?
I got three squares filled from Virginie already.
- 1.4 % of the world are atheists. Bzzzt... false.
- We can continue to be ignorant bullies as long as we think we're making the world a better place. Bzzzt... false.
- Irreducible Complexity. Bzzzzzzt.... horribly false... pick up a science journal. Then read it.
Woo-hoo! Almost there...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:34 AM
Irony meter go BOOM!!
definetely leaning to poe
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:35 AM
Those included in the Bible. Homosexual marriage and abortion are not in there for example.
Check pew research.
Typical atheist, what you find inconvenient, you call garbage, yet this is real scientific research from one of the world's greatest minds.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:35 AM
@54: tell them that if they're too lazy to learn the facts, they don't get to have an opinion. Blunt, but necessary.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 10:35 AM
Ugh. Just watched Jon Stewart's interview with Mike Huckabee from last night. Don't even know where to start, but I'll leave aside his drivel about fiscal conservatism for the moment (except to note that I enjoyed Stewart's crack about how conservatives generally support military spending, and he really doesn't get how they can "trust the government with tanks and nuclear weapons but not to hand out cheese to poor people"). Then Stewart opens the discussion of social conservative by making a comment about how he can totally "see" Huckabee's "pro-life" argument and understand that all of us should make an effort to "reduce the number of that." WTF, Jon? Huckabee's attempted defense of his opposition to gay marriage was a logical-fallacy exhibit. At least Stewart called him on some of that.
Posted by: Ouchimoo | December 10, 2008 10:35 AM
O.M.G. "irreducible complexity"? That's all you've got?
Seriously.
Things are too complex to just happen . .so god did it. .
and god is too complex to just happen . . .so god did it
so on and so forth
Posted by: E.V. | December 10, 2008 10:36 AM
Provide your sources. The actual number according to a 2001 ARIS study :
I hate when some dishonest ass uses the old rubric polls show... without citing numbers and sources.
Virginie, you're a vapid, brainwashed, magic-believing parrot without the slightest clue of how much you don't know.
Posted by: deep | December 10, 2008 10:36 AM
No, I don't believe in magic, that seems to be what you believe in. Just because you are too ignorant to know how evolution works ("by chance" obviously means you don't have too good of a grasp of it) doesn't mean it had to have been designed. That's like saying a TV is magic because you don't know anything about mechanics, light, or electricity. Do some reading, I'm sure everyone here will wait.
Posted by: Holbach | December 10, 2008 10:37 AM
Virginie @ 21
No virginie, there is no santa claus, god, tooth fairy or easter bunny. There is only brain-dead chritians who cannot distinguish between the bunch and will live and die in a state of insanity with no imaginary god to save them. Now seriously, if there is no god how could there be a satan? Are you mad?
Posted by: Spook | December 10, 2008 10:37 AM
#37:
Source?
No wait, you'll just screw it up.
From the CIA World Factbook.
Also, a lot of scientists (an overwhelming majority, from what I've heard) that designed the drugs you need to survive disease, the car you drive every day, and the computer in front of you have before you are or have been atheists. To get by without them puts you back in the stone age.
Nitwit.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:39 AM
@63: I thought most people were pretty much agreed that reducing the number of abortions would be a good thing. It's just that the wackoes want it done by banning abortion, which, historically, does not work, whereas sane people want it done by improving people's education and access to contraception.
Posted by: Calladus | December 10, 2008 10:39 AM
Virginie:
Poe: Short for "Poe's Law". In other words, it is sometimes difficult for rational people to tell the difference between a fundamentalist and someone who is creating a silly parody of a fundamentalist. For example, compare "Westboro Baptist Church" to "Landover Baptist Church".
If you are a Christian who gets "Poe" called on you, it is a good indication that you need to turn down the outlandishness a few notches. We do realize that some fundamentalists are unable to do this.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 10:39 AM
where's Clinteas, did he go to bed ?
Ok then, I'll stop here, my Virgine was an attempt to keep him out of bed, it didn't work.
Virginie was a Negentropyeater-Poe.
Not a very good one, I admit.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:40 AM
So do you support slavery?
I did. Don't see it. Maybe you can actually show a link?
Follow my link above and actually READ it. IC IS garbage and Behe is FAR from being one of the world's greatest minds. Did you happen to catch his appearance in Dover?
Posted by: raven | December 10, 2008 10:40 AM
The usual. Violence and mass murder are never very far below the surface of fundie Death Cultists. Where they got their name.
Lies are always on the surface. The percentage of atheists, agnostics, and apathetics in the USA is more like 5-10%. And fundies are a minority of xians even in the USA, between 7 and 20% of the population.
All fundies contribute to the world is occupying the bottom of the barrel. As jesus said, forget the morons, there will always be a bottom 10%.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 10:40 AM
Virginie continues to dig...
Hmmm... but slavery is! Shall we re-institute that old custom, godbot? Have you actually even READ that book?
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | December 10, 2008 10:41 AM
A Creationists telling us that we believe in "magic". Hilarious! Please keep it up, Virginie. I need more stuff to submit to FSTDT.
Posted by: Holbach | December 10, 2008 10:41 AM
Marcus Ranum @ 2
My favorite word when describing religionists.
Posted by: deep | December 10, 2008 10:41 AM
What rights are in the bible? And going from athiest slandering, to evolution bashing, and then throwing in an plea for anti-homosexuality and anti-abortion? You must either be a Poe or a glutton for punishment.Posted by: extatyzome | December 10, 2008 10:42 AM
virginie
"Evolution has been shown to be false : search "irreducible complexity", you might learn something."
IR in a nutshell: 'I cant explain how it evolved (and by god so nobody can) therefor it didnt evolve'
virginie, behe's argument from personal incredulity does not show evo to be false, there are many potential ways to falsify evolution, it hasnt yet been falsified and so is the current theory on the origin of lifes diversity.
If evolution is ever falsified you will hear about it on the BBC news and biologists will get very excited to hear the new explanation for lifes diversity.
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:42 AM
And I forgot to say I'm sorry for all the really stupid things I've said !
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:42 AM
you asshole.
My post David Byrne hangover leaves me susceptible to poeing.
damn you
*fist shake
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 10:43 AM
Dammit... blockquote fail. Let me try that again....
Virginie continues to dig...
Hmmm... but slavery is! Shall we re-institute that old custom, godbot? Have you actually even READ that book?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:43 AM
@71: I think it was a little too obvious, possibly because it sounded sane-but-misinformed. Next time try for out-and-out frothing madness.
Posted by: Spook | December 10, 2008 10:43 AM
#61
Neither is being an Internet troll, but that's not stopping you.
If you really want to dry-hump the bible, I'd like to point out that skepticism is in there, which is what's being practiced here. Look up good old "doubting Thomas", that is if you actually read the book you're drooling on. He didn't take things as fact without evidence, why should we?
Oh, and with your remark about atheists just "throwing away whatever is inconvenient" when it comes to irreducable complexity, here's one of many refutations by Scienceblogs' own MarkCC
Posted by: Scott | December 10, 2008 10:45 AM
Bacteria Flagellum anyone?
Posted by: extatyzoma | December 10, 2008 10:45 AM
whoops, #78 thats IC not IR!!
lying for darwin.
Posted by: Kinzua Kid | December 10, 2008 10:45 AM
Wow, now I feel like Virginie isn't just TSTKSS, Trolling or going for the Poe- this is a deeper problem, one I almost want to think is...
...shilling
That's right. This seems way too simple to be a real person. I believe PZ is testing the comment crowd and giggling all the way to class. If not, this is about the saddest thing ever. (don't go breaking my fantasy now with your reality, I am in denial)
Virginie- it's pretty clear you're just getting some concept names typed out with no real understanding of their definition, context or the trainload of falsification that came before you. Your last post was telling.
Of course I believe in magic; I am a magician. I don't believe in chance, however. It screws up my magic. :)
Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 10, 2008 10:47 AM
Our country is religious? Um, actually, our country was founded to ESCAPE religion and to establish freedom to believe what we want (no more Church of England).
Looking at how religion has dur founding faeveloped in the UK and the US, I would suggest yothers got that one wrong. Give me wishy-washy feel-good liberal Anglicanism over the right-wing fundamentalists anyday.
Posted by: Spook | December 10, 2008 10:47 AM
#61
Neither is being an Internet troll, but that's not stopping you.
If you really want to dry-hump the bible, I'd like to point out that skepticism is in there, which is what's being practiced here. Look up good old "doubting Thomas", that is if you actually read the book you're drooling on. He didn't take things as fact without evidence, why should we?
Oh, and with your remark about atheists just "throwing away whatever is inconvenient" when it comes to irreducable complexity, here's one of many refutations by Scienceblogs' own MarkCC
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 10:48 AM
Dammit, negentropyeater...
And I almost had bingo... :-(
Posted by: butter | December 10, 2008 10:49 AM
The only difference between religious people and alcoholics is that when you mutilate your children's genitals while drunk you're suddenly a bad parent.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 10:49 AM
Rev. and all
I'm awfully sorry, shouldn't have done it.
Posted by: Hank | December 10, 2008 10:49 AM
#86: I believe comment #79 is as clear a hint as you're going to get.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 10:49 AM
I agree with that only to the extent that it is surgery, which no one should have to undergo if it can be avoided, not because there is anything morally abhorrent about abortion.
It's not only that it "does not work" - it's that it is an infringement on my fundamental right to control my own body. And not only does it not "work," it causes injury and death, especially as it typically forms part of a policy that weakens education and reduces access to contraception. For Stewart to make that remark in the context of saying that he could "see" Huckabee's point on this has implications.
Posted by: Spook | December 10, 2008 10:49 AM
Ack! Double post! Sorry!
*leaves before he screws anything else up this morning.*
Posted by: Ouchimoo | December 10, 2008 10:50 AM
really?:
The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.
And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6
Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.
Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16
Almost looks like if your baby's under a month, it's fair game. And what's about this value thing? Is that how much their worth to sell into slavery?
Posted by: DuckPhup | December 10, 2008 10:51 AM
dead yeti wrote: "Maybe creationists don't believe in evolution simply because they have quite managed to evolve into full blown Homo Sapiens yet?"
I think there's more to it than that. I think that Homo Sapiens can be broken down further, into a few sub-species...
Homo Moronicus: fundies... especially creotards
Homo Dumbassticus: ordinary religionists
Homo Rationalis: sane people
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 10:52 AM
I agree with that only to the extent that it is surgery,
Uh, I meant "only because it is surgery." It is of course surgery.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:53 AM
Oh it's fine.
Just goes to show you that Poe's law is alive and well.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 10, 2008 10:53 AM
OK, something screwed up. Let me try again.
Richard W said:
evelopment, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
* Latest Posts
* Archives
* About
* Dungeon
* Blogroll
* Commenters
* RSS
* Contact
Search this blog
Profile
pzm_profile_pic.jpg
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
zf_pharyngula.jpg ...and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
tbbadge.gif
scarlet_A.png
I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Random Quote
(Complete listing)
I have just discovered that without her father's consent this sweet, trusting, gullible six-year-old is being sent, for weekly instruction, to a Roman Catholic nun. What chance has she?"
With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns. Like immune-deficient patients, children are wide open to mental infections that adults might brush off without effort.
Richard Dawkins
Recent Posts
* For the nerd who isn't very bright
* New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* Target-rich polling environment
* A brilliant new strategy!
* This is not a time for prayer
* Evolving the Mona Lisa
* Oh, stop it, Bill -- you're too kind
* Let's hope the nightmare ends soon
* Pat Boone isn't exactly the brightest pundit around
* Somebody put this on a t-shirt
A Taste of Pharyngula
(Complete listing)
Octopus sex
Two-legged goats and developmental variation
Ten questions to ask your biology teacher
A quick reply to some of the arguments made recently
Homo floresiensis, Flores Man
Modeling metazoan cell lineages
Planet of the Hats
Bicoid, nanos, and bricolage
Recent Comments
* Spook on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* Matt Penfold on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* Kalirren on A brilliant new strategy!
* Kinzua Kid on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* extatyzoma on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* Scott on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* Spook on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* Stephen Wells on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* Celtic_Evolution on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* Rev. BigDumbChimp on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
Archives
* December 2008
* November 2008
* October 2008
* September 2008
* August 2008
* July 2008
* June 2008
* May 2008
* April 2008
* March 2008
* February 2008
* January 2008
* December 2007
* November 2007
* October 2007
* September 2007
* August 2007
* July 2007
* June 2007
* May 2007
* April 2007
* March 2007
* February 2007
* January 2007
* December 2006
* November 2006
* October 2006
* September 2006
* August 2006
* July 2006
* June 2006
* May 2006
* April 2006
* March 2006
* February 2006
* January 2006
Blogroll
(Complete listing)
Other Information
koufax.jpg
2005 Koufax Award
Best Expert
wabs.jpg
2006 Weblogs Award
Subscribe via Email
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
Sign me up!
« Target-rich polling environment | Main | For the nerd who isn't very bright »
New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
Category: Administrative • Creationism
Posted on: December 10, 2008 9:24 AM, by PZ Myers
Ken Ham of the Creation "Museum" linked to an old thread from June, prompting a sudden influx of dull-witted creationists regurgitating old canards. Normally I wouldn't mind -- the poor dullards don't get much outlet on the creationist sites, which typically prohibit any kind of expression from their flocks -- but in this case we've also got lots of fierce godless evolutionists who see an opportunity to sharpen their claws. That means the old thread is at a roiling boil and is now over 1300 comments, which is a bit excessive.
I'm closing that thread and inviting them to come here to carry on the discussion.
If you need a topic to prime the pump, how about conversing about the combination of charlatanry and ignorance that are needed to be a prominent creationist?
ShareThis
Comments
#1
Posted by: mr-zero | December 10, 2008 9:37 AM
Bring it on!
#2
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | December 10, 2008 9:40 AM
"intolerant" evolutionists? He's got it wrong. I thought we were "contemptuous" -- it's a whole different attitude.
#3
Posted by: mr-zero | December 10, 2008 9:41 AM
Instead of picking holes in evolution how about you creationists show us one single piece of evidence which supports creationism.
Just one.
#4
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 9:42 AM
To all the Ken Ham worshipers who will undoubtedly come here after reading post with the link to here on the AIG webpage.
Before you spout off ignorantly about evolution being false, please provide us with the specific research you are refuting, then show your work as to how it is actually refuted.
Thanks.
Have a good day.
Tip your waitresses.
#5
Posted by: clinteas | December 10, 2008 9:43 AM
Oh noooozzzzz...
More Don Quixotes fighting mindless windmills....
how about conversing about the combination of charlatanry and ignorance that are needed to be a prominent creationist?
Im more interested in the psychiatric implications,the mechanisms that allow you to say no when yes is so obvious,and to stoically defend "no" in the face of overwhelimg evidence.
We should send psychiatrists to the US,maybe,to conduct some studies.
#6
Posted by: strangest brew | December 10, 2008 9:46 AM
Obviously busy taking their Dino's for walkies!
#7
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 9:47 AM
Before you spout off ignorantly about evolution being false, please provide us with the specific research you are refuting, then show your work as to how it is actually refuted.
Amen Rev. The work should cite the scientific literature too. Hint, AIG or any other creationist/ID web site is not scientific.
#8
Posted by: bob | December 10, 2008 9:48 AM
Interview with some neighbors of the family who were killed by the out-of-control military plane:
"It's just providence," said Johnson, who was at home with his daughter and grandchild when the fighter plane crashed two houses away, sending them fleeing out their back door. "Thirty feet higher and the plane lands in our living room instead of theirs."
Translation: "Thank god only those gooks died and my family's okay!" Horrible. Any input on how such a sentiment *isn't* nauseating and insulting, AIG folks?
#9
Posted by: dead yeti | December 10, 2008 9:49 AM
couple of points:
Maybe creationists don't believe in evolution simply because they have quite managed to evolve into full blown Homo Sapiens yet?
Maybe they themselves are in fact missing links they love to bang on about so much?
how much should i tip my waitress?
#10
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 9:49 AM
but in this case we've also got lots of fierce godless evolutionists who see an opportunity to sharpen their claws.
*burp*
Anyone got a toothpick? I think I have a creationist's brain stuck between my teeth.
#11
Posted by: Corey Schlueter | December 10, 2008 9:53 AM
To creationists,
Get an education and do the research!
#12
Posted by: strangest brew | December 10, 2008 9:54 AM
'I have a creationist's brain stuck between my teeth.'
You mean you actually found one!...or are you exaggerating ;-)
#13
Posted by: Zeno | December 10, 2008 9:55 AM
Oh, come on, Emmet. You expect us to believe you found a creationist brain big enough to get stuck between your teeth? Everyone knows that zombies would starve to death trolling for brains at the Creation Museum or any other creationist venue (except, perhaps, on Evolutionist Laugh-and-Point Visit Day).
#14
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | December 10, 2008 9:56 AM
Well, this should be interesting one way or another.
#15
Posted by: clinteas | December 10, 2008 9:57 AM
13 posts and no lunatic yet,this thread doesnt feel right....:-)
Im going to bed
#16
Posted by: azqaz | December 10, 2008 9:58 AM
Here, let me sum up the creationists "scientific" proof.
...
There you go, but what they will claim as "proof" is
GODDIDIT!
What more could you need? ;)
#17
Posted by: Carlie | December 10, 2008 10:03 AM
The work should cite the scientific literature too.
Heck, you'd weed out 90% of them by just asking them to name two scientific journals, never mind being able to cite a specific paper.
#18
Posted by: Robert W | December 10, 2008 10:04 AM
Faith is the antithesis of proof.
The creationist argument, based as it is on faith and conjecture, can never be proven. It can never be studied or tested or debated in any real sense other than a masturbatory one.
On the other hand, the Theory of evolution (please note capital T, as in, the end of the scientific process ... an accepted scientific truth, not a "theory" as George W likes to snicker) is well supported with actual evidence.
Please take your creationist babble to church and keep it out of our schools. If you want to abuse your own children with myth and dogma, that is your prerogative. Freedom of church and state has allowed your religion to prosper and mutate. Please don't pretend that your faith is somehow akin to science, or that it is an alternative "theory" worthy of equal exploration.
It is not. And faith is the antithesis of proof.
#19
Posted by: strangest brew | December 10, 2008 10:05 AM
"Here, let me sum up the creationists "scientific" proof.
...
There you go, but what they will claim as "proof" is
GODDIDIT!
What more could you need? ;)"
I never realised it was so much...gonna have to have a rethink....
#20
Posted by: ennui | December 10, 2008 10:07 AM
And remember, all you baby-raping, puppy-chipping, zombie-creationist-eating cannibal atheists, Wednesday is orgy night. Bring a friend; tonight's theme is snow.
#21
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:07 AM
As Christians, we are trying to make the world better.
It's not fair for others to demonize us when we are trying to save them! Do you think it would be fair to attack paramedics?! NO! So why do you attack Mr Hamm ?
Our country is a religious country and it amazes me that we allow atheists to criticize us! Our children should be shown only what is right - how dare those people try to force our little ones to learn the evident falsehoods of evolution (the failed theory) and turn to Satan?!
#22
Posted by: Matt7895 | December 10, 2008 10:07 AM
Well, the creationists' evidence really does come down to "God did it", but they arrive at that conclusion by saying, "The Bible says, it, the Bible is the word of god, therefore the Bible is true, god did it."
#23
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 10:10 AM
looks like Virginie doesn't want Clinteas to go to bed.
#24
Posted by: dinkum | December 10, 2008 10:10 AM
Virginie: Poe.
#25
Posted by: Dmitry | December 10, 2008 10:11 AM
Virginie, I call Poe on you!
#26
Posted by: FTFKDad | December 10, 2008 10:12 AM
Did anyone follow the Prof. Olofsson thread at UD? The one where Prof. Olofsson displayed the... ahem... patience of a saint in responding to one UD regular "PaV". There was one post from PaV where he said (and remember this is a posting on a paper by Prof O. on Bayesian statistics):
[Comment 252] "I don't care to learn all about Bayesian analysis-of what use is it to me?
And.....I don't need to learn it to come to the same conclusion that Bill [Dembski] has come to. I see, and agree to, his logic in all of this."
This is a perfect example of how a creationist mind not only thinks it knows the answers, it doesn't even need to understand the subject or even want to try to understand the subject before knowing all the answers! (The Prof. did a nice take down of this particular comment as well.)
#27
Posted by: BGT | December 10, 2008 10:12 AM
I call Poe on #21.
Of course, given the implications of Poe, I could be wrong...
#28
Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | December 10, 2008 10:12 AM
*scanning* *scanning* *scanning*
*** ALERT *** Possible Poe/Troll activity detected in post #21.
#29
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 10, 2008 10:13 AM
From the old thread:
Keith Allen believed:
be aware that Christianity advanced science.
Emmet Caulfield responded:
Arrant nonsense. A belief system cannot advance a methodology and body of knowledge. Science was advanced by individuals, many of whom were Christian.
It does sometimes happen that a belief system advances science. One of the examples is that Michael Faraday's discoveries were based on the assumption of his sect that circles were somehow metaphysically important. In other words, it's possible to be right for the wrong reasons.
#30
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:13 AM
Who is Poe ?
#31
Posted by: freelunch | December 10, 2008 10:13 AM
I wonder how many creationists are able to admit to themselves that they are the victims of a massive con and that the con men who have stolen their money do not care at all about evolution or creation as long as they can find credulous fools who will give them money.
Ken Ham is a fraud and a charletan stealing money from those with a religious impairment.
#32
Posted by: Ouchimoo | December 10, 2008 10:14 AM
Carlie @ #17
The other 10% will quote-mine and take things so far out of Context it won't even make sense anymore. *see Ray Comfort's blog on Sex evolved after humans, and pulling a science journal about. . Bacteria . . .?
#33
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:15 AM
As Christians, we are trying to make the world better.
By lying about science and removing people's rights?
It's not fair for others to demonize us when we are trying to save them! Do you think it would be fair to attack paramedics?! NO! So why do you attack Mr Hamm ?
Edgar Allen ________
Our country is a religious country and it amazes me that we allow atheists to criticize us!
No it is not anymore than it is a White Man's country.
Our children should be shown only what is right
so you are in favor of teaching evolution!
- how dare those people try to force our little ones to learn the evident falsehoods of evolution (the failed theory) and turn to Satan?!
Again, please show us what part of Evolutionary research is wrong and also show us why.
#34
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 10:15 AM
On the other hand, the Theory of evolution (please note capital T...
Maybe we should start spelling "theory" in the sense of scientific theory with a thorn (þeory) or a theta (θeory) If it doesn't underline the difference, at least it'll take them a helluva lot longer to write "just a þeory" as they rummage around the character map.
#35
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 10:16 AM
Who is Poe ?
Buzz, wrong question. The right question is what is a Poe.
#36
Posted by: deep | December 10, 2008 10:17 AM
I have a hard time taking anyone seriously defending Mr. Ham when they can't spell his name right...
Evolution is a scientific theory, it works, it is not failed.
Evolution has nothing to do with Satan.
We attack creationists because what they are doing to our schools systems is wrong (if anyone is the "paramedics" it's us).
Our country is not a religious country (I assume you are talking about the U.S. the majority of the world is more civilized).
I do agree that children should only be shown what is right...what has all the evidence behind it...evolution.
#37
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:20 AM
By lying about science and removing people's rights?
We love the real Sciences and will always defend people's true rights.
No it is not anymore than it is a White Man's country.
Polls show that there are less than 1.4% atheists, we can very well do without them, you know.
so you are in favor of teaching evolution!
Evolution has been shown to be false : search "irreducible complexity", you might learn something.
#38
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:20 AM
@35: are you referencing that Man from U.N.C.L.E. episode?
Bad guy: Did U.N.C.L.E. send you?
Good guy: What is "Uncle"?
Bad guy: Most people would ask, "Who is uncle?".
Imprisonment follows.
#39
Posted by: CosmicTeapot | December 10, 2008 10:21 AM
Emmet, þhat's a brilliant idea!
I þhink it should really be the þheta as it is more scientific, but I do love þhe runes.
#40
Posted by: raven | December 10, 2008 10:22 AM
virginie lying cultist:
As Christians, we are trying to make the world better.
HUH!!! You death cultists don't speak for christians, just your own demented lying and hating cults. Most xians worldwide are OK with evolution, RCC, Mormons, protestants, etc..
As nihilistic, evil liars, who hate and oppose science you are in fact, making the world a worse place while simultaneously damaging xianity. Polls show that the majority of the US population are sick and tired of fundies. Most of those who are sick and tired of fundies are....other xians.
#41
Posted by: extatyzoma | December 10, 2008 10:22 AM
virginie #30
'Who is Poe ?'
i think this is called 'poe, poeing'.
#42
Posted by: deep | December 10, 2008 10:24 AM
Polls show that there are less than 1.4% atheists, we can very well do without them, you know.
So there are only that many atheists...but 60% of this country believes in evolution. Don't you think maybe you should stop falsely equating the two?
And irreducible complexity? Don't make me laugh, do you even know what that means?
#43
Posted by: E.V. | December 10, 2008 10:25 AM
Virginie isn't a Poe, she's TSTKSS*
*(Too stupid to know she's stupid)
#44
Posted by: Sock | December 10, 2008 10:26 AM
Humanists are doing far more to make the world a better place these days than Christians are. There is a far more powerful and EFFECTIVE moral message being taught by humanist beliefs. That we can all be good and kind WITHOUT a God. If you only worship a God out of fear of Hell, because you expect to -get something out of it-, that doesn't seem to measure up nearly as high on the moral ladder as being good for goodness' sake, which is what Humanists are all about. Every last one of them.
Christians do not try to save, they try to enslave. You can teach your children what you want, but I want my children to learn that man is the greatest power in this world, because he is the only one with the ability to effect it.
Firefighters go into burning buildings to save children. They do it to save -animals- too. What has God done for you lately that even comes close to comparing to that?
#45
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:26 AM
@37: It's called "interlocking complexity" and it's a consequence of evolution, as shown by Muller: see for example http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep06.html . Just wanted to throw some facts into the mix.
#46
Posted by: Graculus | December 10, 2008 10:27 AM
On the off-chance that Virginie is not a Poe:
1) Creationism is not Christianity.
2) Name a single objective thing about "making the world better" that is unique to Christianity and not shared by other faiths as well as non-faiths.
3) If paramedics were draining people of blood instead of administering medicine, you bet your arse we'd attack them.
4) Mr. Ham (not Hamm) is a liar and charlatan. Good Christian values?
5) The US is rather specifically NOT a religious country. I suggest you look up "seperation of church and state"
6) Freedom of speech. You get to yarf on about us evil atheists, we get to point and laugh at you. Deal with it.
7) Yes, let's teach *your* children only the Biblically correct stuff. Like pi=3.0, the world is flat, bats are birds...... by your logic, reality is Satanic, but reality was created by god, so God is Satan. Who *are* you worshipping again?
#47
Posted by: Robert W | December 10, 2008 10:27 AM
"Our country is a religious country and it amazes me that we allow atheists to criticize us! Our children should be shown only what is right - how dare those people try to force our little ones to learn the evident falsehoods of evolution (the failed theory) and turn to Satan?!"
Our country is religious? Um, actually, our country was founded to ESCAPE religion and to establish freedom to believe what we want (no more Church of England).
Our children should be shown only what is right? And who are you to decide what is right and by what means? By numbers? By faith? You can huff and puff all you want, but saying you're "right" doesn't make it so!
Evident falsehoods? State ONE. Back it up with evidence. (No, Satan is not evidence.)
The only failed theory around here is that a giant humanoid figure in the sky is watching over us and created us in his image and the world in seven days. Give me a break.
You have the right to believe whatever you want, but keep your beliefs to yourself and stop JUDGING other people because they want the same right to believe what they want (based on evidence, their own senses, sound reasoning, and judgment).
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
Galileo Galilei
#48
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 10, 2008 10:28 AM
We love the real Sciences and will always defend people's true rights.
Define True Rights
Polls show that there are less than 1.4% atheists, we can very well do without them, you know.
What polls? Show your work. What's the cut off on the percentage of people you can do without?
Evolution has been shown to be false : search "irreducible complexity", you might learn something.
bzzzzzt. Wrong. You should actually do some research. IC is garbage.
#49
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:28 AM
@39: I think you meant "Emmet, þat's a brilliant idea! I þink it should really be þe þeta as it is more scientific, but I do love þe runes." þ=th
#50
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:29 AM
And irreducible complexity? Don't make me laugh, do you even know what that means?
It means the cell contains elements that are far too complex to have come by chance, otherwise that would be like magic. They must have been designed. You don't believe in magic do you ?
#51
Posted by: Mobius | December 10, 2008 10:30 AM
Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrip!!!
"Next???"
(Come on. Where are the creationists? There's blood in the water and I hunger.)
#52
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:31 AM
oh define real sciences as well.
#53
Posted by: Rich | December 10, 2008 10:31 AM
Let's put up this excellent ERV video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbbh1P6DW5I&eurl=http://scienceblogs.com/erv/
Hat tip to abbie and the ERV scienceblog.
Creationism - not true.
#54
Posted by: deep | December 10, 2008 10:31 AM
Just wanted to throw some facts into the mix.
Awww, that's nice of you. It's a shame that it rarely works though. One of the most disappointing times in my life was when my friend forwarded me one of those crazy fundie emails that looked like a joke (alas, Poe's law) and I spent three hours typing up a rebuttal with sources and links only for my friend to later tell me that she was too lazy to read it all and that it was all just a big conspiracy anyway. *sniff*
#55
Posted by: NoFear | December 10, 2008 10:31 AM
"Ken Ham is a fraud and a charletan stealing money from those with a religious impairment."
Exploiting the mentally challenged. How pathetic.
#56
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:32 AM
@Virginie: you really, really need to read that link about interlocking complexity. Or rather, sane people who actually want to learn something need to read the link. Complexity is not design.
#57
Posted by: ennui | December 10, 2008 10:33 AM
Evolution contains elements both stochastic (mutation) and deterministic (selection).
No, Virginie, there is no Santa Claus.
#58
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 10:33 AM
#29 David Marjanović, OM,
My objection is a categorical one in the sense that advances are actually made by concrete individuals or concrete groups of individuals, not by abstractions like "Christianity". I would have a similar objection to a bald assertion that advances are made "by universities" -- they're not, they're made at universities but by the people working there. The latter is not so objectionable, of course, because universities, with a few exceptions, don't generally have roaming bands of disingenuous cretins blabbering misinformation to the public at every opportunity.
#59
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 10:34 AM
Everyone got your "Creationist ignorant buzzword bingo cards" ready?
I got three squares filled from Virginie already.
- 1.4 % of the world are atheists. Bzzzt... false.
- We can continue to be ignorant bullies as long as we think we're making the world a better place. Bzzzt... false.
- Irreducible Complexity. Bzzzzzzt.... horribly false... pick up a science journal. Then read it.
Woo-hoo! Almost there...
#60
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:34 AM
It means the cell contains elements that are far too complex to have come by chance, otherwise that would be like magic. They must have been designed. You don't believe in magic do you ?
Irony meter go BOOM!!
definetely leaning to poe
#61
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:35 AM
Define True Rights
Those included in the Bible. Homosexual marriage and abortion are not in there for example.
What polls?
Check pew research.
IC is garbage
Typical atheist, what you find inconvenient, you call garbage, yet this is real scientific research from one of the world's greatest minds.
#62
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:35 AM
@54: tell them that if they're too lazy to learn the facts, they don't get to have an opinion. Blunt, but necessary.
#63
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 10:35 AM
Ugh. Just watched Jon Stewart's interview with Mike Huckabee from last night. Don't even know where to start, but I'll leave aside his drivel about fiscal conservatism for the moment (except to note that I enjoyed Stewart's crack about how conservatives generally support military spending, and he really doesn't get how they can "trust the government with tanks and nuclear weapons but not to hand out cheese to poor people"). Then Stewart opens the discussion of social conservative by making a comment about how he can totally "see" Huckabee's "pro-life" argument and understand that all of us should make an effort to "reduce the number of that." WTF, Jon? Huckabee's attempted defense of his opposition to gay marriage was a logical-fallacy exhibit. At least Stewart called him on some of that.
#64
Posted by: Ouchimoo | December 10, 2008 10:35 AM
O.M.G. "irreducible complexity"? That's all you've got?
Seriously.
Things are too complex to just happen . .so god did it. .
and god is too complex to just happen . . .so god did it
so on and so forth
#65
Posted by: E.V. | December 10, 2008 10:36 AM
Polls show that there are less than 1.4% atheists
Provide your sources. The actual number according to a 2001 ARIS study :
Fifty-two percent of adults in America are Protestant, 24.5% are Catholic, and 14.1% adhere to no religion, according to the latest American Religious Identification Survey, 2001 ("ARIS 2001") just released by The Graduate Center of the City University of New York. Those giving their religion as Jewish are 1.3% and those as Muslim or Islamic are 0.5%.
I hate when some dishonest ass uses the old rubric polls show... without citing numbers and sources.
Virginie, you're a vapid, brainwashed, magic-believing parrot without the slightest clue of how much you don't know.
#66
Posted by: deep | December 10, 2008 10:36 AM
It means the cell contains elements that are far too complex to have come by chance, otherwise that would be like magic. They must have been designed. You don't believe in magic do you
No, I don't believe in magic, that seems to be what you believe in. Just because you are too ignorant to know how evolution works ("by chance" obviously means you don't have too good of a grasp of it) doesn't mean it had to have been designed. That's like saying a TV is magic because you don't know anything about mechanics, light, or electricity. Do some reading, I'm sure everyone here will wait.
#67
Posted by: Holbach | December 10, 2008 10:37 AM
Virginie @ 21
No virginie, there is no santa claus, god, tooth fairy or easter bunny. There is only brain-dead chritians who cannot distinguish between the bunch and will live and die in a state of insanity with no imaginary god to save them. Now seriously, if there is no god how could there be a satan? Are you mad?
#68
Posted by: Spook | December 10, 2008 10:37 AM
#37:
Polls show that there are less than 1.4% atheists, we can very well do without them, you know.
Source?
No wait, you'll just screw it up.
Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4% (2007 est.)
From the CIA World Factbook.
Also, a lot of scientists (an overwhelming majority, from what I've heard) that designed the drugs you need to survive disease, the car you drive every day, and the computer in front of you have before you are or have been atheists. To get by without them puts you back in the stone age.
Nitwit.
#69
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:39 AM
@63: I thought most people were pretty much agreed that reducing the number of abortions would be a good thing. It's just that the wackoes want it done by banning abortion, which, historically, does not work, whereas sane people want it done by improving people's education and access to contraception.
#70
Posted by: Calladus | December 10, 2008 10:39 AM
Virginie:
Poe: Short for "Poe's Law". In other words, it is sometimes difficult for rational people to tell the difference between a fundamentalist and someone who is creating a silly parody of a fundamentalist. For example, compare "Westboro Baptist Church" to "Landover Baptist Church".
If you are a Christian who gets "Poe" called on you, it is a good indication that you need to turn down the outlandishness a few notches. We do realize that some fundamentalists are unable to do this.
#71
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 10:39 AM
where's Clinteas, did he go to bed ?
Ok then, I'll stop here, my Virgine was an attempt to keep him out of bed, it didn't work.
Virginie was a Negentropyeater-Poe.
Not a very good one, I admit.
#72
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:40 AM
Those included in the Bible. Homosexual marriage and abortion are not in there for example.
So do you support slavery?
Check pew research.
I did. Don't see it. Maybe you can actually show a link?
Typical atheist, what you find inconvenient, you call garbage, yet this is real scientific research from one of the world's greatest minds.
Follow my link above and actually READ it. IC IS garbage and Behe is FAR from being one of the world's greatest minds. Did you happen to catch his appearance in Dover?
#73
Posted by: raven | December 10, 2008 10:40 AM
virginie warming up the gas chambers:
Polls show that there are less than 1.4% atheists, we can very well do without them, you know.
The usual. Violence and mass murder are never very far below the surface of fundie Death Cultists. Where they got their name.
Lies are always on the surface. The percentage of atheists, agnostics, and apathetics in the USA is more like 5-10%. And fundies are a minority of xians even in the USA, between 7 and 20% of the population.
All fundies contribute to the world is occupying the bottom of the barrel. As jesus said, forget the morons, there will always be a bottom 10%.
#74
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 10:40 AM
Virginie continues to dig...
Hmmm... but slavery is! Shall we re-institute that old custom, godbot? Have you actually even READ that book?
#75
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | December 10, 2008 10:41 AM
A Creationists telling us that we believe in "magic". Hilarious! Please keep it up, Virginie. I need more stuff to submit to FSTDT.
#76
Posted by: Holbach | December 10, 2008 10:41 AM
Marcus Ranum @ 2
My favorite word when describing religionists.
#77
Posted by: deep | December 10, 2008 10:41 AM
Those included in the Bible. Homosexual marriage and abortion are not in there for example.
What rights are in the bible? And going from athiest slandering, to evolution bashing, and then throwing in an plea for anti-homosexuality and anti-abortion? You must either be a Poe or a glutton for punishment.
#78
Posted by: extatyzome | December 10, 2008 10:42 AM
virginie
"Evolution has been shown to be false : search "irreducible complexity", you might learn something."
IR in a nutshell: 'I cant explain how it evolved (and by god so nobody can) therefor it didnt evolve'
virginie, behe's argument from personal incredulity does not show evo to be false, there are many potential ways to falsify evolution, it hasnt yet been falsified and so is the current theory on the origin of lifes diversity.
If evolution is ever falsified you will hear about it on the BBC news and biologists will get very excited to hear the new explanation for lifes diversity.
#79
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:42 AM
And I forgot to say I'm sorry for all the really stupid things I've said !
#80
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:42 AM
you asshole.
My post David Byrne hangover leaves me susceptible to poeing.
damn you
*fist shake
#81
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 10:43 AM
Dammit... blockquote fail. Let me try that again....
Virginie continues to dig...
Those included in the Bible. Homosexual marriage and abortion are not in there for example.
Hmmm... but slavery is! Shall we re-institute that old custom, godbot? Have you actually even READ that book?
#82
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:43 AM
@71: I think it was a little too obvious, possibly because it sounded sane-but-misinformed. Next time try for out-and-out frothing madness.
#83
Posted by: Spook | December 10, 2008 10:43 AM
#61
Those included in the Bible. Homosexual marriage and abortion are not in there for example.
Neither is being an Internet troll, but that's not stopping you.
If you really want to dry-hump the bible, I'd like to point out that skepticism is in there, which is what's being practiced here. Look up good old "doubting Thomas", that is if you actually read the book you're drooling on. He didn't take things as fact without evidence, why should we?
Oh, and with your remark about atheists just "throwing away whatever is inconvenient" when it comes to irreducable complexity, here's one of many refutations by Scienceblogs' own MarkCC
#84
Posted by: Scott | December 10, 2008 10:45 AM
Bacteria Flagellum anyone?
#85
Posted by: extatyzoma | December 10, 2008 10:45 AM
whoops, #78 thats IC not IR!!
lying for darwin.
#86
Posted by: Kinzua Kid | December 10, 2008 10:45 AM
Wow, now I feel like Virginie isn't just TSTKSS, Trolling or going for the Poe- this is a deeper problem, one I almost want to think is...
...shilling
That's right. This seems way too simple to be a real person. I believe PZ is testing the comment crowd and giggling all the way to class. If not, this is about the saddest thing ever. (don't go breaking my fantasy now with your reality, I am in denial)
Virginie- it's pretty clear you're just getting some concept names typed out with no real understanding of their definition, context or the trainload of falsification that came before you. Your last post was telling.
Of course I believe in magic; I am a magician. I don't believe in chance, however. It screws up my magic. :)
#87
Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 10, 2008 10:47 AM
Our country is religious? Um, actually, our country was founded to ESCAPE religion and to establish freedom to believe what we want (no more Church of England).
Looking at how religion has developed in the UK and the US, I would suggest your founding fathers got that one wrong. Give me wishy-washy feel-good liberal Anglicans over the right-wing fundamentalists anyday.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 10:54 AM
Actually, negentropyeater, it looks like your Poe was in fact well done, as it appears the hive is still buzzing, long after you've revealed your Poe-trocity.
It may take some time to quiet the hive... where the hell is the queen, anyhow... Patricia???
Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 10, 2008 10:55 AM
Ok, I give up. Something is screwed here.
Posted by: BobC | December 10, 2008 10:55 AM
The lying child-abusing retard Ken Ham wrote: These people basically worship Darwin--they worship evolution and cannot tolerate anyone who doesn't agree with them!
Speaking for myself, it would be accurate to say I greatly admire Darwin, I love evolutionary biology, and I have no tolerance and lots of contempt for stupid assholes like Ken Ham who make a living from destroying the minds and lives of young children.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 10, 2008 10:57 AM
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008
Then Stewart opens the discussion of social conservative by making a comment about how he can totally "see" Huckabee's "pro-life" argument and understand that all of us should make an effort to "reduce the number of that."
Ah, memories. I took part in some clinic defenses when Operation Rescue targeted Chicago back in the early ninties. I tried talking to some of the OR people. The one that sticks to me is this. I told one person that I agreed that there were too many abortions being being done. Being a medical procedure, there is always a risk involved. Therefore, both men and women need to use contraceptives in order to prevent this. The guy said, "So you are saying that people should have sex in the streets." That was a conversation killer. It was amazing how many of the OR people just stood there, arms waving about, head tilted back and moaning "Praise Jesus".
Funny but I find Huckabee's switching over to polygamy and bestiality in response to GLBT marriage to be a more polished version of of that guy in the street.
Changing the subject but I am fighting the urge to refer to SC, OM as "Soap SC, OM". But I avoid it because I do not want anyone to think I am teasing SC.
Posted by: Duvenoy | December 10, 2008 10:59 AM
No Virginie, I do not believe in magic, which at least partially explains why I reject religion. All religion.
I've been ridiculing Ham's circus even back when it was a part of AiG Australia. His silly "Creation Museum(?)" is merely more fuel for my fire and I've enjoyed burning it.
You and I have the constitutional rights to espouse any beliefs or none, and it also grants us the right to sneer at them. But before you sneer, it would be wise to learn a little of what you're sneering at.
doov
Posted by: Ouchimoo | December 10, 2008 10:59 AM
Matt Penfold! What did you do?!
oops huh?
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 10:59 AM
By the way, the magic bit @50 is not made up, Hahrun Yahya really did make a similar comment on his site, that believing in evolution, ie that "chance and time alone could generate life", was equivallent to believing in magic.
Irony meter boom ! As Rev. said.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 11:00 AM
According to Pew, 1.6% self-identify as atheist. Ironically, 1% of Catholics, 1% of "Mainline Churches", 4% of Orthodox Christians, 1% of "Other Christians", 10% of Jews, 5% of Muslims, 19% of Buddhists, 5% of Hindus, 9% of "Other Faiths" and 22% of "Unaffiliated" do not believe in "God or a universal spirit".
All in all 5% of people, including more tha 1% of "religious" people, do not believe in "God or a universal spirit", but only 1.6% identify as atheists. I wonder what the other 3.4% think "atheist" means?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 10, 2008 11:01 AM
In that case, please do go the whole hog and bring back the eth, not just the thorn: "Emmet, ðat's a brilliant idea! I þink it should really be ðe þeta as it is more scientific, but I do love ðe runes."
Point taken.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 11:02 AM
I've done that matt
Accidentally copy the whole page and hit post.
I did it on a couple hundred comment post though.
whoops
Posted by: Robert W | December 10, 2008 11:02 AM
God this is entertaining.
Wait, can I say that? *blasphemer! blasphemer!*
Posted by: co | December 10, 2008 11:03 AM
Just to save some of us from spitting bile and ire about (stock it up for real people), Virginie, above, was a Poe. It was well done -- people called "Poe!" right away, but then started arguing -- but negentropy admitted it eventually. Phew!
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 11:03 AM
'sup wit that, Matt? :)
Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 10, 2008 11:04 AM
Obviously I did something really stupid. Quite how I managed to do it I do not know.
If PZ would care to delete that post I would be grateful.
And my apologies for making this thread difficult to read.
Posted by: Sharky | December 10, 2008 11:05 AM
The work should cite the scientific literature too.
Heck, you'd weed out 90% of them by just asking them to name two scientific journals, never mind being able to cite a specific paper.
Man, this is asking a lot! You do remember some of them can't even name a couple of mainstream newspapers or magazines...
Posted by: extatyzoma | December 10, 2008 11:06 AM
ham
"These people basically worship Darwin--they worship evolution and cannot tolerate anyone who doesn't agree with them!"
why do fundies say stuff like this??
i suppose its because they really have nothing else they can say or maybe because they cannot get over not being like themselves.
"These people basically worship jesus--they worship jesus and cannot tolerate anyone who doesn't agree with them!"
anyway.....
Posted by: bluescat48 | December 10, 2008 11:07 AM
As Christians, we are trying to make the world better.
[i] You failed [/i]
It's not fair for others to demonize us when we are trying to save them! Do you think it would be fair to attack paramedics?! NO! So why do you attack Mr Hamm ?
[i] Because what he says is nonsense [/i]
Our country is a religious country and it amazes me that we allow atheists to criticize us! Our children should be shown only what is right - how dare those people try to force our little ones to learn the evident falsehoods of evolution (the failed theory) and turn to Satan?!
[i] Wrong, it is a country where all religions are to be tolerated with none having more acceptance than another.
As for satan, Atheists don't believe in him/her/it anymore thatn any other deity, we don't believe in Zeus, Thor, Yahweh or any other "god" including satan. [/i]
Posted by: Capital Dan | December 10, 2008 11:07 AM
Umm.. Thanks for the review Matt.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 11:08 AM
When I first saw Viginie/negentropyeater post I thought something was off. Then I had to go do some work, and when I came back there almost a hundred posts, and found it was a Poe. Fun reading.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 11:08 AM
Yes, þeta has a certain scientific "truþiness", but þorn is still used by þe Icelanders and was used in Old English.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 11:09 AM
Naaaoooo. You?
"post David Byrne hangover"?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 10, 2008 11:09 AM
Why? You could simply have answered "no, that would block all the traffic"...
Posted by: Robert W | December 10, 2008 11:10 AM
I never thought I'd say this, but we need some Fundies in here. Although it has been nice learning what a Poe is (thanks for the Wiki link!).
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 10, 2008 11:10 AM
Matt, I am almost ready to temporarily killfile you simply so I do not have that lump sitting in my screen. But I never killfiled anyone that I liked.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 11:11 AM
yeah went and saw David Byrne last night.
Me, the wife and a little friend I like to call Makers Mark.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 10, 2008 11:13 AM
Awww, Thanks Janine :)
Posted by: Philip P | December 10, 2008 11:14 AM
Am I too late to weigh in on Mr. Ham?
I think he's wrong.
...
Take that Kenny-boy! Woot! I'm invincible!
What's that? I should say something more to make this not a waste of my time? OK...
I'm a Christian, but I have no trouble believing both in the existence of God and the idea that the universe is billions of years old. I'm sure there's tons of people that visit this site (including the blogger himself, Professor Myers) that would eagerly engage me in debate about the existence of God, just as there are plenty of people on other sites that will eagerly debate me on the idea that the universe is billions of years.
But there is a major difference I would expect between the two debates. I expect that the people arguing against God would be a lot more informed, intellectually honest, and open to dissenting (but polite) views than the Young Earthers.
It's frustrating as a Christian to realize that many of the people I am in agreement with on spiritual matters will be such stubborn-headed fools on other (ie. all other) matters.
Oh, and I have a question, and this is very important:
The Creation Museum features T-Rex's with saddles on them (thus to fight WWII until the creation of the UN, which un-Nazified the world :p)...
Where was I?
Oh, right. The Creation Museum features T-Rex's with saddles on them. Now, this is very important: does the museum also feature raptors with saddles, and if so (the really important part) do they allow you to sit on them and have your picture taken?
Because if not, then not only is Ken Ham a bad science student, but he is also a bad businessman. Because being able to reenact this (http://tinyurl.com/ka9bo) is a licsense to print money. And if Ham is not providing this service to his customers, then he knows nothing of making money.
And what's bad for business is bad for America. No raptor bandits in the Creation Museum is an affront to this great nation and those who gave up their lives to protect it.
Ken Ham
Bad for science
Bad for America
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 11:17 AM
Thus spake David Marjanović, OM #108:
I admit, you make a fair point, though. My objection was largely contrived for troll-bashing purposes.
*looks over shoulder*
Posted by: PaulM | December 10, 2008 11:19 AM
negentropyeater (aka virginie);
Either nobody saw you post @71 or your Poe was better than you thought 'cause people are still talking like virginie is real.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 11:19 AM
I'm really jealous. And this despite that fact that I hate crowds, as well as any situation in which there's a stage and I'm not on it.:) David Byrne is great.
Now I'm thinking of putting on some George Thorogood. Too early in the day?
Posted by: scooter | December 10, 2008 11:21 AM
Nothing like a holiday season morning bloodbath.
gotta go to work. Keep 'em frothing squidley's I'll check ya later.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 11:23 AM
The crowd was pretty tame ... well tame compared to the concerts I normally go to.
All except for this extremely drunk woman next to me who spent the entire show alternating between trying to spill my drink, spilling her drink on my boots and leg and screaming at her boyfriend.
I've never hit a woman before, but I was tempted.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 10, 2008 11:26 AM
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008
Now I'm thinking of putting on some George Thorogood. Too early in the day?
Now I am confused. How can David Byrne remind you of George Thorogood?
Posted by: BobC | December 10, 2008 11:27 AM
DUMB QUESTION.
I've been talking to a creationist on another blog. He quotes a Liar-For-Jebus who said dogs will never evolve into any other species and he said that's a big problem for evolution.
Well, I think he is correct to say a dog species will never develop into a new species, other than another breed of dog, and I had an explanation for why that's not a problem for evolution, but I'm sure a more knowledgeable person could have explained it better than I did.
So could one of you brilliant biologists please provide an explanation for why a creationist is incorrect when he says "dogs can only produce dogs, therefore evolution doesn't work."
Thanks!
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 11:28 AM
PaulM,
I think they read the comments scrolling down, and when they hit Virginie's, they go straight to Post a Comment.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | December 10, 2008 11:30 AM
Wow. Epic Poe.
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | December 10, 2008 11:30 AM
We aren't going to get any real Creationists, are we? BOO!! I want blood!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 11:30 AM
I think it was the Makers Mark
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 11:31 AM
That's not really an issue - for me, it's more structural. My ideal music venues are outdoors shows or small clubs where I can dance (so it's like being onstage:)). I always feel trapped in large crowds, and the possibility of a fire, stampede, etc., looms in my mind. Hey - I didn't say I was normal.
Ick. But I like that you wear boots. :)
Posted by: EB | December 10, 2008 11:33 AM
#50
"It means the cell contains elements that are far too complex to have come by chance, otherwise that would be like magic. They must have been designed."
Argument from ignorance. Even if you could prove it was too complex to have come about by chance, that in itself does not prove design. You have to prove design as well. Do not take shortcuts.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | December 10, 2008 11:33 AM
does anyone else find it ironic that the tree of knowledge provided the fruit that spelled the doom of humanity?
i mean... at least they're consistent.
Posted by: Jonathan Smith | December 10, 2008 11:34 AM
There is little question that exposure to a scientific education reduces the likelihood that a person will believe in God, and does so in a more or less linear fashion, about 10% of the general population are atheists/agnostics, 40% of doctors, 60% of research scientists, and 98% of National Academy members.
Nuff said
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | December 10, 2008 11:34 AM
PaulM @ #128:
Consider negentropyeater/Virginie as another data point in support of Poe's Law.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 11:34 AM
Sorry, but not really. There is a basic principle that X is assumed not to exist until there is conclusive empirical evidence for X; this is true for all possible X, which includes leprechauns, fairies, hobgoblins, flying-saucers, and god(s). Yahweh doesn't get a Get Out of Fundamental Principle Free card because he's your god any more than the little green men, who anally probed the wino at the train station, get a free pass; at least the wino has the excuse of being off his meds.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 11:36 AM
We were only getting 3-4 creobots per day, and it started after the Cinncinati Zoo brouhaha. They all said the same thing, no imagination whatsoever.
Posted by: DuckPhup | December 10, 2008 11:37 AM
This moron's question is based in the delusionist creotard LFJ™ 'cartoon' version of evolution, in which scientists 'believe' that one kind of creature (like a dog) gives birth to another kind of animal (like a cat)... or one kind of creature 'transforms' itself into another kind of creature (dog --> cat).
In other words, they think that scientists 'believe' that individual creatures/organisms 'evolve. The do not understand that it is the genetic make-up of populations of creatures... the gene pool'... that 'evolves.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 11:38 AM
Janine,
It was "Me, the wife and a little friend I like to call Makers Mark," which reminded me of the lyrics to "I Drink Alone." But really, shouldn't you know this?! (Actually, I missed the origin of that nickname. What was it?)
Posted by: CrypticLife | December 10, 2008 11:39 AM
Poe Review--
negentropyeater, I can only count that as a semi-deceptive Poe, though it admirably tried to keep the relationship with your audience going.
You spelled "atheist" correctly. Most fundies spell it "athiest".
You used colons correctly, and used fairly good vocabulary. For most fundies, the colon is unknown as a grammatical construct -- but most of them do manage to speak out of it.
You used a reasonable number of exclamation points. You should be using at least two, but no more than five, to do a Poe correctly.
You were able to express concepts relatively clearly, with a minimum of teeth-pulling. Actual creationists short of Behe would be at a loss to clearly express irreducible complexity without just giving quite a few examples. You did, however, avoid using the eye or bacterial flagellum as examples, either of which would have clearly marked you as a Poe.
On the other hand, I did appreciate the accusation of evolutionists believing in magic. Nice touch of projection, that is.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 10, 2008 11:42 AM
That depends on the species concept. There are at least 25 out there; pick and choose.
Posted by: strangest brew | December 10, 2008 11:43 AM
So...a few decent rants of indeterminate length...a Poe....a glitch...a few links...and not one liddle widdle cretinist has thus far strayed into the bad lands to pollute...
They sense a butt paddling excursion to infinity methinks!
Oh that they would resist from straying elsewhere and polluting..like education establishments...but they only prey on the weak and vulnerable while threatening human rights/freedom of speech/constitutional issues to keep the teachers and administrators at arms length while they poison kiddies minds with concentrated effluent of finest insanity...all in jebus name of course...
As for Hambone... well may he evolve into a puddle some time soon!
Posted by: Geoff | December 10, 2008 11:44 AM
If anyone is curious as to what Intelligent Design research really looks like with a fairly adequate summation of it's output, I can give you a pretty solid analogy:
Rent Woody Allen's Sleeper. The part where Woody and Diane Keaton check the cell structure; it looks a lot like that.
Posted by: Guy G | December 10, 2008 11:45 AM
@107: That's pretty weird (apart from Jews who count as a race separately from their religion). It also seems quite indicative of the level of childhood indoctrination and the level at which being part of a community is keeping people in religion.
I would've thought that belief in a god would be the last thing to go (after observance etc), but perhaps that's not the case if people consider themselves e.g. Orthdox Christian, Muslim whilst not believing in a god.
Posted by: Steve Fonken | December 10, 2008 11:45 AM
Creationism and faith based thought are, in fact, excellent examples of evidence for evolution. They exemplify predictions about the imperfect designs created by evolutionary processes. Genetic drift and the tinkering of natural selection on design constrained by the contingencies of previous evolutionary success would predict the emergence of an imperfect intelligence. The fact that human "intelligence" can be hijacked by these constructs of self-delusion is proof positive.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 11:47 AM
there's a joke "in there" but I'm going to steer clear of it.Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 11:49 AM
neg,
My "Poe review":
If you're trying to sound like you're from the US, "Virginia" (Lisa, Mary, Heather, Tiffany) rather than "Virginie." And you have to lose the space before question marks and exclamation points - I knew it was someone French, and suspected you. Aside from that, well done.
Posted by: BG | December 10, 2008 11:49 AM
I don't think we will see many fundies in this thread. The bible prohibits putting old whine in new containers.
Posted by: Ken | December 10, 2008 11:50 AM
but þorn is still used by þe Icelanders
Not surprising - what better way to get through those lonely winter nights than with porn?
(yes, I know)
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 11:51 AM
That was good.
Posted by: butter | December 10, 2008 11:52 AM
I would say that there's already species barriers between many dog races. There's no way a giant grand danois could produce offspring with one of those glorified rats that were so fashionable a few months ago. Also, there's the insane notion of "pure breeds" that prevents mixing of gene pools.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 10, 2008 11:53 AM
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008
Janine,
It was "Me, the wife and a little friend I like to call Makers Mark," which reminded me of the lyrics to "I Drink Alone." But really, shouldn't you know this?! (Actually, I missed the origin of that nickname. What was it?)
SC has provided THE MISSING LINK!
As for the new moniker, give thanks to the Rookie Weasel. A couple of days ago, there was an epic battle with everyone favorite Cracker defender. He informed me that Jesus "can save the worst sinner Janine". The same night, he also complained that I was there, insulting him.
How could I resist? I can resist everything but temptation.
Posted by: matt | December 10, 2008 11:54 AM
#146
Wasn't it Jimmy Beam, not Maker's Mark in I Drink Alone?
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 11:55 AM
I'm not a biologist, much less a brilliant one, but, as I understand it, domestic dogs are a breed of wolf. The classical definition of "species", as I understand it, is that species are considered distinct if they don't breed to produce fertile offspring, making the notion of "a dog species" a bit of a misnomer, since all dog breeds are the same species because they can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, mutts, who can breed successfully with any other dog.
In the far distant future, there might easily be two species who share the modern wolf/dog as a common ancestor. If, for examply, chihuahuas were only to breed with chihuahuas and great danes only bred with great danes (for purely mechanical reasons), eventually, in, say, 500,000 years, after 100,000 generations, their genomes would diverge due to accumulated mutations to the extent that they might look substantially similar, as a modern horse and a donkey do, but mate to produce offspring analogous to a mule, that is infertile. The two are then different species by definition. After another million years, and further divergence, their offspring always spontaneously miscarry; after another million, their sperm won't fertilize each other's eggs. I say might look similar because the two phenotypes might diverge to occupy different ecological niches: the chihuahua's descendents might end up with a snout for sniffing out tasty worms, and the great dane's descendents might have big fangs for taking down prey. It's (of course) impossible to predict, they might just end up being substantially similar but different species, like donkeys and horses.
Now, just wait for the "yeah, but they're still the same kind bullshit"!
Posted by: Diagoras | December 10, 2008 11:55 AM
@ #37, Virginie
Census data is the most reliable source for data about self-identification with religion. However, the US has not gathered data on religion for about 50 years or so, now. Organizational records from churches is cheap to obtain - but just not accurate. Some churches over-report membership - counting everyone baptized at birth, regardless of the empty pews, and smaller coffers. Others - underreport - for instance, people who self-identify as Unitarian Universalists are three times the number the church has on its rolls.
So - as the US is devoid of Census data on religion - the less accurate polling information is foisted on us. The accuracy of these surveys depends on the quality of the study (questions asked, the manner they are asked, and the way the data is interpreted - bias can significantly effect/taint these results) and the size of the sample population. Statistical surveys of religious affiliation rarely are conducted with large enough sample sizes to accurately count the adherents of small minority religious groups - CUNY has data from from 2 polls with ~50,000 completed surveys each, in 1990, 2001. In these the affiliation with religion dropped from ninety percent in 1990 to eighty-one percent in 2001. That's a significant difference and this growth in the "no religion" population appears to be reflecting a pattern that has been noted widely in England. Maybe the "atheist" label has less than ~1.4 - but their numbers are 16.4% higher than the number of scientologists, and 14.8% higher than the number of fundamentalist christians. Which, I suppose means I can be 14.8% more sneeringly dismissive of the brand of death cult you follow, by your logic. Unless you're a "born again" christian - then I can be 16.1% more dismissive of you.
Or maybe I could step outside the your-scientific-argument-sucks-because-of-the-degree-of-popularity argument that you seem to subscribe to - and dismiss your analysis on the origins of the universe based on the evidence and arguments you tender? I think I'll go that route. Thus far - no evidence. Thus far - argument = GODDIDIT. I think it's fair to reject that "argument."
Posted by: AndymanEC | December 10, 2008 11:55 AM
I love Virginie's argument, that Ken Ham is simply trying to save us, and that attacking him is like attacking a paramedic...
Well, if a paramedic showed up at a car accident and tried to treat me by chi manipulation, mercury-based medicine, and bloodletting (gotta get those humours back into balance!), you're damn right I'd attack him!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 11:57 AM
Indeed... I've stopped trying to explain to my sister why I chuckle every time she refers to her dog as a "pure-bred Labradoodle".
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 11:58 AM
Why anyone would do that to the noble Labrador....
It pains my heart.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 11:59 AM
OK, PZ... you might have to officially append this post to warn people of negentropyeater's "Virginie" Poe post...
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 12:01 PM
Janine,
(OK, I didn't know the origin of that one either, but...) Dooooood, I was talking about "Lone Drinker."
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 12:03 PM
I doubt the noble Labrador cared too much at the time it was happening...
Posted by: SteveM | December 10, 2008 12:03 PM
Funny but I find Huckabee's switching over to polygamy and bestiality in response to GLBT marriage to be a more polished version of of that guy in the street.
What infuriated me was he didn't just compare it to polygamy, but he actually said "we don't let people burn people on a cross". Letting a gay couple get married is like letting people murder?
At the beginning of the interview, he seemed like such a nice guy, Huckabee. People need to be nicer to each other, the Republicans have gone too far... Then he starts trying to defend opposition to gay marriage and I remembered why I hated him so much.
And I thought Stewart was brilliant with the "religion is a choice and gets protected up the wazoo" argument. Really took the wind out of Mike's sails.
Posted by: Diagoras | December 10, 2008 12:07 PM
@ #166 sorry Celtic_Evolution
I take forever to finish posts - and I should limit my responses to knee-jerk snark. (I'm a lawyer. Sorry. I'm overly verbose.) negentropyeater, with the mighty Poe-ness mojo, triggered my need to grumble about poll data. I hates it, my precious, when fundies toss out the your-religious-views-are-a-minority-so-your-argument-on-science-must-suck screed.
Posted by: BobC | December 10, 2008 12:08 PM
Many thanks to #145 & #148 & #161 who answered the dumb question I asked in #133.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 12:09 PM
true
Posted by: E.V. | December 10, 2008 12:09 PM
No trolls, only a poe (thanks N-eater)... the thread is dead, long live the THREAD.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 10, 2008 12:10 PM
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008
Janine,
(OK, I didn't know the origin of that one either, but...) Dooooood, I was talking about "Lone Drinker."
Ooooohhhhh, that. Remember the pirate name generator the was posted a couple of months ago. When I used it, I was given the name of The Lone Drinker. It amused me so I adopted it.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 12:10 PM
Sigh. It was "my pal Jack Daniels, and his partner Jimmy Beam" (also "my good buddy Weiser"). It was the structure of the comment that was the link. Sheesh - no wonder I prefer to be by myself.:)
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 10, 2008 12:13 PM
Negentropy - Thou shalt not Poe.
The wages of thy sin is that thou shall have no slutty remarks until evensong. And thy grog and swill shalt be withheld from thee.
Go forth and fornicate and Poe no more.
Posted by: Ouchimoo | December 10, 2008 12:14 PM
Or they could be like me; by the time I manage to get my comment typed and posted about 30 new posts show up.
Posted by: Diagoras | December 10, 2008 12:16 PM
^5s for Ouchimoo. Yay for team slow-message-posting.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 12:20 PM
Ooooh - no! Just did a search, and didn't come up with anything. Could anyone link to it?
Posted by: Ron Gove | December 10, 2008 12:22 PM
The Washington Post reported today that the USA ranks at the bottom in science and math. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/09/AR2008120901031.html) No wonder when all our schools want to do is to teach creationism, have prayer, and play football. It won't be long before we are the 3rd world country that the rest of the world will exploit for cheap labor. It really depresses me that in the 21st century so many people are so brainwashed as to still believe in stone age father-like deities, and salvific cults like Christianity. Why can't the world grow up!
Posted by: Diagoras | December 10, 2008 12:23 PM
I received "Princess Majestic Pants" as a pirate name in a generator-thingie. Best. Pirate. Name. Ever.
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | December 10, 2008 12:24 PM
Hopefully someone can answer something regarding the evolution of dogs, are dogs evolved form wolves or are dogs and wolves evolved from a common ancestor? And does anyone know how many generations it takes to create a new breed/sub species (springer/cocker spaniel; english/irish setter etc)?
Thanks
Posted by: butter | December 10, 2008 12:24 PM
Haha, "labradoodle"!
I don't think the creationists realize there's a new thread.
Posted by: PK | December 10, 2008 12:25 PM
"The one that sticks to me is this. I told one person that I agreed that there were too many abortions being being done. Being a medical procedure, there is always a risk involved. Therefore, both men and women need to use contraceptives in order to prevent this. The guy said, 'So you are saying that people should have sex in the streets.' That was a conversation killer. It was amazing how many of the OR people just stood there, arms waving about, head tilted back and moaning 'Praise Jesus'."
It gets worse -- I remember seeing a thread on an overpopulation-themed video on YouTube. There are pro-lifers who are opposed even to contraceptives because they are "unnatural" and deny people the right [to be conceived and] experience life. ...In other words, rights for the preconceived!!!
...What next, rights for the Infinite Amount of All Possible Outcomes?
Posted by: Dave | December 10, 2008 12:26 PM
Yes, and the only one who understands you is your dear Old Grandad.Posted by: firemancarl | December 10, 2008 12:27 PM
Virginie said
Actually, we get attacked quite often.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 12:27 PM
I didn't care as much for mine:
"Puffy-Shirt Pete".
:-/
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 12:29 PM
Found it through Google. Mine's boring. I want "Princess Majestic Pants." Maybe I'll just take it, especially if you're on a weak little cruise ship.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 10, 2008 12:31 PM
Janine, Well I AM jealous. Rookie named YOU the insulting sinner?! *snort* I must try harder.
Wait...that means insulting slut is still open. 3, 2, 1 -GO!
Posted by: WRMartin, I.S. | December 10, 2008 12:31 PM
OT (this thread is failing to attract prey anyway)
I would like to revisit the typo "fun die" from a couple of days ago. Sorry, too lazy to research the originator. Replacing 'fundie' with 'fun die' gives me a bit of a giggle.
Fundies think it will be fun when they die.
And when they show up the fun dies.
OK, maybe it's just me. As you were...
Posted by: SteveM | December 10, 2008 12:33 PM
Hopefully someone can answer something regarding the evolution of dogs, are dogs evolved form wolves or are dogs and wolves evolved from a common ancestor?
Dogs and wolves can interbreed, therefore same species.
I think malamutes are supposed to be wolf/huskie crossbreeds.
Anti-evolutionists actually use this as an argument; thousands of years of breeding and we haven't managed to evolve dogs into a seperate species from wolves.
Posted by: The Petey | December 10, 2008 12:35 PM
I didn't care as much for mine:
"Puffy-Shirt Pete".
:-/
I got
Pirate Jake the Well-Tanned
Want to trade?
Posted by: Diagoras | December 10, 2008 12:35 PM
@SC
No yoinking my pirate name. Unless your pants are more majestic than mine, you cannot be the princess of them, regardless of the daring of your ship.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 10, 2008 12:35 PM
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 10, 2008
Janine, Well I AM jealous. Rookie named YOU the insulting sinner?! *snort* I must try harder.
Honesty compels me to say the the Rookie Weasel did not call me an "insulting sinner". But he did call me a sinner and insulting during the same epic battle. I could not stop giggling that night.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | December 10, 2008 12:36 PM
blah blah. paramedics get all the glory. us social workers get shot at all the time. and we don't even get a cool car or snazzy uniform.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 12:38 PM
PBS' Nature had a wonderful two-part series called "Dogs That Changed the World," about the history of dogs, a little while ago. I don't think it's available online, but it was outstanding. I highly recommend it.
Posted by: Tulse | December 10, 2008 12:38 PM
The notion of "species" is problematic in all sorts of ways, but gets especially so when talking about artificially selected organisms. There are many pairs of dog breeds that cannot interbreed "naturally" in any meaningful sense of the word. If we came across these breeds in the wild, they would be considered separate species, as they are indeed reproductively isolated from each other. In "nature", interbreeding isn't just about whether a sperm can fertilize an egg, since what is more important is whether such fertilization can ever actually occur, and whether the resulting embryo can be brought to term. (This latter criterion makes the case of some dog breeds even more complicated, since some breeds, such as bulldogs, have extreme difficulty giving birth vaginally, and must be delivered by C-section. Arguably, without severe human intervention, these dogs can't "successfully" breed with each other.)
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 12:39 PM
Wow... even after thousands of years?? Well... there you have it... proof positive that evolution fails. After all, that's like, half as long as the universe has existed.
Can't believe I've wasted so much time... *sigh*. Maybe I can still get into heaven if I go scream obscenities at a gay person...
Posted by: Eivind | December 10, 2008 12:40 PM
Mr. Ham sure uses the word 'zealot' a lot (hehe...). At least he mixes it up by alternating between calling the 'evolutionists' 'religious zealots' and 'zealot secularists'.
The most amazing part is that he uses 'religious zealots' as a derogatory term. What does he consider himself to be? A moderate?
Posted by: butter | December 10, 2008 12:40 PM
#182:"Hopefully someone can answer something regarding the evolution of dogs, are dogs evolved form wolves or are dogs and wolves evolved from a common ancestor? And does anyone know how many generations it takes to create a new breed/sub species (springer/cocker spaniel; english/irish setter etc)?
Thanks#
Well, it's important to remember that during the thousands of years since the two diverged, wolves have also evolved. I would probably not see any difference between the common ancestor of dogs and wolves, and modern wolves, but they still wouldn't be the same. Technically, modern dogs and wolves have a common ancestor that were neither dog nor wolf, but if you saw one it would probably not be wrong to call it a wolf. As for the other question: it could take just one generation, or it could take thousands of years. It's still not certain whether humans and chimpanzees can produce viable offspring or not, which would technically make us the same species.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 12:42 PM
Depends... is it an all-over tan?
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 12:43 PM
As I understand it, all dog breeds are breeds of wolf. If domestic dogs bred freely with each other and wolves, they would ultimately all end up looking more-or-less the same, and (maybe) a lot like wolves. This happens with fancy pigeons, all of which are produced from bog-standard "rock doves" (the grey things in the park) and will, after a few generations, revert to looking exactly like rock doves if selective breeding is not strictly maintained. The notion of a "different breed" of dog seems to be an entirely arbitrary notion. If you breed a labrador and a poodle to produce a labradoodle, there's nothing to stop you calling that a separate breed except convention and tradition, so the answer, in one sense, may be that a new breed can be produced in one generation. How many generations it takes to produce a "sufficiently different looking" animal that you are prepared to call it a "breed" starting only with the wild species is a different matter. Since pigeon fanciers do do this as a hobby and don't, I presume, only do it once in a lifetime, my guess would be "not many generations", meaning probably fewer than 10 or so, but that's a pure guess on my part, and the rationale may not work for dog breeds, many of which have existed for many human lifetimes.
Posted by: Philip P. | December 10, 2008 12:44 PM
@143 >
I'm afraid I don't get your point here. You start by giving an argument against the idea of God (or other unproven things). Fair enough, that supports what I was saying that people on either side of creation/evolution will argue for what they believe/accept.
But then you go and say God is not exempt from being proven false, which you had already shown in your second sentence. You already gave an example of how the idea of God can be argued against.
So please excuse my confusion here: what's the point of that second part of your post? I never said the existence of God is off-limits as a topic, the entire point of my first post was that people would talk about, and I thought I had implied I was not against it.
I even said I expected all-around better conversation/discussion from the non-believers, the atheists and agnostics. Was your talk about a wino and anal probes and medication to disprove my expectation? Are you trying to show that atheists can be as rude or ridiculous as creationists?
If so, 1) you need to be a bit more creative (pardon the pun). Cries of insanity are old hat. And 2) creationists say much crazier stuff, so you need to raise your own standards to match it.
***
Or maybe it's just that because of the noise in my office I can't think and in a better locale I would understand your point. ::shrugs::
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 12:45 PM
Oh, I can assure you they are.
Now I'm imagining a pirate-inspired collection. Could be very cool...
Posted by: kamaka | December 10, 2008 12:47 PM
Maximus @182
Dogs are wolves. They are nicey-nice due to very hard culling and selective breeding.
All the different breeds are not for aesthetics (with some exceptions, like lap dogs), they were bred to perform specific jobs. Terriers for rat control, rottweilers were used as guard dogs and dogs of war, sheep dogs were used for, well, sheep, etc.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 12:48 PM
Patricia,
this is my Pharyngulact of Contrition :
O Pharyngula,
I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee,
and I detest all my poeing
because I fear the loss of Molly
and the pains of the Dungeon,
but most of all because they offend Thee, Pharyngula,
Who art all good and deserving of all my esteem.
I firmly resolve with the help of Thy grace
to confess my poeing, to do penance,
and to amend my blogging.
Peezed
I will recite it 6 times, which is the number of poed Virginie comments I have committed.
Posted by: Diagoras | December 10, 2008 12:51 PM
@SC
Where is your evidence of this majesty? Did you do an internet poll?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 12:51 PM
# 203
I think the point was, Emmett was stating that no-one here would be any more "eager" (your word) to debate the existence of god with you than they would the existence of any other imaginary, mythical creature. It's a fairly cut and dry point, I think...
Posted by: Timothy Wood | December 10, 2008 12:51 PM
did anyone besides me waste the better part of their childhood on a 5 1/2 inch floppy game "Pirates" like... where your family was scattered around the caribbean and it even came with a real map...?
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 10, 2008 12:54 PM
negentropyeater , I hope you have your cephalopod shaped rosary.
Posted by: Chris Davis | December 10, 2008 12:55 PM
Negentropy - is it not time you confessed that Mr. Ham is actually another of your creations?
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | December 10, 2008 12:55 PM
Thanks for all the replies regarding the dogs, anyone know about the evolution of salmonids by any chance?
Posted by: Shaden Freud | December 10, 2008 12:56 PM
negentropyeater,
As your punishment (reward?), you are sentenced to become a sockpuppet at Uncommon Descent. Have at it!
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 12:56 PM
My pirate name: Cannon-Balls Bruno
Better than "Puffy-Shirt Pete" any day :o)
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 12:57 PM
Oooh... ooohh... a rare chance to espouse some nerdy IT pedantry... I'm all OVER that...
You mean, 5 1/4 in floppy.
Posted by: SteveM | December 10, 2008 12:58 PM
All the different breeds are not for aesthetics (with some exceptions, like lap dogs), they were bred to perform specific jobs. Terriers for rat control, rottweilers were used as guard dogs and dogs of war, sheep dogs were used for, well, sheep, etc.
Yes. It was either a NatGeo or Nova documentary on the dog that showed how all the behaviors we specialize into different breeds are all present in the wolf and have just been slightly redirected to be more useful to us. Sheep hearding in particular uses a number of wolf hunting methods but eliminates the actual "kill" part.
What was even more fascinating was a doeonstrations of how successive breeding wolves for a particular behavior ("not vicious") also resulted in morphological changes that we see in domestic dogs.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 10, 2008 12:58 PM
Philip P, it's not that existence of your god is off limits for discussion, but that as there is scant evidence for the existence of your god (well, certainly no more evidence for Elohim/Jehovah/Yahweh than there is for Vishnu), few here are interested in debating the existence of your god any more than they would be interested in debating the existence of leprechauns. And, just so you know, I say this as a former Christian, and am aware of the arguments that Christians make in support of Elohim/Jehovah/Yahweh's existence. They're simply not compelling to most who weren't inculcated into the faith in childhood.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | December 10, 2008 12:59 PM
*hangs head in shame*
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 1:01 PM
*sigh*
I'd argue if I could... although, if your name implies a case of testicular elephantiasis, I might not feel so bad.
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | December 10, 2008 1:02 PM
Thanks for the replies regarding the dogs, anyone know about the evolution of salmonids by any chance?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 1:07 PM
Here the separation time has been long enough so that chimpanzees and humnan have a different number or chromosome pairs. Two chromosomes pairs in the chimpanzee line fused to form one pair in hominid line. So viable offspring would be unlikely.Posted by: Doo Shabag | December 10, 2008 1:09 PM
A pirate name generator, what fun :)
Unfortunately my name wasn't so great, so I started to do variations on my full name and they get progressively better:
Fruity Randal Hacke
"Fancypants" Skyler Blythe
Hackin' Jim Smithe
Disatrous Pete Morgan
No-Eyes Edmund
When I type in Emmet Caulfield instead of "Cannon-Balls Bruno" I get "Not-So-Keen-On-the-Womenfolk Jack". Hmmm...
Doo Shabag = "Armless Quincy Sparrow"
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 1:09 PM
That was very good.
You're right. I haven't. Only that would settle it definitively, of course. But then we pirates don't need no stinkin' polls. (Let me use this opp to plug once again Rediker and Linebaugh's The Many-Headed Hydra. I understand that one or both wrote a subsequent book about pirates specifically, but haven't yet read it.)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 1:09 PM
but is sure would be fun trying...!!!1111
um
uh
nevermind
Posted by: truckboattruck | December 10, 2008 1:09 PM
I need to go off topic for a second...
clinteas, why do you not put a space after punctuation marks?
Example:
If you were to start another sentence after this one, you don't typically (as far as I've noticed) put a space between the sentences either.
Just curious. Thanks.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 1:13 PM
random "is".
Kill it
Posted by: truth | December 10, 2008 1:19 PM
Darwin was only a man and is dead!
Dr. Ham is doing Gods work and God is forever so no matter how smart you people think you are you will lose in the end!!
Posted by: Diagoras | December 10, 2008 1:20 PM
SC - I see your nonfiction offering on pirates, and raise you a fictional one. Red Seas Under Red Skies by Scott Lynch. Yay piracy.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 10, 2008 1:21 PM
Yes, oh yes. In fact, it's due to that game that my dyslexic best friend couldn't pass non-remedial English but we could both draw accurate maps of the Caribbean freehand.
The remake is pretty much faithful to the original, but with better graphics and some tweaked gameplay.
Posted by: Lord Jiro | December 10, 2008 1:22 PM
If I put only my first name into the Name Generator, I get "Slashin' Gus Jones". If I put in my full name, I get "Sea Nonkey Laird".
I'm not quite sure which is better.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | December 10, 2008 1:23 PM
@227
This is too good to be true. After all these posts, someone else is trying to entertain us with absurdity.
Let's see . . .
Bad punctuation - check
More than one exclamation point - check
Not too many exclamation points - check
Well done!
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 10, 2008 1:24 PM
You sound like Big Moose in the Spire Christian Archie comics. Good work!
Posted by: Geek1 | December 10, 2008 1:25 PM
That was funny, negentropyeater--nicely done.
evelopment, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
* Latest Posts
* Archives
* About
* Dungeon
* Blogroll
* Commenters
* RSS
* Contact
Search this blog
Profile
pzm_profile_pic.jpg
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
zf_pharyngula.jpg ...and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
tbbadge.gif
scarlet_A.png
I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Random Quote
(Complete listing)
Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist. Atheism is sometimes defined as "the belief that there is no God of any kind," or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism-- and are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism. Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist, rather he does not believe in the existence of a god.
[George Smith]
Recent Posts
* For the nerd who isn't very bright
* New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* Target-rich polling environment
* A brilliant new strategy!
* This is not a time for prayer
* Evolving the Mona Lisa
* Oh, stop it, Bill -- you're too kind
* Let's hope the nightmare ends soon
* Pat Boone isn't exactly the brightest pundit around
* Somebody put this on a t-shirt
A Taste of Pharyngula
(Complete listing)
A book list for evolutionists
Transcription factors and morphogens
Hox cluster disintegration
Bicoid evolution
Bird brains
Hox complexity
Fluorescing dogfish
Patterning the nervous system with Bmp
Recent Comments
* Celtic_Evolution on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* Ut-Napishtim on For the nerd who isn't very bright
* CJO on For the nerd who isn't very bright
* Timothy Wood on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* Brownian, OM on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* Kristine on For the nerd who isn't very bright
* SteveM on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* Celtic_Evolution on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* daveau on For the nerd who isn't very bright
* Emmet Caulfield on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
Archives
* December 2008
* November 2008
* October 2008
* September 2008
* August 2008
* July 2008
* June 2008
* May 2008
* April 2008
* March 2008
* February 2008
* January 2008
* December 2007
* November 2007
* October 2007
* September 2007
* August 2007
* July 2007
* June 2007
* May 2007
* April 2007
* March 2007
* February 2007
* January 2007
* December 2006
* November 2006
* October 2006
* September 2006
* August 2006
* July 2006
* June 2006
* May 2006
* April 2006
* March 2006
* February 2006
* January 2006
Blogroll
(Complete listing)
Other Information
koufax.jpg
2005 Koufax Award
Best Expert
wabs.jpg
2006 Weblogs Award
Subscribe via Email
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
Sign me up!
« Target-rich polling environment | Main | For the nerd who isn't very bright »
New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
Category: Administrative • Creationism
Posted on: December 10, 2008 9:24 AM, by PZ Myers
Ken Ham of the Creation "Museum" linked to an old thread from June, prompting a sudden influx of dull-witted creationists regurgitating old canards. Normally I wouldn't mind -- the poor dullards don't get much outlet on the creationist sites, which typically prohibit any kind of expression from their flocks -- but in this case we've also got lots of fierce godless evolutionists who see an opportunity to sharpen their claws. That means the old thread is at a roiling boil and is now over 1300 comments, which is a bit excessive.
I'm closing that thread and inviting them to come here to carry on the discussion.
If you need a topic to prime the pump, how about conversing about the combination of charlatanry and ignorance that are needed to be a prominent creationist?
ShareThis
Comments
#1
Posted by: mr-zero | December 10, 2008 9:37 AM
Bring it on!
#2
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | December 10, 2008 9:40 AM
"intolerant" evolutionists? He's got it wrong. I thought we were "contemptuous" -- it's a whole different attitude.
#3
Posted by: mr-zero | December 10, 2008 9:41 AM
Instead of picking holes in evolution how about you creationists show us one single piece of evidence which supports creationism.
Just one.
#4
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 9:42 AM
To all the Ken Ham worshipers who will undoubtedly come here after reading post with the link to here on the AIG webpage.
Before you spout off ignorantly about evolution being false, please provide us with the specific research you are refuting, then show your work as to how it is actually refuted.
Thanks.
Have a good day.
Tip your waitresses.
#5
Posted by: clinteas | December 10, 2008 9:43 AM
Oh noooozzzzz...
More Don Quixotes fighting mindless windmills....
how about conversing about the combination of charlatanry and ignorance that are needed to be a prominent creationist?
Im more interested in the psychiatric implications,the mechanisms that allow you to say no when yes is so obvious,and to stoically defend "no" in the face of overwhelimg evidence.
We should send psychiatrists to the US,maybe,to conduct some studies.
#6
Posted by: strangest brew | December 10, 2008 9:46 AM
Obviously busy taking their Dino's for walkies!
#7
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 9:47 AM
Before you spout off ignorantly about evolution being false, please provide us with the specific research you are refuting, then show your work as to how it is actually refuted.
Amen Rev. The work should cite the scientific literature too. Hint, AIG or any other creationist/ID web site is not scientific.
#8
Posted by: bob | December 10, 2008 9:48 AM
Interview with some neighbors of the family who were killed by the out-of-control military plane:
"It's just providence," said Johnson, who was at home with his daughter and grandchild when the fighter plane crashed two houses away, sending them fleeing out their back door. "Thirty feet higher and the plane lands in our living room instead of theirs."
Translation: "Thank god only those gooks died and my family's okay!" Horrible. Any input on how such a sentiment *isn't* nauseating and insulting, AIG folks?
#9
Posted by: dead yeti | December 10, 2008 9:49 AM
couple of points:
Maybe creationists don't believe in evolution simply because they have quite managed to evolve into full blown Homo Sapiens yet?
Maybe they themselves are in fact missing links they love to bang on about so much?
how much should i tip my waitress?
#10
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 9:49 AM
but in this case we've also got lots of fierce godless evolutionists who see an opportunity to sharpen their claws.
*burp*
Anyone got a toothpick? I think I have a creationist's brain stuck between my teeth.
#11
Posted by: Corey Schlueter | December 10, 2008 9:53 AM
To creationists,
Get an education and do the research!
#12
Posted by: strangest brew | December 10, 2008 9:54 AM
'I have a creationist's brain stuck between my teeth.'
You mean you actually found one!...or are you exaggerating ;-)
#13
Posted by: Zeno | December 10, 2008 9:55 AM
Oh, come on, Emmet. You expect us to believe you found a creationist brain big enough to get stuck between your teeth? Everyone knows that zombies would starve to death trolling for brains at the Creation Museum or any other creationist venue (except, perhaps, on Evolutionist Laugh-and-Point Visit Day).
#14
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | December 10, 2008 9:56 AM
Well, this should be interesting one way or another.
#15
Posted by: clinteas | December 10, 2008 9:57 AM
13 posts and no lunatic yet,this thread doesnt feel right....:-)
Im going to bed
#16
Posted by: azqaz | December 10, 2008 9:58 AM
Here, let me sum up the creationists "scientific" proof.
...
There you go, but what they will claim as "proof" is
GODDIDIT!
What more could you need? ;)
#17
Posted by: Carlie | December 10, 2008 10:03 AM
The work should cite the scientific literature too.
Heck, you'd weed out 90% of them by just asking them to name two scientific journals, never mind being able to cite a specific paper.
#18
Posted by: Robert W | December 10, 2008 10:04 AM
Faith is the antithesis of proof.
The creationist argument, based as it is on faith and conjecture, can never be proven. It can never be studied or tested or debated in any real sense other than a masturbatory one.
On the other hand, the Theory of evolution (please note capital T, as in, the end of the scientific process ... an accepted scientific truth, not a "theory" as George W likes to snicker) is well supported with actual evidence.
Please take your creationist babble to church and keep it out of our schools. If you want to abuse your own children with myth and dogma, that is your prerogative. Freedom of church and state has allowed your religion to prosper and mutate. Please don't pretend that your faith is somehow akin to science, or that it is an alternative "theory" worthy of equal exploration.
It is not. And faith is the antithesis of proof.
#19
Posted by: strangest brew | December 10, 2008 10:05 AM
"Here, let me sum up the creationists "scientific" proof.
...
There you go, but what they will claim as "proof" is
GODDIDIT!
What more could you need? ;)"
I never realised it was so much...gonna have to have a rethink....
#20
Posted by: ennui | December 10, 2008 10:07 AM
And remember, all you baby-raping, puppy-chipping, zombie-creationist-eating cannibal atheists, Wednesday is orgy night. Bring a friend; tonight's theme is snow.
#21
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:07 AM
As Christians, we are trying to make the world better.
It's not fair for others to demonize us when we are trying to save them! Do you think it would be fair to attack paramedics?! NO! So why do you attack Mr Hamm ?
Our country is a religious country and it amazes me that we allow atheists to criticize us! Our children should be shown only what is right - how dare those people try to force our little ones to learn the evident falsehoods of evolution (the failed theory) and turn to Satan?!
#22
Posted by: Matt7895 | December 10, 2008 10:07 AM
Well, the creationists' evidence really does come down to "God did it", but they arrive at that conclusion by saying, "The Bible says, it, the Bible is the word of god, therefore the Bible is true, god did it."
#23
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 10:10 AM
looks like Virginie doesn't want Clinteas to go to bed.
#24
Posted by: dinkum | December 10, 2008 10:10 AM
Virginie: Poe.
#25
Posted by: Dmitry | December 10, 2008 10:11 AM
Virginie, I call Poe on you!
#26
Posted by: FTFKDad | December 10, 2008 10:12 AM
Did anyone follow the Prof. Olofsson thread at UD? The one where Prof. Olofsson displayed the... ahem... patience of a saint in responding to one UD regular "PaV". There was one post from PaV where he said (and remember this is a posting on a paper by Prof O. on Bayesian statistics):
[Comment 252] "I don't care to learn all about Bayesian analysis-of what use is it to me?
And.....I don't need to learn it to come to the same conclusion that Bill [Dembski] has come to. I see, and agree to, his logic in all of this."
This is a perfect example of how a creationist mind not only thinks it knows the answers, it doesn't even need to understand the subject or even want to try to understand the subject before knowing all the answers! (The Prof. did a nice take down of this particular comment as well.)
#27
Posted by: BGT | December 10, 2008 10:12 AM
I call Poe on #21.
Of course, given the implications of Poe, I could be wrong...
#28
Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | December 10, 2008 10:12 AM
*scanning* *scanning* *scanning*
*** ALERT *** Possible Poe/Troll activity detected in post #21.
#29
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 10, 2008 10:13 AM
From the old thread:
Keith Allen believed:
be aware that Christianity advanced science.
Emmet Caulfield responded:
Arrant nonsense. A belief system cannot advance a methodology and body of knowledge. Science was advanced by individuals, many of whom were Christian.
It does sometimes happen that a belief system advances science. One of the examples is that Michael Faraday's discoveries were based on the assumption of his sect that circles were somehow metaphysically important. In other words, it's possible to be right for the wrong reasons.
#30
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:13 AM
Who is Poe ?
#31
Posted by: freelunch | December 10, 2008 10:13 AM
I wonder how many creationists are able to admit to themselves that they are the victims of a massive con and that the con men who have stolen their money do not care at all about evolution or creation as long as they can find credulous fools who will give them money.
Ken Ham is a fraud and a charletan stealing money from those with a religious impairment.
#32
Posted by: Ouchimoo | December 10, 2008 10:14 AM
Carlie @ #17
The other 10% will quote-mine and take things so far out of Context it won't even make sense anymore. *see Ray Comfort's blog on Sex evolved after humans, and pulling a science journal about. . Bacteria . . .?
#33
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:15 AM
As Christians, we are trying to make the world better.
By lying about science and removing people's rights?
It's not fair for others to demonize us when we are trying to save them! Do you think it would be fair to attack paramedics?! NO! So why do you attack Mr Hamm ?
Edgar Allen ________
Our country is a religious country and it amazes me that we allow atheists to criticize us!
No it is not anymore than it is a White Man's country.
Our children should be shown only what is right
so you are in favor of teaching evolution!
- how dare those people try to force our little ones to learn the evident falsehoods of evolution (the failed theory) and turn to Satan?!
Again, please show us what part of Evolutionary research is wrong and also show us why.
#34
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 10:15 AM
On the other hand, the Theory of evolution (please note capital T...
Maybe we should start spelling "theory" in the sense of scientific theory with a thorn (þeory) or a theta (θeory) If it doesn't underline the difference, at least it'll take them a helluva lot longer to write "just a þeory" as they rummage around the character map.
#35
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 10:16 AM
Who is Poe ?
Buzz, wrong question. The right question is what is a Poe.
#36
Posted by: deep | December 10, 2008 10:17 AM
I have a hard time taking anyone seriously defending Mr. Ham when they can't spell his name right...
Evolution is a scientific theory, it works, it is not failed.
Evolution has nothing to do with Satan.
We attack creationists because what they are doing to our schools systems is wrong (if anyone is the "paramedics" it's us).
Our country is not a religious country (I assume you are talking about the U.S. the majority of the world is more civilized).
I do agree that children should only be shown what is right...what has all the evidence behind it...evolution.
#37
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:20 AM
By lying about science and removing people's rights?
We love the real Sciences and will always defend people's true rights.
No it is not anymore than it is a White Man's country.
Polls show that there are less than 1.4% atheists, we can very well do without them, you know.
so you are in favor of teaching evolution!
Evolution has been shown to be false : search "irreducible complexity", you might learn something.
#38
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:20 AM
@35: are you referencing that Man from U.N.C.L.E. episode?
Bad guy: Did U.N.C.L.E. send you?
Good guy: What is "Uncle"?
Bad guy: Most people would ask, "Who is uncle?".
Imprisonment follows.
#39
Posted by: CosmicTeapot | December 10, 2008 10:21 AM
Emmet, þhat's a brilliant idea!
I þhink it should really be the þheta as it is more scientific, but I do love þhe runes.
#40
Posted by: raven | December 10, 2008 10:22 AM
virginie lying cultist:
As Christians, we are trying to make the world better.
HUH!!! You death cultists don't speak for christians, just your own demented lying and hating cults. Most xians worldwide are OK with evolution, RCC, Mormons, protestants, etc..
As nihilistic, evil liars, who hate and oppose science you are in fact, making the world a worse place while simultaneously damaging xianity. Polls show that the majority of the US population are sick and tired of fundies. Most of those who are sick and tired of fundies are....other xians.
#41
Posted by: extatyzoma | December 10, 2008 10:22 AM
virginie #30
'Who is Poe ?'
i think this is called 'poe, poeing'.
#42
Posted by: deep | December 10, 2008 10:24 AM
Polls show that there are less than 1.4% atheists, we can very well do without them, you know.
So there are only that many atheists...but 60% of this country believes in evolution. Don't you think maybe you should stop falsely equating the two?
And irreducible complexity? Don't make me laugh, do you even know what that means?
#43
Posted by: E.V. | December 10, 2008 10:25 AM
Virginie isn't a Poe, she's TSTKSS*
*(Too stupid to know she's stupid)
#44
Posted by: Sock | December 10, 2008 10:26 AM
Humanists are doing far more to make the world a better place these days than Christians are. There is a far more powerful and EFFECTIVE moral message being taught by humanist beliefs. That we can all be good and kind WITHOUT a God. If you only worship a God out of fear of Hell, because you expect to -get something out of it-, that doesn't seem to measure up nearly as high on the moral ladder as being good for goodness' sake, which is what Humanists are all about. Every last one of them.
Christians do not try to save, they try to enslave. You can teach your children what you want, but I want my children to learn that man is the greatest power in this world, because he is the only one with the ability to effect it.
Firefighters go into burning buildings to save children. They do it to save -animals- too. What has God done for you lately that even comes close to comparing to that?
#45
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:26 AM
@37: It's called "interlocking complexity" and it's a consequence of evolution, as shown by Muller: see for example http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep06.html . Just wanted to throw some facts into the mix.
#46
Posted by: Graculus | December 10, 2008 10:27 AM
On the off-chance that Virginie is not a Poe:
1) Creationism is not Christianity.
2) Name a single objective thing about "making the world better" that is unique to Christianity and not shared by other faiths as well as non-faiths.
3) If paramedics were draining people of blood instead of administering medicine, you bet your arse we'd attack them.
4) Mr. Ham (not Hamm) is a liar and charlatan. Good Christian values?
5) The US is rather specifically NOT a religious country. I suggest you look up "seperation of church and state"
6) Freedom of speech. You get to yarf on about us evil atheists, we get to point and laugh at you. Deal with it.
7) Yes, let's teach *your* children only the Biblically correct stuff. Like pi=3.0, the world is flat, bats are birds...... by your logic, reality is Satanic, but reality was created by god, so God is Satan. Who *are* you worshipping again?
#47
Posted by: Robert W | December 10, 2008 10:27 AM
"Our country is a religious country and it amazes me that we allow atheists to criticize us! Our children should be shown only what is right - how dare those people try to force our little ones to learn the evident falsehoods of evolution (the failed theory) and turn to Satan?!"
Our country is religious? Um, actually, our country was founded to ESCAPE religion and to establish freedom to believe what we want (no more Church of England).
Our children should be shown only what is right? And who are you to decide what is right and by what means? By numbers? By faith? You can huff and puff all you want, but saying you're "right" doesn't make it so!
Evident falsehoods? State ONE. Back it up with evidence. (No, Satan is not evidence.)
The only failed theory around here is that a giant humanoid figure in the sky is watching over us and created us in his image and the world in seven days. Give me a break.
You have the right to believe whatever you want, but keep your beliefs to yourself and stop JUDGING other people because they want the same right to believe what they want (based on evidence, their own senses, sound reasoning, and judgment).
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
Galileo Galilei
#48
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 10, 2008 10:28 AM
We love the real Sciences and will always defend people's true rights.
Define True Rights
Polls show that there are less than 1.4% atheists, we can very well do without them, you know.
What polls? Show your work. What's the cut off on the percentage of people you can do without?
Evolution has been shown to be false : search "irreducible complexity", you might learn something.
bzzzzzt. Wrong. You should actually do some research. IC is garbage.
#49
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:28 AM
@39: I think you meant "Emmet, þat's a brilliant idea! I þink it should really be þe þeta as it is more scientific, but I do love þe runes." þ=th
#50
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:29 AM
And irreducible complexity? Don't make me laugh, do you even know what that means?
It means the cell contains elements that are far too complex to have come by chance, otherwise that would be like magic. They must have been designed. You don't believe in magic do you ?
#51
Posted by: Mobius | December 10, 2008 10:30 AM
Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrip!!!
"Next???"
(Come on. Where are the creationists? There's blood in the water and I hunger.)
#52
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:31 AM
oh define real sciences as well.
#53
Posted by: Rich | December 10, 2008 10:31 AM
Let's put up this excellent ERV video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbbh1P6DW5I&eurl=http://scienceblogs.com/erv/
Hat tip to abbie and the ERV scienceblog.
Creationism - not true.
#54
Posted by: deep | December 10, 2008 10:31 AM
Just wanted to throw some facts into the mix.
Awww, that's nice of you. It's a shame that it rarely works though. One of the most disappointing times in my life was when my friend forwarded me one of those crazy fundie emails that looked like a joke (alas, Poe's law) and I spent three hours typing up a rebuttal with sources and links only for my friend to later tell me that she was too lazy to read it all and that it was all just a big conspiracy anyway. *sniff*
#55
Posted by: NoFear | December 10, 2008 10:31 AM
"Ken Ham is a fraud and a charletan stealing money from those with a religious impairment."
Exploiting the mentally challenged. How pathetic.
#56
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:32 AM
@Virginie: you really, really need to read that link about interlocking complexity. Or rather, sane people who actually want to learn something need to read the link. Complexity is not design.
#57
Posted by: ennui | December 10, 2008 10:33 AM
Evolution contains elements both stochastic (mutation) and deterministic (selection).
No, Virginie, there is no Santa Claus.
#58
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 10:33 AM
#29 David Marjanović, OM,
My objection is a categorical one in the sense that advances are actually made by concrete individuals or concrete groups of individuals, not by abstractions like "Christianity". I would have a similar objection to a bald assertion that advances are made "by universities" -- they're not, they're made at universities but by the people working there. The latter is not so objectionable, of course, because universities, with a few exceptions, don't generally have roaming bands of disingenuous cretins blabbering misinformation to the public at every opportunity.
#59
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 10:34 AM
Everyone got your "Creationist ignorant buzzword bingo cards" ready?
I got three squares filled from Virginie already.
- 1.4 % of the world are atheists. Bzzzt... false.
- We can continue to be ignorant bullies as long as we think we're making the world a better place. Bzzzt... false.
- Irreducible Complexity. Bzzzzzzt.... horribly false... pick up a science journal. Then read it.
Woo-hoo! Almost there...
#60
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:34 AM
It means the cell contains elements that are far too complex to have come by chance, otherwise that would be like magic. They must have been designed. You don't believe in magic do you ?
Irony meter go BOOM!!
definetely leaning to poe
#61
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:35 AM
Define True Rights
Those included in the Bible. Homosexual marriage and abortion are not in there for example.
What polls?
Check pew research.
IC is garbage
Typical atheist, what you find inconvenient, you call garbage, yet this is real scientific research from one of the world's greatest minds.
#62
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:35 AM
@54: tell them that if they're too lazy to learn the facts, they don't get to have an opinion. Blunt, but necessary.
#63
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 10:35 AM
Ugh. Just watched Jon Stewart's interview with Mike Huckabee from last night. Don't even know where to start, but I'll leave aside his drivel about fiscal conservatism for the moment (except to note that I enjoyed Stewart's crack about how conservatives generally support military spending, and he really doesn't get how they can "trust the government with tanks and nuclear weapons but not to hand out cheese to poor people"). Then Stewart opens the discussion of social conservative by making a comment about how he can totally "see" Huckabee's "pro-life" argument and understand that all of us should make an effort to "reduce the number of that." WTF, Jon? Huckabee's attempted defense of his opposition to gay marriage was a logical-fallacy exhibit. At least Stewart called him on some of that.
#64
Posted by: Ouchimoo | December 10, 2008 10:35 AM
O.M.G. "irreducible complexity"? That's all you've got?
Seriously.
Things are too complex to just happen . .so god did it. .
and god is too complex to just happen . . .so god did it
so on and so forth
#65
Posted by: E.V. | December 10, 2008 10:36 AM
Polls show that there are less than 1.4% atheists
Provide your sources. The actual number according to a 2001 ARIS study :
Fifty-two percent of adults in America are Protestant, 24.5% are Catholic, and 14.1% adhere to no religion, according to the latest American Religious Identification Survey, 2001 ("ARIS 2001") just released by The Graduate Center of the City University of New York. Those giving their religion as Jewish are 1.3% and those as Muslim or Islamic are 0.5%.
I hate when some dishonest ass uses the old rubric polls show... without citing numbers and sources.
Virginie, you're a vapid, brainwashed, magic-believing parrot without the slightest clue of how much you don't know.
#66
Posted by: deep | December 10, 2008 10:36 AM
It means the cell contains elements that are far too complex to have come by chance, otherwise that would be like magic. They must have been designed. You don't believe in magic do you
No, I don't believe in magic, that seems to be what you believe in. Just because you are too ignorant to know how evolution works ("by chance" obviously means you don't have too good of a grasp of it) doesn't mean it had to have been designed. That's like saying a TV is magic because you don't know anything about mechanics, light, or electricity. Do some reading, I'm sure everyone here will wait.
#67
Posted by: Holbach | December 10, 2008 10:37 AM
Virginie @ 21
No virginie, there is no santa claus, god, tooth fairy or easter bunny. There is only brain-dead chritians who cannot distinguish between the bunch and will live and die in a state of insanity with no imaginary god to save them. Now seriously, if there is no god how could there be a satan? Are you mad?
#68
Posted by: Spook | December 10, 2008 10:37 AM
#37:
Polls show that there are less than 1.4% atheists, we can very well do without them, you know.
Source?
No wait, you'll just screw it up.
Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4% (2007 est.)
From the CIA World Factbook.
Also, a lot of scientists (an overwhelming majority, from what I've heard) that designed the drugs you need to survive disease, the car you drive every day, and the computer in front of you have before you are or have been atheists. To get by without them puts you back in the stone age.
Nitwit.
#69
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:39 AM
@63: I thought most people were pretty much agreed that reducing the number of abortions would be a good thing. It's just that the wackoes want it done by banning abortion, which, historically, does not work, whereas sane people want it done by improving people's education and access to contraception.
#70
Posted by: Calladus | December 10, 2008 10:39 AM
Virginie:
Poe: Short for "Poe's Law". In other words, it is sometimes difficult for rational people to tell the difference between a fundamentalist and someone who is creating a silly parody of a fundamentalist. For example, compare "Westboro Baptist Church" to "Landover Baptist Church".
If you are a Christian who gets "Poe" called on you, it is a good indication that you need to turn down the outlandishness a few notches. We do realize that some fundamentalists are unable to do this.
#71
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 10:39 AM
where's Clinteas, did he go to bed ?
Ok then, I'll stop here, my Virgine was an attempt to keep him out of bed, it didn't work.
Virginie was a Negentropyeater-Poe.
Not a very good one, I admit.
#72
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:40 AM
Those included in the Bible. Homosexual marriage and abortion are not in there for example.
So do you support slavery?
Check pew research.
I did. Don't see it. Maybe you can actually show a link?
Typical atheist, what you find inconvenient, you call garbage, yet this is real scientific research from one of the world's greatest minds.
Follow my link above and actually READ it. IC IS garbage and Behe is FAR from being one of the world's greatest minds. Did you happen to catch his appearance in Dover?
#73
Posted by: raven | December 10, 2008 10:40 AM
virginie warming up the gas chambers:
Polls show that there are less than 1.4% atheists, we can very well do without them, you know.
The usual. Violence and mass murder are never very far below the surface of fundie Death Cultists. Where they got their name.
Lies are always on the surface. The percentage of atheists, agnostics, and apathetics in the USA is more like 5-10%. And fundies are a minority of xians even in the USA, between 7 and 20% of the population.
All fundies contribute to the world is occupying the bottom of the barrel. As jesus said, forget the morons, there will always be a bottom 10%.
#74
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 10:40 AM
Virginie continues to dig...
Hmmm... but slavery is! Shall we re-institute that old custom, godbot? Have you actually even READ that book?
#75
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | December 10, 2008 10:41 AM
A Creationists telling us that we believe in "magic". Hilarious! Please keep it up, Virginie. I need more stuff to submit to FSTDT.
#76
Posted by: Holbach | December 10, 2008 10:41 AM
Marcus Ranum @ 2
My favorite word when describing religionists.
#77
Posted by: deep | December 10, 2008 10:41 AM
Those included in the Bible. Homosexual marriage and abortion are not in there for example.
What rights are in the bible? And going from athiest slandering, to evolution bashing, and then throwing in an plea for anti-homosexuality and anti-abortion? You must either be a Poe or a glutton for punishment.
#78
Posted by: extatyzome | December 10, 2008 10:42 AM
virginie
"Evolution has been shown to be false : search "irreducible complexity", you might learn something."
IR in a nutshell: 'I cant explain how it evolved (and by god so nobody can) therefor it didnt evolve'
virginie, behe's argument from personal incredulity does not show evo to be false, there are many potential ways to falsify evolution, it hasnt yet been falsified and so is the current theory on the origin of lifes diversity.
If evolution is ever falsified you will hear about it on the BBC news and biologists will get very excited to hear the new explanation for lifes diversity.
#79
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:42 AM
And I forgot to say I'm sorry for all the really stupid things I've said !
#80
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:42 AM
you asshole.
My post David Byrne hangover leaves me susceptible to poeing.
damn you
*fist shake
#81
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 10:43 AM
Dammit... blockquote fail. Let me try that again....
Virginie continues to dig...
Those included in the Bible. Homosexual marriage and abortion are not in there for example.
Hmmm... but slavery is! Shall we re-institute that old custom, godbot? Have you actually even READ that book?
#82
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:43 AM
@71: I think it was a little too obvious, possibly because it sounded sane-but-misinformed. Next time try for out-and-out frothing madness.
#83
Posted by: Spook | December 10, 2008 10:43 AM
#61
Those included in the Bible. Homosexual marriage and abortion are not in there for example.
Neither is being an Internet troll, but that's not stopping you.
If you really want to dry-hump the bible, I'd like to point out that skepticism is in there, which is what's being practiced here. Look up good old "doubting Thomas", that is if you actually read the book you're drooling on. He didn't take things as fact without evidence, why should we?
Oh, and with your remark about atheists just "throwing away whatever is inconvenient" when it comes to irreducable complexity, here's one of many refutations by Scienceblogs' own MarkCC
#84
Posted by: Scott | December 10, 2008 10:45 AM
Bacteria Flagellum anyone?
#85
Posted by: extatyzoma | December 10, 2008 10:45 AM
whoops, #78 thats IC not IR!!
lying for darwin.
#86
Posted by: Kinzua Kid | December 10, 2008 10:45 AM
Wow, now I feel like Virginie isn't just TSTKSS, Trolling or going for the Poe- this is a deeper problem, one I almost want to think is...
...shilling
That's right. This seems way too simple to be a real person. I believe PZ is testing the comment crowd and giggling all the way to class. If not, this is about the saddest thing ever. (don't go breaking my fantasy now with your reality, I am in denial)
Virginie- it's pretty clear you're just getting some concept names typed out with no real understanding of their definition, context or the trainload of falsification that came before you. Your last post was telling.
Of course I believe in magic; I am a magician. I don't believe in chance, however. It screws up my magic. :)
#87
Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 10, 2008 10:47 AM
Our country is religious? Um, actually, our country was founded to ESCAPE religion and to establish freedom to believe what we want (no more Church of England).
Looking at how religion has dur founding faeveloped in the UK and the US, I would suggest yothers got that one wrong. Give me wishy-washy feel-good liberal Anglicanism over the right-wing fundamentalists anyday.
#88
Posted by: Spook | December 10, 2008 10:47 AM
#61
Those included in the Bible. Homosexual marriage and abortion are not in there for example.
Neither is being an Internet troll, but that's not stopping you.
If you really want to dry-hump the bible, I'd like to point out that skepticism is in there, which is what's being practiced here. Look up good old "doubting Thomas", that is if you actually read the book you're drooling on. He didn't take things as fact without evidence, why should we?
Oh, and with your remark about atheists just "throwing away whatever is inconvenient" when it comes to irreducable complexity, here's one of many refutations by Scienceblogs' own MarkCC
#89
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 10:48 AM
Dammit, negentropyeater...
And I almost had bingo... :-(
#90
Posted by: butter | December 10, 2008 10:49 AM
The only difference between religious people and alcoholics is that when you mutilate your children's genitals while drunk you're suddenly a bad parent.
#91
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 10:49 AM
Rev. and all
I'm awfully sorry, shouldn't have done it.
#92
Posted by: Hank | December 10, 2008 10:49 AM
#86: I believe comment #79 is as clear a hint as you're going to get.
And I forgot to say I'm sorry for all the really stupid things I've said !
#93
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 10:49 AM
@63: I thought most people were pretty much agreed that reducing the number of abortions would be a good thing.
I agree with that only to the extent that it is surgery, which no one should have to undergo if it can be avoided, not because there is anything morally abhorrent about abortion.
It's just that the wackoes want it done by banning abortion, which, historically, does not work, whereas sane people want it done by improving people's education and access to contraception.
It's not only that it "does not work" - it's that it is an infringement on my fundamental right to control my own body. And not only does it not "work," it causes injury and death, especially as it typically forms part of a policy that weakens education and reduces access to contraception. For Stewart to make that remark in the context of saying that he could "see" Huckabee's point on this has implications.
#94
Posted by: Spook | December 10, 2008 10:49 AM
Ack! Double post! Sorry!
*leaves before he screws anything else up this morning.*
#95
Posted by: Ouchimoo | December 10, 2008 10:50 AM
Those included in the Bible. Homosexual marriage and abortion are not in there for example.
really?:
The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.
And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6
Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.
Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16
Almost looks like if your baby's under a month, it's fair game. And what's about this value thing? Is that how much their worth to sell into slavery?
#96
Posted by: DuckPhup | December 10, 2008 10:51 AM
dead yeti wrote: "Maybe creationists don't believe in evolution simply because they have quite managed to evolve into full blown Homo Sapiens yet?"
I think there's more to it than that. I think that Homo Sapiens can be broken down further, into a few sub-species...
Homo Moronicus: fundies... especially creotards
Homo Dumbassticus: ordinary religionists
Homo Rationalis: sane people
#97
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 10:52 AM
I agree with that only to the extent that it is surgery,
Uh, I meant "only because it is surgery." It is of course surgery.
#98
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:53 AM
Rev. and all
I'm awfully sorry, shouldn't have done it.
Oh it's fine.
Just goes to show you that Poe's law is alive and well.
#99
Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 10, 2008 10:53 AM
OK, something screwed up. Let me try again.
Richard W said:
Our country is religious? Um, actually, our country was founded to ESCAPE religion and to establish freedom to believe what we want (no more Church of England).
evelopment, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
* Latest Posts
* Archives
* About
* Dungeon
* Blogroll
* Commenters
* RSS
* Contact
Search this blog
Profile
pzm_profile_pic.jpg
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
zf_pharyngula.jpg ...and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
tbbadge.gif
scarlet_A.png
I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Random Quote
(Complete listing)
I have just discovered that without her father's consent this sweet, trusting, gullible six-year-old is being sent, for weekly instruction, to a Roman Catholic nun. What chance has she?"
With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns. Like immune-deficient patients, children are wide open to mental infections that adults might brush off without effort.
Richard Dawkins
Recent Posts
* For the nerd who isn't very bright
* New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* Target-rich polling environment
* A brilliant new strategy!
* This is not a time for prayer
* Evolving the Mona Lisa
* Oh, stop it, Bill -- you're too kind
* Let's hope the nightmare ends soon
* Pat Boone isn't exactly the brightest pundit around
* Somebody put this on a t-shirt
A Taste of Pharyngula
(Complete listing)
Octopus sex
Two-legged goats and developmental variation
Ten questions to ask your biology teacher
A quick reply to some of the arguments made recently
Homo floresiensis, Flores Man
Modeling metazoan cell lineages
Planet of the Hats
Bicoid, nanos, and bricolage
Recent Comments
* Spook on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* Matt Penfold on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* Kalirren on A brilliant new strategy!
* Kinzua Kid on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* extatyzoma on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* Scott on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* Spook on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* Stephen Wells on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* Celtic_Evolution on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
* Rev. BigDumbChimp on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
Archives
* December 2008
* November 2008
* October 2008
* September 2008
* August 2008
* July 2008
* June 2008
* May 2008
* April 2008
* March 2008
* February 2008
* January 2008
* December 2007
* November 2007
* October 2007
* September 2007
* August 2007
* July 2007
* June 2007
* May 2007
* April 2007
* March 2007
* February 2007
* January 2007
* December 2006
* November 2006
* October 2006
* September 2006
* August 2006
* July 2006
* June 2006
* May 2006
* April 2006
* March 2006
* February 2006
* January 2006
Blogroll
(Complete listing)
Other Information
koufax.jpg
2005 Koufax Award
Best Expert
wabs.jpg
2006 Weblogs Award
Subscribe via Email
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
Sign me up!
« Target-rich polling environment | Main | For the nerd who isn't very bright »
New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
Category: Administrative • Creationism
Posted on: December 10, 2008 9:24 AM, by PZ Myers
Ken Ham of the Creation "Museum" linked to an old thread from June, prompting a sudden influx of dull-witted creationists regurgitating old canards. Normally I wouldn't mind -- the poor dullards don't get much outlet on the creationist sites, which typically prohibit any kind of expression from their flocks -- but in this case we've also got lots of fierce godless evolutionists who see an opportunity to sharpen their claws. That means the old thread is at a roiling boil and is now over 1300 comments, which is a bit excessive.
I'm closing that thread and inviting them to come here to carry on the discussion.
If you need a topic to prime the pump, how about conversing about the combination of charlatanry and ignorance that are needed to be a prominent creationist?
ShareThis
Comments
#1
Posted by: mr-zero | December 10, 2008 9:37 AM
Bring it on!
#2
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | December 10, 2008 9:40 AM
"intolerant" evolutionists? He's got it wrong. I thought we were "contemptuous" -- it's a whole different attitude.
#3
Posted by: mr-zero | December 10, 2008 9:41 AM
Instead of picking holes in evolution how about you creationists show us one single piece of evidence which supports creationism.
Just one.
#4
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 9:42 AM
To all the Ken Ham worshipers who will undoubtedly come here after reading post with the link to here on the AIG webpage.
Before you spout off ignorantly about evolution being false, please provide us with the specific research you are refuting, then show your work as to how it is actually refuted.
Thanks.
Have a good day.
Tip your waitresses.
#5
Posted by: clinteas | December 10, 2008 9:43 AM
Oh noooozzzzz...
More Don Quixotes fighting mindless windmills....
how about conversing about the combination of charlatanry and ignorance that are needed to be a prominent creationist?
Im more interested in the psychiatric implications,the mechanisms that allow you to say no when yes is so obvious,and to stoically defend "no" in the face of overwhelimg evidence.
We should send psychiatrists to the US,maybe,to conduct some studies.
#6
Posted by: strangest brew | December 10, 2008 9:46 AM
Obviously busy taking their Dino's for walkies!
#7
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 9:47 AM
Before you spout off ignorantly about evolution being false, please provide us with the specific research you are refuting, then show your work as to how it is actually refuted.
Amen Rev. The work should cite the scientific literature too. Hint, AIG or any other creationist/ID web site is not scientific.
#8
Posted by: bob | December 10, 2008 9:48 AM
Interview with some neighbors of the family who were killed by the out-of-control military plane:
"It's just providence," said Johnson, who was at home with his daughter and grandchild when the fighter plane crashed two houses away, sending them fleeing out their back door. "Thirty feet higher and the plane lands in our living room instead of theirs."
Translation: "Thank god only those gooks died and my family's okay!" Horrible. Any input on how such a sentiment *isn't* nauseating and insulting, AIG folks?
#9
Posted by: dead yeti | December 10, 2008 9:49 AM
couple of points:
Maybe creationists don't believe in evolution simply because they have quite managed to evolve into full blown Homo Sapiens yet?
Maybe they themselves are in fact missing links they love to bang on about so much?
how much should i tip my waitress?
#10
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 9:49 AM
but in this case we've also got lots of fierce godless evolutionists who see an opportunity to sharpen their claws.
*burp*
Anyone got a toothpick? I think I have a creationist's brain stuck between my teeth.
#11
Posted by: Corey Schlueter | December 10, 2008 9:53 AM
To creationists,
Get an education and do the research!
#12
Posted by: strangest brew | December 10, 2008 9:54 AM
'I have a creationist's brain stuck between my teeth.'
You mean you actually found one!...or are you exaggerating ;-)
#13
Posted by: Zeno | December 10, 2008 9:55 AM
Oh, come on, Emmet. You expect us to believe you found a creationist brain big enough to get stuck between your teeth? Everyone knows that zombies would starve to death trolling for brains at the Creation Museum or any other creationist venue (except, perhaps, on Evolutionist Laugh-and-Point Visit Day).
#14
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | December 10, 2008 9:56 AM
Well, this should be interesting one way or another.
#15
Posted by: clinteas | December 10, 2008 9:57 AM
13 posts and no lunatic yet,this thread doesnt feel right....:-)
Im going to bed
#16
Posted by: azqaz | December 10, 2008 9:58 AM
Here, let me sum up the creationists "scientific" proof.
...
There you go, but what they will claim as "proof" is
GODDIDIT!
What more could you need? ;)
#17
Posted by: Carlie | December 10, 2008 10:03 AM
The work should cite the scientific literature too.
Heck, you'd weed out 90% of them by just asking them to name two scientific journals, never mind being able to cite a specific paper.
#18
Posted by: Robert W | December 10, 2008 10:04 AM
Faith is the antithesis of proof.
The creationist argument, based as it is on faith and conjecture, can never be proven. It can never be studied or tested or debated in any real sense other than a masturbatory one.
On the other hand, the Theory of evolution (please note capital T, as in, the end of the scientific process ... an accepted scientific truth, not a "theory" as George W likes to snicker) is well supported with actual evidence.
Please take your creationist babble to church and keep it out of our schools. If you want to abuse your own children with myth and dogma, that is your prerogative. Freedom of church and state has allowed your religion to prosper and mutate. Please don't pretend that your faith is somehow akin to science, or that it is an alternative "theory" worthy of equal exploration.
It is not. And faith is the antithesis of proof.
#19
Posted by: strangest brew | December 10, 2008 10:05 AM
"Here, let me sum up the creationists "scientific" proof.
...
There you go, but what they will claim as "proof" is
GODDIDIT!
What more could you need? ;)"
I never realised it was so much...gonna have to have a rethink....
#20
Posted by: ennui | December 10, 2008 10:07 AM
And remember, all you baby-raping, puppy-chipping, zombie-creationist-eating cannibal atheists, Wednesday is orgy night. Bring a friend; tonight's theme is snow.
#21
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:07 AM
As Christians, we are trying to make the world better.
It's not fair for others to demonize us when we are trying to save them! Do you think it would be fair to attack paramedics?! NO! So why do you attack Mr Hamm ?
Our country is a religious country and it amazes me that we allow atheists to criticize us! Our children should be shown only what is right - how dare those people try to force our little ones to learn the evident falsehoods of evolution (the failed theory) and turn to Satan?!
#22
Posted by: Matt7895 | December 10, 2008 10:07 AM
Well, the creationists' evidence really does come down to "God did it", but they arrive at that conclusion by saying, "The Bible says, it, the Bible is the word of god, therefore the Bible is true, god did it."
#23
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 10:10 AM
looks like Virginie doesn't want Clinteas to go to bed.
#24
Posted by: dinkum | December 10, 2008 10:10 AM
Virginie: Poe.
#25
Posted by: Dmitry | December 10, 2008 10:11 AM
Virginie, I call Poe on you!
#26
Posted by: FTFKDad | December 10, 2008 10:12 AM
Did anyone follow the Prof. Olofsson thread at UD? The one where Prof. Olofsson displayed the... ahem... patience of a saint in responding to one UD regular "PaV". There was one post from PaV where he said (and remember this is a posting on a paper by Prof O. on Bayesian statistics):
[Comment 252] "I don't care to learn all about Bayesian analysis-of what use is it to me?
And.....I don't need to learn it to come to the same conclusion that Bill [Dembski] has come to. I see, and agree to, his logic in all of this."
This is a perfect example of how a creationist mind not only thinks it knows the answers, it doesn't even need to understand the subject or even want to try to understand the subject before knowing all the answers! (The Prof. did a nice take down of this particular comment as well.)
#27
Posted by: BGT | December 10, 2008 10:12 AM
I call Poe on #21.
Of course, given the implications of Poe, I could be wrong...
#28
Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | December 10, 2008 10:12 AM
*scanning* *scanning* *scanning*
*** ALERT *** Possible Poe/Troll activity detected in post #21.
#29
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 10, 2008 10:13 AM
From the old thread:
Keith Allen believed:
be aware that Christianity advanced science.
Emmet Caulfield responded:
Arrant nonsense. A belief system cannot advance a methodology and body of knowledge. Science was advanced by individuals, many of whom were Christian.
It does sometimes happen that a belief system advances science. One of the examples is that Michael Faraday's discoveries were based on the assumption of his sect that circles were somehow metaphysically important. In other words, it's possible to be right for the wrong reasons.
#30
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:13 AM
Who is Poe ?
#31
Posted by: freelunch | December 10, 2008 10:13 AM
I wonder how many creationists are able to admit to themselves that they are the victims of a massive con and that the con men who have stolen their money do not care at all about evolution or creation as long as they can find credulous fools who will give them money.
Ken Ham is a fraud and a charletan stealing money from those with a religious impairment.
#32
Posted by: Ouchimoo | December 10, 2008 10:14 AM
Carlie @ #17
The other 10% will quote-mine and take things so far out of Context it won't even make sense anymore. *see Ray Comfort's blog on Sex evolved after humans, and pulling a science journal about. . Bacteria . . .?
#33
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:15 AM
As Christians, we are trying to make the world better.
By lying about science and removing people's rights?
It's not fair for others to demonize us when we are trying to save them! Do you think it would be fair to attack paramedics?! NO! So why do you attack Mr Hamm ?
Edgar Allen ________
Our country is a religious country and it amazes me that we allow atheists to criticize us!
No it is not anymore than it is a White Man's country.
Our children should be shown only what is right
so you are in favor of teaching evolution!
- how dare those people try to force our little ones to learn the evident falsehoods of evolution (the failed theory) and turn to Satan?!
Again, please show us what part of Evolutionary research is wrong and also show us why.
#34
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 10:15 AM
On the other hand, the Theory of evolution (please note capital T...
Maybe we should start spelling "theory" in the sense of scientific theory with a thorn (þeory) or a theta (θeory) If it doesn't underline the difference, at least it'll take them a helluva lot longer to write "just a þeory" as they rummage around the character map.
#35
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 10:16 AM
Who is Poe ?
Buzz, wrong question. The right question is what is a Poe.
#36
Posted by: deep | December 10, 2008 10:17 AM
I have a hard time taking anyone seriously defending Mr. Ham when they can't spell his name right...
Evolution is a scientific theory, it works, it is not failed.
Evolution has nothing to do with Satan.
We attack creationists because what they are doing to our schools systems is wrong (if anyone is the "paramedics" it's us).
Our country is not a religious country (I assume you are talking about the U.S. the majority of the world is more civilized).
I do agree that children should only be shown what is right...what has all the evidence behind it...evolution.
#37
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:20 AM
By lying about science and removing people's rights?
We love the real Sciences and will always defend people's true rights.
No it is not anymore than it is a White Man's country.
Polls show that there are less than 1.4% atheists, we can very well do without them, you know.
so you are in favor of teaching evolution!
Evolution has been shown to be false : search "irreducible complexity", you might learn something.
#38
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:20 AM
@35: are you referencing that Man from U.N.C.L.E. episode?
Bad guy: Did U.N.C.L.E. send you?
Good guy: What is "Uncle"?
Bad guy: Most people would ask, "Who is uncle?".
Imprisonment follows.
#39
Posted by: CosmicTeapot | December 10, 2008 10:21 AM
Emmet, þhat's a brilliant idea!
I þhink it should really be the þheta as it is more scientific, but I do love þhe runes.
#40
Posted by: raven | December 10, 2008 10:22 AM
virginie lying cultist:
As Christians, we are trying to make the world better.
HUH!!! You death cultists don't speak for christians, just your own demented lying and hating cults. Most xians worldwide are OK with evolution, RCC, Mormons, protestants, etc..
As nihilistic, evil liars, who hate and oppose science you are in fact, making the world a worse place while simultaneously damaging xianity. Polls show that the majority of the US population are sick and tired of fundies. Most of those who are sick and tired of fundies are....other xians.
#41
Posted by: extatyzoma | December 10, 2008 10:22 AM
virginie #30
'Who is Poe ?'
i think this is called 'poe, poeing'.
#42
Posted by: deep | December 10, 2008 10:24 AM
Polls show that there are less than 1.4% atheists, we can very well do without them, you know.
So there are only that many atheists...but 60% of this country believes in evolution. Don't you think maybe you should stop falsely equating the two?
And irreducible complexity? Don't make me laugh, do you even know what that means?
#43
Posted by: E.V. | December 10, 2008 10:25 AM
Virginie isn't a Poe, she's TSTKSS*
*(Too stupid to know she's stupid)
#44
Posted by: Sock | December 10, 2008 10:26 AM
Humanists are doing far more to make the world a better place these days than Christians are. There is a far more powerful and EFFECTIVE moral message being taught by humanist beliefs. That we can all be good and kind WITHOUT a God. If you only worship a God out of fear of Hell, because you expect to -get something out of it-, that doesn't seem to measure up nearly as high on the moral ladder as being good for goodness' sake, which is what Humanists are all about. Every last one of them.
Christians do not try to save, they try to enslave. You can teach your children what you want, but I want my children to learn that man is the greatest power in this world, because he is the only one with the ability to effect it.
Firefighters go into burning buildings to save children. They do it to save -animals- too. What has God done for you lately that even comes close to comparing to that?
#45
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:26 AM
@37: It's called "interlocking complexity" and it's a consequence of evolution, as shown by Muller: see for example http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep06.html . Just wanted to throw some facts into the mix.
#46
Posted by: Graculus | December 10, 2008 10:27 AM
On the off-chance that Virginie is not a Poe:
1) Creationism is not Christianity.
2) Name a single objective thing about "making the world better" that is unique to Christianity and not shared by other faiths as well as non-faiths.
3) If paramedics were draining people of blood instead of administering medicine, you bet your arse we'd attack them.
4) Mr. Ham (not Hamm) is a liar and charlatan. Good Christian values?
5) The US is rather specifically NOT a religious country. I suggest you look up "seperation of church and state"
6) Freedom of speech. You get to yarf on about us evil atheists, we get to point and laugh at you. Deal with it.
7) Yes, let's teach *your* children only the Biblically correct stuff. Like pi=3.0, the world is flat, bats are birds...... by your logic, reality is Satanic, but reality was created by god, so God is Satan. Who *are* you worshipping again?
#47
Posted by: Robert W | December 10, 2008 10:27 AM
"Our country is a religious country and it amazes me that we allow atheists to criticize us! Our children should be shown only what is right - how dare those people try to force our little ones to learn the evident falsehoods of evolution (the failed theory) and turn to Satan?!"
Our country is religious? Um, actually, our country was founded to ESCAPE religion and to establish freedom to believe what we want (no more Church of England).
Our children should be shown only what is right? And who are you to decide what is right and by what means? By numbers? By faith? You can huff and puff all you want, but saying you're "right" doesn't make it so!
Evident falsehoods? State ONE. Back it up with evidence. (No, Satan is not evidence.)
The only failed theory around here is that a giant humanoid figure in the sky is watching over us and created us in his image and the world in seven days. Give me a break.
You have the right to believe whatever you want, but keep your beliefs to yourself and stop JUDGING other people because they want the same right to believe what they want (based on evidence, their own senses, sound reasoning, and judgment).
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
Galileo Galilei
#48
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 10, 2008 10:28 AM
We love the real Sciences and will always defend people's true rights.
Define True Rights
Polls show that there are less than 1.4% atheists, we can very well do without them, you know.
What polls? Show your work. What's the cut off on the percentage of people you can do without?
Evolution has been shown to be false : search "irreducible complexity", you might learn something.
bzzzzzt. Wrong. You should actually do some research. IC is garbage.
#49
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:28 AM
@39: I think you meant "Emmet, þat's a brilliant idea! I þink it should really be þe þeta as it is more scientific, but I do love þe runes." þ=th
#50
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:29 AM
And irreducible complexity? Don't make me laugh, do you even know what that means?
It means the cell contains elements that are far too complex to have come by chance, otherwise that would be like magic. They must have been designed. You don't believe in magic do you ?
#51
Posted by: Mobius | December 10, 2008 10:30 AM
Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrip!!!
"Next???"
(Come on. Where are the creationists? There's blood in the water and I hunger.)
#52
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:31 AM
oh define real sciences as well.
#53
Posted by: Rich | December 10, 2008 10:31 AM
Let's put up this excellent ERV video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbbh1P6DW5I&eurl=http://scienceblogs.com/erv/
Hat tip to abbie and the ERV scienceblog.
Creationism - not true.
#54
Posted by: deep | December 10, 2008 10:31 AM
Just wanted to throw some facts into the mix.
Awww, that's nice of you. It's a shame that it rarely works though. One of the most disappointing times in my life was when my friend forwarded me one of those crazy fundie emails that looked like a joke (alas, Poe's law) and I spent three hours typing up a rebuttal with sources and links only for my friend to later tell me that she was too lazy to read it all and that it was all just a big conspiracy anyway. *sniff*
#55
Posted by: NoFear | December 10, 2008 10:31 AM
"Ken Ham is a fraud and a charletan stealing money from those with a religious impairment."
Exploiting the mentally challenged. How pathetic.
#56
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:32 AM
@Virginie: you really, really need to read that link about interlocking complexity. Or rather, sane people who actually want to learn something need to read the link. Complexity is not design.
#57
Posted by: ennui | December 10, 2008 10:33 AM
Evolution contains elements both stochastic (mutation) and deterministic (selection).
No, Virginie, there is no Santa Claus.
#58
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 10:33 AM
#29 David Marjanović, OM,
My objection is a categorical one in the sense that advances are actually made by concrete individuals or concrete groups of individuals, not by abstractions like "Christianity". I would have a similar objection to a bald assertion that advances are made "by universities" -- they're not, they're made at universities but by the people working there. The latter is not so objectionable, of course, because universities, with a few exceptions, don't generally have roaming bands of disingenuous cretins blabbering misinformation to the public at every opportunity.
#59
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 10:34 AM
Everyone got your "Creationist ignorant buzzword bingo cards" ready?
I got three squares filled from Virginie already.
- 1.4 % of the world are atheists. Bzzzt... false.
- We can continue to be ignorant bullies as long as we think we're making the world a better place. Bzzzt... false.
- Irreducible Complexity. Bzzzzzzt.... horribly false... pick up a science journal. Then read it.
Woo-hoo! Almost there...
#60
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:34 AM
It means the cell contains elements that are far too complex to have come by chance, otherwise that would be like magic. They must have been designed. You don't believe in magic do you ?
Irony meter go BOOM!!
definetely leaning to poe
#61
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:35 AM
Define True Rights
Those included in the Bible. Homosexual marriage and abortion are not in there for example.
What polls?
Check pew research.
IC is garbage
Typical atheist, what you find inconvenient, you call garbage, yet this is real scientific research from one of the world's greatest minds.
#62
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:35 AM
@54: tell them that if they're too lazy to learn the facts, they don't get to have an opinion. Blunt, but necessary.
#63
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 10:35 AM
Ugh. Just watched Jon Stewart's interview with Mike Huckabee from last night. Don't even know where to start, but I'll leave aside his drivel about fiscal conservatism for the moment (except to note that I enjoyed Stewart's crack about how conservatives generally support military spending, and he really doesn't get how they can "trust the government with tanks and nuclear weapons but not to hand out cheese to poor people"). Then Stewart opens the discussion of social conservative by making a comment about how he can totally "see" Huckabee's "pro-life" argument and understand that all of us should make an effort to "reduce the number of that." WTF, Jon? Huckabee's attempted defense of his opposition to gay marriage was a logical-fallacy exhibit. At least Stewart called him on some of that.
#64
Posted by: Ouchimoo | December 10, 2008 10:35 AM
O.M.G. "irreducible complexity"? That's all you've got?
Seriously.
Things are too complex to just happen . .so god did it. .
and god is too complex to just happen . . .so god did it
so on and so forth
#65
Posted by: E.V. | December 10, 2008 10:36 AM
Polls show that there are less than 1.4% atheists
Provide your sources. The actual number according to a 2001 ARIS study :
Fifty-two percent of adults in America are Protestant, 24.5% are Catholic, and 14.1% adhere to no religion, according to the latest American Religious Identification Survey, 2001 ("ARIS 2001") just released by The Graduate Center of the City University of New York. Those giving their religion as Jewish are 1.3% and those as Muslim or Islamic are 0.5%.
I hate when some dishonest ass uses the old rubric polls show... without citing numbers and sources.
Virginie, you're a vapid, brainwashed, magic-believing parrot without the slightest clue of how much you don't know.
#66
Posted by: deep | December 10, 2008 10:36 AM
It means the cell contains elements that are far too complex to have come by chance, otherwise that would be like magic. They must have been designed. You don't believe in magic do you
No, I don't believe in magic, that seems to be what you believe in. Just because you are too ignorant to know how evolution works ("by chance" obviously means you don't have too good of a grasp of it) doesn't mean it had to have been designed. That's like saying a TV is magic because you don't know anything about mechanics, light, or electricity. Do some reading, I'm sure everyone here will wait.
#67
Posted by: Holbach | December 10, 2008 10:37 AM
Virginie @ 21
No virginie, there is no santa claus, god, tooth fairy or easter bunny. There is only brain-dead chritians who cannot distinguish between the bunch and will live and die in a state of insanity with no imaginary god to save them. Now seriously, if there is no god how could there be a satan? Are you mad?
#68
Posted by: Spook | December 10, 2008 10:37 AM
#37:
Polls show that there are less than 1.4% atheists, we can very well do without them, you know.
Source?
No wait, you'll just screw it up.
Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4% (2007 est.)
From the CIA World Factbook.
Also, a lot of scientists (an overwhelming majority, from what I've heard) that designed the drugs you need to survive disease, the car you drive every day, and the computer in front of you have before you are or have been atheists. To get by without them puts you back in the stone age.
Nitwit.
#69
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:39 AM
@63: I thought most people were pretty much agreed that reducing the number of abortions would be a good thing. It's just that the wackoes want it done by banning abortion, which, historically, does not work, whereas sane people want it done by improving people's education and access to contraception.
#70
Posted by: Calladus | December 10, 2008 10:39 AM
Virginie:
Poe: Short for "Poe's Law". In other words, it is sometimes difficult for rational people to tell the difference between a fundamentalist and someone who is creating a silly parody of a fundamentalist. For example, compare "Westboro Baptist Church" to "Landover Baptist Church".
If you are a Christian who gets "Poe" called on you, it is a good indication that you need to turn down the outlandishness a few notches. We do realize that some fundamentalists are unable to do this.
#71
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 10:39 AM
where's Clinteas, did he go to bed ?
Ok then, I'll stop here, my Virgine was an attempt to keep him out of bed, it didn't work.
Virginie was a Negentropyeater-Poe.
Not a very good one, I admit.
#72
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:40 AM
Those included in the Bible. Homosexual marriage and abortion are not in there for example.
So do you support slavery?
Check pew research.
I did. Don't see it. Maybe you can actually show a link?
Typical atheist, what you find inconvenient, you call garbage, yet this is real scientific research from one of the world's greatest minds.
Follow my link above and actually READ it. IC IS garbage and Behe is FAR from being one of the world's greatest minds. Did you happen to catch his appearance in Dover?
#73
Posted by: raven | December 10, 2008 10:40 AM
virginie warming up the gas chambers:
Polls show that there are less than 1.4% atheists, we can very well do without them, you know.
The usual. Violence and mass murder are never very far below the surface of fundie Death Cultists. Where they got their name.
Lies are always on the surface. The percentage of atheists, agnostics, and apathetics in the USA is more like 5-10%. And fundies are a minority of xians even in the USA, between 7 and 20% of the population.
All fundies contribute to the world is occupying the bottom of the barrel. As jesus said, forget the morons, there will always be a bottom 10%.
#74
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 10:40 AM
Virginie continues to dig...
Hmmm... but slavery is! Shall we re-institute that old custom, godbot? Have you actually even READ that book?
#75
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | December 10, 2008 10:41 AM
A Creationists telling us that we believe in "magic". Hilarious! Please keep it up, Virginie. I need more stuff to submit to FSTDT.
#76
Posted by: Holbach | December 10, 2008 10:41 AM
Marcus Ranum @ 2
My favorite word when describing religionists.
#77
Posted by: deep | December 10, 2008 10:41 AM
Those included in the Bible. Homosexual marriage and abortion are not in there for example.
What rights are in the bible? And going from athiest slandering, to evolution bashing, and then throwing in an plea for anti-homosexuality and anti-abortion? You must either be a Poe or a glutton for punishment.
#78
Posted by: extatyzome | December 10, 2008 10:42 AM
virginie
"Evolution has been shown to be false : search "irreducible complexity", you might learn something."
IR in a nutshell: 'I cant explain how it evolved (and by god so nobody can) therefor it didnt evolve'
virginie, behe's argument from personal incredulity does not show evo to be false, there are many potential ways to falsify evolution, it hasnt yet been falsified and so is the current theory on the origin of lifes diversity.
If evolution is ever falsified you will hear about it on the BBC news and biologists will get very excited to hear the new explanation for lifes diversity.
#79
Posted by: Virginie | December 10, 2008 10:42 AM
And I forgot to say I'm sorry for all the really stupid things I've said !
#80
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 10:42 AM
you asshole.
My post David Byrne hangover leaves me susceptible to poeing.
damn you
*fist shake
#81
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 10:43 AM
Dammit... blockquote fail. Let me try that again....
Virginie continues to dig...
Those included in the Bible. Homosexual marriage and abortion are not in there for example.
Hmmm... but slavery is! Shall we re-institute that old custom, godbot? Have you actually even READ that book?
#82
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2008 10:43 AM
@71: I think it was a little too obvious, possibly because it sounded sane-but-misinformed. Next time try for out-and-out frothing madness.
#83
Posted by: Spook | December 10, 2008 10:43 AM
#61
Those included in the Bible. Homosexual marriage and abortion are not in there for example.
Neither is being an Internet troll, but that's not stopping you.
If you really want to dry-hump the bible, I'd like to point out that skepticism is in there, which is what's being practiced here. Look up good old "doubting Thomas", that is if you actually read the book you're drooling on. He didn't take things as fact without evidence, why should we?
Oh, and with your remark about atheists just "throwing away whatever is inconvenient" when it comes to irreducable complexity, here's one of many refutations by Scienceblogs' own MarkCC
#84
Posted by: Scott | December 10, 2008 10:45 AM
Bacteria Flagellum anyone?
#85
Posted by: extatyzoma | December 10, 2008 10:45 AM
whoops, #78 thats IC not IR!!
lying for darwin.
#86
Posted by: Kinzua Kid | December 10, 2008 10:45 AM
Wow, now I feel like Virginie isn't just TSTKSS, Trolling or going for the Poe- this is a deeper problem, one I almost want to think is...
...shilling
That's right. This seems way too simple to be a real person. I believe PZ is testing the comment crowd and giggling all the way to class. If not, this is about the saddest thing ever. (don't go breaking my fantasy now with your reality, I am in denial)
Virginie- it's pretty clear you're just getting some concept names typed out with no real understanding of their definition, context or the trainload of falsification that came before you. Your last post was telling.
Of course I believe in magic; I am a magician. I don't believe in chance, however. It screws up my magic. :)
#87
Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 10, 2008 10:47 AM
Our country is religious? Um, actually, our country was founded to ESCAPE religion and to establish freedom to believe what we want (no more Church of England).
Looking at how religion has developed in the UK and the US, I would suggest your founding fathers got that one wrong. Give me wishy-washy feel-good liberal Anglicans over the right-wing fundamentalists anyday.
#100
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 10:54 AM
Actually, negentropyeater, it looks like your Poe was in fact well done, as it appears the hive is still buzzing, long after you've revealed your Poe-trocity.
It may take some time to quiet the hive... where the hell is the queen, anyhow... Patricia???
#101
Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 10, 2008 10:55 AM
Ok, I give up. Something is screwed here.
#102
Posted by: BobC | December 10, 2008 10:55 AM
The lying child-abusing retard Ken Ham wrote: These people basically worship Darwin--they worship evolution and cannot tolerate anyone who doesn't agree with them!
Speaking for myself, it would be accurate to say I greatly admire Darwin, I love evolutionary biology, and I have no tolerance and lots of contempt for stupid assholes like Ken Ham who make a living from destroying the minds and lives of young children.
#103
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 10, 2008 10:57 AM
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008
Then Stewart opens the discussion of social conservative by making a comment about how he can totally "see" Huckabee's "pro-life" argument and understand that all of us should make an effort to "reduce the number of that."
Ah, memories. I took part in some clinic defenses when Operation Rescue targeted Chicago back in the early ninties. I tried talking to some of the OR people. The one that sticks to me is this. I told one person that I agreed that there were too many abortions being being done. Being a medical procedure, there is always a risk involved. Therefore, both men and women need to use contraceptives in order to prevent this. The guy said, "So you are saying that people should have sex in the streets." That was a conversation killer. It was amazing how many of the OR people just stood there, arms waving about, head tilted back and moaning "Praise Jesus".
Funny but I find Huckabee's switching over to polygamy and bestiality in response to GLBT marriage to be a more polished version of of that guy in the street.
Changing the subject but I am fighting the urge to refer to SC, OM as "Soap SC, OM". But I avoid it because I do not want anyone to think I am teasing SC.
#104
Posted by: Duvenoy | December 10, 2008 10:59 AM
No Virginie, I do not believe in magic, which at least partially explains why I reject religion. All religion.
I've been ridiculing Ham's circus even back when it was a part of AiG Australia. His silly "Creation Museum(?)" is merely more fuel for my fire and I've enjoyed burning it.
You and I have the constitutional rights to espouse any beliefs or none, and it also grants us the right to sneer at them. But before you sneer, it would be wise to learn a little of what you're sneering at.
doov
#105
Posted by: Ouchimoo | December 10, 2008 10:59 AM
Matt Penfold! What did you do?!
oops huh?
#106
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 10:59 AM
By the way, the magic bit @50 is not made up, Hahrun Yahya really did make a similar comment on his site, that believing in evolution, ie that "chance and time alone could generate life", was equivallent to believing in magic.
Irony meter boom ! As Rev. said.
#107
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 11:00 AM
Polls show that there are less than 1.4% atheists, we can very well do without them, you know.
According to Pew, 1.6% self-identify as atheist. Ironically, 1% of Catholics, 1% of "Mainline Churches", 4% of Orthodox Christians, 1% of "Other Christians", 10% of Jews, 5% of Muslims, 19% of Buddhists, 5% of Hindus, 9% of "Other Faiths" and 22% of "Unaffiliated" do not believe in "God or a universal spirit".
All in all 5% of people, including more tha 1% of "religious" people, do not believe in "God or a universal spirit", but only 1.6% identify as atheists. I wonder what the other 3.4% think "atheist" means?
#108
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 10, 2008 11:01 AM
I think you meant "Emmet, þat's a brilliant idea! I þink it should really be þe þeta as it is more scientific, but I do love þe runes."
In that case, please do go the whole hog and bring back the eth, not just the thorn: "Emmet, ðat's a brilliant idea! I þink it should really be ðe þeta as it is more scientific, but I do love ðe runes."
My objection is a categorical one in the sense that advances are actually made by concrete individuals or concrete groups of individuals, not by abstractions like "Christianity".
Point taken.
#109
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 11:02 AM
I've done that matt
Accidentally copy the whole page and hit post.
I did it on a couple hundred comment post though.
whoops
#110
Posted by: Robert W | December 10, 2008 11:02 AM
God this is entertaining.
Wait, can I say that? *blasphemer! blasphemer!*
#111
Posted by: co | December 10, 2008 11:03 AM
Just to save some of us from spitting bile and ire about (stock it up for real people), Virginie, above, was a Poe. It was well done -- people called "Poe!" right away, but then started arguing -- but negentropy admitted it eventually. Phew!
#112
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 11:03 AM
'sup wit that, Matt? :)
#113
Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 10, 2008 11:04 AM
Matt Penfold! What did you do?!
oops huh?
Obviously I did something really stupid. Quite how I managed to do it I do not know.
If PZ would care to delete that post I would be grateful.
And my apologies for making this thread difficult to read.
#114
Posted by: Sharky | December 10, 2008 11:05 AM
The work should cite the scientific literature too.
Heck, you'd weed out 90% of them by just asking them to name two scientific journals, never mind being able to cite a specific paper.
Man, this is asking a lot! You do remember some of them can't even name a couple of mainstream newspapers or magazines...
#115
Posted by: extatyzoma | December 10, 2008 11:06 AM
ham
"These people basically worship Darwin--they worship evolution and cannot tolerate anyone who doesn't agree with them!"
why do fundies say stuff like this??
i suppose its because they really have nothing else they can say or maybe because they cannot get over not being like themselves.
"These people basically worship jesus--they worship jesus and cannot tolerate anyone who doesn't agree with them!"
anyway.....
#116
Posted by: bluescat48 | December 10, 2008 11:07 AM
As Christians, we are trying to make the world better.
[i] You failed [/i]
It's not fair for others to demonize us when we are trying to save them! Do you think it would be fair to attack paramedics?! NO! So why do you attack Mr Hamm ?
[i] Because what he says is nonsense [/i]
Our country is a religious country and it amazes me that we allow atheists to criticize us! Our children should be shown only what is right - how dare those people try to force our little ones to learn the evident falsehoods of evolution (the failed theory) and turn to Satan?!
[i] Wrong, it is a country where all religions are to be tolerated with none having more acceptance than another.
As for satan, Atheists don't believe in him/her/it anymore thatn any other deity, we don't believe in Zeus, Thor, Yahweh or any other "god" including satan. [/i]
#117
Posted by: Capital Dan | December 10, 2008 11:07 AM
Umm.. Thanks for the review Matt.
#118
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 11:08 AM
When I first saw Viginie/negentropyeater post I thought something was off. Then I had to go do some work, and when I came back there almost a hundred posts, and found it was a Poe. Fun reading.
#119
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 11:08 AM
Emmet, þat's a brilliant idea! I þink it should really be þe þeta as it is more scientific, but I do love þe runes.
Yes, þeta has a certain scientific "truþiness", but þorn is still used by þe Icelanders and was used in Old English.
#120
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 11:09 AM
I've done that matt
Naaaoooo. You?
"post David Byrne hangover"?
#121
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 10, 2008 11:09 AM
The guy said, "So you are saying that people should have sex in the streets." That was a conversation killer.
Why? You could simply have answered "no, that would block all the traffic"...
#122
Posted by: Robert W | December 10, 2008 11:10 AM
I never thought I'd say this, but we need some Fundies in here. Although it has been nice learning what a Poe is (thanks for the Wiki link!).
#123
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 10, 2008 11:10 AM
Matt, I am almost ready to temporarily killfile you simply so I do not have that lump sitting in my screen. But I never killfiled anyone that I liked.
#124
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 11:11 AM
"post David Byrne hangover"?
yeah went and saw David Byrne last night.
Me, the wife and a little friend I like to call Makers Mark.
#125
Posted by: Matt Penfold | December 10, 2008 11:13 AM
Matt, I am almost ready to temporarily killfile you simply so I do not have that lump sitting in my screen. But I never killfiled anyone that I liked.
Awww, Thanks Janine :)
#126
Posted by: Philip P | December 10, 2008 11:14 AM
Am I too late to weigh in on Mr. Ham?
I think he's wrong.
...
Take that Kenny-boy! Woot! I'm invincible!
What's that? I should say something more to make this not a waste of my time? OK...
I'm a Christian, but I have no trouble believing both in the existence of God and the idea that the universe is billions of years old. I'm sure there's tons of people that visit this site (including the blogger himself, Professor Myers) that would eagerly engage me in debate about the existence of God, just as there are plenty of people on other sites that will eagerly debate me on the idea that the universe is billions of years.
But there is a major difference I would expect between the two debates. I expect that the people arguing against God would be a lot more informed, intellectually honest, and open to dissenting (but polite) views than the Young Earthers.
It's frustrating as a Christian to realize that many of the people I am in agreement with on spiritual matters will be such stubborn-headed fools on other (ie. all other) matters.
Oh, and I have a question, and this is very important:
The Creation Museum features T-Rex's with saddles on them (thus to fight WWII until the creation of the UN, which un-Nazified the world :p)...
Where was I?
Oh, right. The Creation Museum features T-Rex's with saddles on them. Now, this is very important: does the museum also feature raptors with saddles, and if so (the really important part) do they allow you to sit on them and have your picture taken?
Because if not, then not only is Ken Ham a bad science student, but he is also a bad businessman. Because being able to reenact this (http://tinyurl.com/ka9bo) is a licsense to print money. And if Ham is not providing this service to his customers, then he knows nothing of making money.
And what's bad for business is bad for America. No raptor bandits in the Creation Museum is an affront to this great nation and those who gave up their lives to protect it.
Ken Ham
Bad for science
Bad for America
#127
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 11:17 AM
Thus spake David Marjanović, OM #108:
Point taken.
I admit, you make a fair point, though. My objection was largely contrived for troll-bashing purposes.
*looks over shoulder*
#128
Posted by: PaulM | December 10, 2008 11:19 AM
negentropyeater (aka virginie);
Either nobody saw you post @71 or your Poe was better than you thought 'cause people are still talking like virginie is real.
#129
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 11:19 AM
yeah went and saw David Byrne last night.
I'm really jealous. And this despite that fact that I hate crowds, as well as any situation in which there's a stage and I'm not on it.:) David Byrne is great.
Me, the wife and a little friend I like to call Makers Mark.
Now I'm thinking of putting on some George Thorogood. Too early in the day?
#130
Posted by: scooter | December 10, 2008 11:21 AM
Nothing like a holiday season morning bloodbath.
gotta go to work. Keep 'em frothing squidley's I'll check ya later.
#131
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 11:23 AM
The crowd was pretty tame ... well tame compared to the concerts I normally go to.
All except for this extremely drunk woman next to me who spent the entire show alternating between trying to spill my drink, spilling her drink on my boots and leg and screaming at her boyfriend.
I've never hit a woman before, but I was tempted.
#132
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 10, 2008 11:26 AM
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008
Now I'm thinking of putting on some George Thorogood. Too early in the day?
Now I am confused. How can David Byrne remind you of George Thorogood?
#133
Posted by: BobC | December 10, 2008 11:27 AM
DUMB QUESTION.
I've been talking to a creationist on another blog. He quotes a Liar-For-Jebus who said dogs will never evolve into any other species and he said that's a big problem for evolution.
Well, I think he is correct to say a dog species will never develop into a new species, other than another breed of dog, and I had an explanation for why that's not a problem for evolution, but I'm sure a more knowledgeable person could have explained it better than I did.
So could one of you brilliant biologists please provide an explanation for why a creationist is incorrect when he says "dogs can only produce dogs, therefore evolution doesn't work."
Thanks!
#134
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 11:28 AM
PaulM,
I think they read the comments scrolling down, and when they hit Virginie's, they go straight to Post a Comment.
#135
Posted by: Brain Hertz | December 10, 2008 11:30 AM
Wow. Epic Poe.
#136
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | December 10, 2008 11:30 AM
We aren't going to get any real Creationists, are we? BOO!! I want blood!
#137
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 11:30 AM
Now I am confused. How can David Byrne remind you of George Thorogood?
I think it was the Makers Mark
#138
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 11:31 AM
The crowd was pretty tame ... well tame compared to the concerts I normally go to.
That's not really an issue - for me, it's more structural. My ideal music venues are outdoors shows or small clubs where I can dance (so it's like being onstage:)). I always feel trapped in large crowds, and the possibility of a fire, stampede, etc., looms in my mind. Hey - I didn't say I was normal.
All except for this extremely drunk woman next to me who spent the entire show alternating between trying to spill my drink, spilling her drink on my boots and leg and screaming at her boyfriend.
Ick. But I like that you wear boots. :)
#139
Posted by: EB | December 10, 2008 11:33 AM
#50
"It means the cell contains elements that are far too complex to have come by chance, otherwise that would be like magic. They must have been designed."
Argument from ignorance. Even if you could prove it was too complex to have come about by chance, that in itself does not prove design. You have to prove design as well. Do not take shortcuts.
#140
Posted by: Timothy Wood | December 10, 2008 11:33 AM
does anyone else find it ironic that the tree of knowledge provided the fruit that spelled the doom of humanity?
i mean... at least they're consistent.
#141
Posted by: Jonathan Smith | December 10, 2008 11:34 AM
There is little question that exposure to a scientific education reduces the likelihood that a person will believe in God, and does so in a more or less linear fashion, about 10% of the general population are atheists/agnostics, 40% of doctors, 60% of research scientists, and 98% of National Academy members.
Nuff said
#142
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | December 10, 2008 11:34 AM
PaulM @ #128:
Consider negentropyeater/Virginie as another data point in support of Poe's Law.
#143
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 11:34 AM
I'm sure there's tons of people that visit this site (including the blogger himself, Professor Myers) that would eagerly engage me in debate about the existence of God
Sorry, but not really. There is a basic principle that X is assumed not to exist until there is conclusive empirical evidence for X; this is true for all possible X, which includes leprechauns, fairies, hobgoblins, flying-saucers, and god(s). Yahweh doesn't get a Get Out of Fundamental Principle Free card because he's your god any more than the little green men, who anally probed the wino at the train station, get a free pass; at least the wino has the excuse of being off his meds.
#144
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 11:36 AM
We were only getting 3-4 creobots per day, and it started after the Cinncinati Zoo brouhaha. They all said the same thing, no imagination whatsoever.
#145
Posted by: DuckPhup | December 10, 2008 11:37 AM
BobC wrote: "I've been talking to a creationist on another blog. He quotes a Liar-For-Jebus who said dogs will never evolve into any other species and he said that's a big problem for evolution."
This moron's question is based in the delusionist creotard LFJ™ 'cartoon' version of evolution, in which scientists 'believe' that one kind of creature (like a dog) gives birth to another kind of animal (like a cat)... or one kind of creature 'transforms' itself into another kind of creature (dog --> cat).
In other words, they think that scientists 'believe' that individual creatures/organisms 'evolve. The do not understand that it is the genetic make-up of populations of creatures... the gene pool'... that 'evolves.
#146
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 11:38 AM
Janine,
It was "Me, the wife and a little friend I like to call Makers Mark," which reminded me of the lyrics to "I Drink Alone." But really, shouldn't you know this?! (Actually, I missed the origin of that nickname. What was it?)
#147
Posted by: CrypticLife | December 10, 2008 11:39 AM
Poe Review--
negentropyeater, I can only count that as a semi-deceptive Poe, though it admirably tried to keep the relationship with your audience going.
You spelled "atheist" correctly. Most fundies spell it "athiest".
You used colons correctly, and used fairly good vocabulary. For most fundies, the colon is unknown as a grammatical construct -- but most of them do manage to speak out of it.
You used a reasonable number of exclamation points. You should be using at least two, but no more than five, to do a Poe correctly.
You were able to express concepts relatively clearly, with a minimum of teeth-pulling. Actual creationists short of Behe would be at a loss to clearly express irreducible complexity without just giving quite a few examples. You did, however, avoid using the eye or bacterial flagellum as examples, either of which would have clearly marked you as a Poe.
On the other hand, I did appreciate the accusation of evolutionists believing in magic. Nice touch of projection, that is.
#148
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 10, 2008 11:42 AM
Well, I think he is correct to say a dog species will never develop into a new species
That depends on the species concept. There are at least 25 out there; pick and choose.
#149
Posted by: strangest brew | December 10, 2008 11:43 AM
So...a few decent rants of indeterminate length...a Poe....a glitch...a few links...and not one liddle widdle cretinist has thus far strayed into the bad lands to pollute...
They sense a butt paddling excursion to infinity methinks!
Oh that they would resist from straying elsewhere and polluting..like education establishments...but they only prey on the weak and vulnerable while threatening human rights/freedom of speech/constitutional issues to keep the teachers and administrators at arms length while they poison kiddies minds with concentrated effluent of finest insanity...all in jebus name of course...
As for Hambone... well may he evolve into a puddle some time soon!
#150
Posted by: Geoff | December 10, 2008 11:44 AM
If anyone is curious as to what Intelligent Design research really looks like with a fairly adequate summation of it's output, I can give you a pretty solid analogy:
Rent Woody Allen's Sleeper. The part where Woody and Diane Keaton check the cell structure; it looks a lot like that.
#151
Posted by: Guy G | December 10, 2008 11:45 AM
@107: That's pretty weird (apart from Jews who count as a race separately from their religion). It also seems quite indicative of the level of childhood indoctrination and the level at which being part of a community is keeping people in religion.
I would've thought that belief in a god would be the last thing to go (after observance etc), but perhaps that's not the case if people consider themselves e.g. Orthdox Christian, Muslim whilst not believing in a god.
#152
Posted by: Steve Fonken | December 10, 2008 11:45 AM
Creationism and faith based thought are, in fact, excellent examples of evidence for evolution. They exemplify predictions about the imperfect designs created by evolutionary processes. Genetic drift and the tinkering of natural selection on design constrained by the contingencies of previous evolutionary success would predict the emergence of an imperfect intelligence. The fact that human "intelligence" can be hijacked by these constructs of self-delusion is proof positive.
#153
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 11:47 AM
You used colons correctly, and used fairly good vocabulary. For most fundies, the colon is unknown as a grammatical construct -- but most of them do manage to speak out of it.
there's a joke "in there" but I'm going to steer clear of it.
#154
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 11:49 AM
neg,
My "Poe review":
If you're trying to sound like you're from the US, "Virginia" (Lisa, Mary, Heather, Tiffany) rather than "Virginie." And you have to lose the space before question marks and exclamation points - I knew it was someone French, and suspected you. Aside from that, well done.
#155
Posted by: BG | December 10, 2008 11:49 AM
I don't think we will see many fundies in this thread. The bible prohibits putting old whine in new containers.
#156
Posted by: Ken | December 10, 2008 11:50 AM
but þorn is still used by þe Icelanders
Not surprising - what better way to get through those lonely winter nights than with porn?
(yes, I know)
#157
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 11:51 AM
I don't think we will see many fundies in this thread. The bible prohibits putting old whine in new containers.
That was good.
#158
Posted by: butter | December 10, 2008 11:52 AM
I would say that there's already species barriers between many dog races. There's no way a giant grand danois could produce offspring with one of those glorified rats that were so fashionable a few months ago. Also, there's the insane notion of "pure breeds" that prevents mixing of gene pools.
#159
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 10, 2008 11:53 AM
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008
Janine,
It was "Me, the wife and a little friend I like to call Makers Mark," which reminded me of the lyrics to "I Drink Alone." But really, shouldn't you know this?! (Actually, I missed the origin of that nickname. What was it?)
SC has provided THE MISSING LINK!
As for the new moniker, give thanks to the Rookie Weasel. A couple of days ago, there was an epic battle with everyone favorite Cracker defender. He informed me that Jesus "can save the worst sinner Janine". The same night, he also complained that I was there, insulting him.
How could I resist? I can resist everything but temptation.
#160
Posted by: matt | December 10, 2008 11:54 AM
#146
Wasn't it Jimmy Beam, not Maker's Mark in I Drink Alone?
#161
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 11:55 AM
So could one of you brilliant biologists please provide an explanation for why a creationist is incorrect when he says "dogs can only produce dogs, therefore evolution doesn't work."
I'm not a biologist, much less a brilliant one, but, as I understand it, domestic dogs are a breed of wolf. The classical definition of "species", as I understand it, is that species are considered distinct if they don't breed to produce fertile offspring, making the notion of "a dog species" a bit of a misnomer, since all dog breeds are the same species because they can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, mutts, who can breed successfully with any other dog.
In the far distant future, there might easily be two species who share the modern wolf/dog as a common ancestor. If, for examply, chihuahuas were only to breed with chihuahuas and great danes only bred with great danes (for purely mechanical reasons), eventually, in, say, 500,000 years, after 100,000 generations, their genomes would diverge due to accumulated mutations to the extent that they might look substantially similar, as a modern horse and a donkey do, but mate to produce offspring analogous to a mule, that is infertile. The two are then different species by definition. After another million years, and further divergence, their offspring always spontaneously miscarry; after another million, their sperm won't fertilize each other's eggs. I say might look similar because the two phenotypes might diverge to occupy different ecological niches: the chihuahua's descendents might end up with a snout for sniffing out tasty worms, and the great dane's descendents might have big fangs for taking down prey. It's (of course) impossible to predict, they might just end up being substantially similar but different species, like donkeys and horses.
Now, just wait for the "yeah, but they're still the same kind bullshit"!
#162
Posted by: Diagoras | December 10, 2008 11:55 AM
@ #37, Virginie
Census data is the most reliable source for data about self-identification with religion. However, the US has not gathered data on religion for about 50 years or so, now. Organizational records from churches is cheap to obtain - but just not accurate. Some churches over-report membership - counting everyone baptized at birth, regardless of the empty pews, and smaller coffers. Others - underreport - for instance, people who self-identify as Unitarian Universalists are three times the number the church has on its rolls.
So - as the US is devoid of Census data on religion - the less accurate polling information is foisted on us. The accuracy of these surveys depends on the quality of the study (questions asked, the manner they are asked, and the way the data is interpreted - bias can significantly effect/taint these results) and the size of the sample population. Statistical surveys of religious affiliation rarely are conducted with large enough sample sizes to accurately count the adherents of small minority religious groups - CUNY has data from from 2 polls with ~50,000 completed surveys each, in 1990, 2001. In these the affiliation with religion dropped from ninety percent in 1990 to eighty-one percent in 2001. That's a significant difference and this growth in the "no religion" population appears to be reflecting a pattern that has been noted widely in England. Maybe the "atheist" label has less than ~1.4 - but their numbers are 16.4% higher than the number of scientologists, and 14.8% higher than the number of fundamentalist christians. Which, I suppose means I can be 14.8% more sneeringly dismissive of the brand of death cult you follow, by your logic. Unless you're a "born again" christian - then I can be 16.1% more dismissive of you.
Or maybe I could step outside the your-scientific-argument-sucks-because-of-the-degree-of-popularity argument that you seem to subscribe to - and dismiss your analysis on the origins of the universe based on the evidence and arguments you tender? I think I'll go that route. Thus far - no evidence. Thus far - argument = GODDIDIT. I think it's fair to reject that "argument."
#163
Posted by: AndymanEC | December 10, 2008 11:55 AM
I love Virginie's argument, that Ken Ham is simply trying to save us, and that attacking him is like attacking a paramedic...
Well, if a paramedic showed up at a car accident and tried to treat me by chi manipulation, mercury-based medicine, and bloodletting (gotta get those humours back into balance!), you're damn right I'd attack him!
#164
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 11:57 AM
Also, there's the insane notion of "pure breeds" that prevents mixing of gene pools.
Indeed... I've stopped trying to explain to my sister why I chuckle every time she refers to her dog as a "pure-bred Labradoodle".
#165
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 11:58 AM
I've stopped trying to explain to my sister why I chuckle every time she refers to her dog as a "pure-bred Labradoodle".
Why anyone would do that to the noble Labrador....
It pains my heart.
#166
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 11:59 AM
OK, PZ... you might have to officially append this post to warn people of negentropyeater's "Virginie" Poe post...
#167
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 12:01 PM
Janine,
(OK, I didn't know the origin of that one either, but...) Dooooood, I was talking about "Lone Drinker."
#168
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 12:03 PM
Why anyone would do that to the noble Labrador....
It pains my heart.
I doubt the noble Labrador cared too much at the time it was happening...
#169
Posted by: SteveM | December 10, 2008 12:03 PM
Funny but I find Huckabee's switching over to polygamy and bestiality in response to GLBT marriage to be a more polished version of of that guy in the street.
What infuriated me was he didn't just compare it to polygamy, but he actually said "we don't let people burn people on a cross". Letting a gay couple get married is like letting people murder?
At the beginning of the interview, he seemed like such a nice guy, Huckabee. People need to be nicer to each other, the Republicans have gone too far... Then he starts trying to defend opposition to gay marriage and I remembered why I hated him so much.
And I thought Stewart was brilliant with the "religion is a choice and gets protected up the wazoo" argument. Really took the wind out of Mike's sails.
#170
Posted by: Diagoras | December 10, 2008 12:07 PM
@ #166 sorry Celtic_Evolution
I take forever to finish posts - and I should limit my responses to knee-jerk snark. (I'm a lawyer. Sorry. I'm overly verbose.) negentropyeater, with the mighty Poe-ness mojo, triggered my need to grumble about poll data. I hates it, my precious, when fundies toss out the your-religious-views-are-a-minority-so-your-argument-on-science-must-suck screed.
#171
Posted by: BobC | December 10, 2008 12:08 PM
Many thanks to #145 & #148 & #161 who answered the dumb question I asked in #133.
#172
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 12:09 PM
I doubt the noble Labrador cared too much at the time it was happening...
true
#173
Posted by: E.V. | December 10, 2008 12:09 PM
No trolls, only a poe (thanks N-eater)... the thread is dead, long live the THREAD.
#174
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 10, 2008 12:10 PM
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008
Janine,
(OK, I didn't know the origin of that one either, but...) Dooooood, I was talking about "Lone Drinker."
Ooooohhhhh, that. Remember the pirate name generator the was posted a couple of months ago. When I used it, I was given the name of The Lone Drinker. It amused me so I adopted it.
#175
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 12:10 PM
Wasn't it Jimmy Beam, not Maker's Mark in I Drink Alone?
Sigh. It was "my pal Jack Daniels, and his partner Jimmy Beam" (also "my good buddy Weiser"). It was the structure of the comment that was the link. Sheesh - no wonder I prefer to be by myself.:)
#176
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 10, 2008 12:13 PM
Negentropy - Thou shalt not Poe.
The wages of thy sin is that thou shall have no slutty remarks until evensong. And thy grog and swill shalt be withheld from thee.
Go forth and fornicate and Poe no more.
#177
Posted by: Ouchimoo | December 10, 2008 12:14 PM
I think they read the comments scrolling down, and when they hit Virginie's, they go straight to Post a Comment.
Or they could be like me; by the time I manage to get my comment typed and posted about 30 new posts show up.
#178
Posted by: Diagoras | December 10, 2008 12:16 PM
^5s for Ouchimoo. Yay for team slow-message-posting.
#179
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 12:20 PM
Remember the pirate name generator the was posted a couple of months ago.
Ooooh - no! Just did a search, and didn't come up with anything. Could anyone link to it?
#180
Posted by: Ron Gove | December 10, 2008 12:22 PM
The Washington Post reported today that the USA ranks at the bottom in science and math. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/09/AR2008120901031.html) No wonder when all our schools want to do is to teach creationism, have prayer, and play football. It won't be long before we are the 3rd world country that the rest of the world will exploit for cheap labor. It really depresses me that in the 21st century so many people are so brainwashed as to still believe in stone age father-like deities, and salvific cults like Christianity. Why can't the world grow up!
#181
Posted by: Diagoras | December 10, 2008 12:23 PM
I received "Princess Majestic Pants" as a pirate name in a generator-thingie. Best. Pirate. Name. Ever.
#182
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | December 10, 2008 12:24 PM
Hopefully someone can answer something regarding the evolution of dogs, are dogs evolved form wolves or are dogs and wolves evolved from a common ancestor? And does anyone know how many generations it takes to create a new breed/sub species (springer/cocker spaniel; english/irish setter etc)?
Thanks
#183
Posted by: butter | December 10, 2008 12:24 PM
Haha, "labradoodle"!
I don't think the creationists realize there's a new thread.
#184
Posted by: PK | December 10, 2008 12:25 PM
"The one that sticks to me is this. I told one person that I agreed that there were too many abortions being being done. Being a medical procedure, there is always a risk involved. Therefore, both men and women need to use contraceptives in order to prevent this. The guy said, 'So you are saying that people should have sex in the streets.' That was a conversation killer. It was amazing how many of the OR people just stood there, arms waving about, head tilted back and moaning 'Praise Jesus'."
It gets worse -- I remember seeing a thread on an overpopulation-themed video on YouTube. There are pro-lifers who are opposed even to contraceptives because they are "unnatural" and deny people the right [to be conceived and] experience life. ...In other words, rights for the preconceived!!!
...What next, rights for the Infinite Amount of All Possible Outcomes?
#185
Posted by: Dave | December 10, 2008 12:26 PM
Sigh. It was "my pal Jack Daniels, and his partner Jimmy Beam" (also "my good buddy Weiser"). It was the structure of the comment that was the link. Sheesh - no wonder I prefer to be by myself.:)
Yes, and the only one who understands you is your dear Old Grandad.
#186
Posted by: firemancarl | December 10, 2008 12:27 PM
Virginie said
Do you think it would be fair to attack paramedics?!
Actually, we get attacked quite often.
#187
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 12:27 PM
I received "Princess Majestic Pants" as a pirate name in a generator-thingie. Best. Pirate. Name. Ever.
I didn't care as much for mine:
"Puffy-Shirt Pete".
:-/
#188
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 12:29 PM
I received "Princess Majestic Pants" as a pirate name in a generator-thingie. Best. Pirate. Name. Ever.
Found it through Google. Mine's boring. I want "Princess Majestic Pants." Maybe I'll just take it, especially if you're on a weak little cruise ship.
#189
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 10, 2008 12:31 PM
Janine, Well I AM jealous. Rookie named YOU the insulting sinner?! *snort* I must try harder.
Wait...that means insulting slut is still open. 3, 2, 1 -GO!
#190
Posted by: WRMartin, I.S. | December 10, 2008 12:31 PM
OT (this thread is failing to attract prey anyway)
I would like to revisit the typo "fun die" from a couple of days ago. Sorry, too lazy to research the originator. Replacing 'fundie' with 'fun die' gives me a bit of a giggle.
Fundies think it will be fun when they die.
And when they show up the fun dies.
OK, maybe it's just me. As you were...
#191
Posted by: SteveM | December 10, 2008 12:33 PM
Hopefully someone can answer something regarding the evolution of dogs, are dogs evolved form wolves or are dogs and wolves evolved from a common ancestor?
Dogs and wolves can interbreed, therefore same species.
I think malamutes are supposed to be wolf/huskie crossbreeds.
Anti-evolutionists actually use this as an argument; thousands of years of breeding and we haven't managed to evolve dogs into a seperate species from wolves.
#192
Posted by: The Petey | December 10, 2008 12:35 PM
I didn't care as much for mine:
"Puffy-Shirt Pete".
:-/
I got
Pirate Jake the Well-Tanned
Want to trade?
#193
Posted by: Diagoras | December 10, 2008 12:35 PM
@SC
No yoinking my pirate name. Unless your pants are more majestic than mine, you cannot be the princess of them, regardless of the daring of your ship.
#194
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 10, 2008 12:35 PM
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 10, 2008
Janine, Well I AM jealous. Rookie named YOU the insulting sinner?! *snort* I must try harder.
Honesty compels me to say the the Rookie Weasel did not call me an "insulting sinner". But he did call me a sinner and insulting during the same epic battle. I could not stop giggling that night.
#195
Posted by: Timothy Wood | December 10, 2008 12:36 PM
blah blah. paramedics get all the glory. us social workers get shot at all the time. and we don't even get a cool car or snazzy uniform.
#196
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 12:38 PM
PBS' Nature had a wonderful two-part series called "Dogs That Changed the World," about the history of dogs, a little while ago. I don't think it's available online, but it was outstanding. I highly recommend it.
#197
Posted by: Tulse | December 10, 2008 12:38 PM
The classical definition of "species", as I understand it, is that species are considered distinct if they don't breed to produce fertile offspring, making the notion of "a dog species" a bit of a misnomer, since all dog breeds are the same species because they can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, mutts, who can breed successfully with any other dog.
The notion of "species" is problematic in all sorts of ways, but gets especially so when talking about artificially selected organisms. There are many pairs of dog breeds that cannot interbreed "naturally" in any meaningful sense of the word. If we came across these breeds in the wild, they would be considered separate species, as they are indeed reproductively isolated from each other. In "nature", interbreeding isn't just about whether a sperm can fertilize an egg, since what is more important is whether such fertilization can ever actually occur, and whether the resulting embryo can be brought to term. (This latter criterion makes the case of some dog breeds even more complicated, since some breeds, such as bulldogs, have extreme difficulty giving birth vaginally, and must be delivered by C-section. Arguably, without severe human intervention, these dogs can't "successfully" breed with each other.)
#198
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 12:39 PM
Anti-evolutionists actually use this as an argument; thousands of years of breeding and we haven't managed to evolve dogs into a seperate species from wolves.
Wow... even after thousands of years?? Well... there you have it... proof positive that evolution fails. After all, that's like, half as long as the universe has existed.
Can't believe I've wasted so much time... *sigh*. Maybe I can still get into heaven if I go scream obscenities at a gay person...
#199
Posted by: Eivind | December 10, 2008 12:40 PM
Mr. Ham sure uses the word 'zealot' a lot (hehe...). At least he mixes it up by alternating between calling the 'evolutionists' 'religious zealots' and 'zealot secularists'.
The most amazing part is that he uses 'religious zealots' as a derogatory term. What does he consider himself to be? A moderate?
#200
Posted by: butter | December 10, 2008 12:40 PM
#182:"Hopefully someone can answer something regarding the evolution of dogs, are dogs evolved form wolves or are dogs and wolves evolved from a common ancestor? And does anyone know how many generations it takes to create a new breed/sub species (springer/cocker spaniel; english/irish setter etc)?
Thanks#
Well, it's important to remember that during the thousands of years since the two diverged, wolves have also evolved. I would probably not see any difference between the common ancestor of dogs and wolves, and modern wolves, but they still wouldn't be the same. Technically, modern dogs and wolves have a common ancestor that were neither dog nor wolf, but if you saw one it would probably not be wrong to call it a wolf. As for the other question: it could take just one generation, or it could take thousands of years. It's still not certain whether humans and chimpanzees can produce viable offspring or not, which would technically make us the same species.
#201
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 12:42 PM
I got
Pirate Jake the Well-Tanned
Want to trade?
Depends... is it an all-over tan?
#202
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 12:43 PM
Hopefully someone can answer something regarding the evolution of dogs, are dogs evolved form wolves or are dogs and wolves evolved from a common ancestor? And does anyone know how many generations it takes to create a new breed/sub species (springer/cocker spaniel; english/irish setter etc)?
As I understand it, all dog breeds are breeds of wolf. If domestic dogs bred freely with each other and wolves, they would ultimately all end up looking more-or-less the same, and (maybe) a lot like wolves. This happens with fancy pigeons, all of which are produced from bog-standard "rock doves" (the grey things in the park) and will, after a few generations, revert to looking exactly like rock doves if selective breeding is not strictly maintained. The notion of a "different breed" of dog seems to be an entirely arbitrary notion. If you breed a labrador and a poodle to produce a labradoodle, there's nothing to stop you calling that a separate breed except convention and tradition, so the answer, in one sense, may be that a new breed can be produced in one generation. How many generations it takes to produce a "sufficiently different looking" animal that you are prepared to call it a "breed" starting only with the wild species is a different matter. Since pigeon fanciers do do this as a hobby and don't, I presume, only do it once in a lifetime, my guess would be "not many generations", meaning probably fewer than 10 or so, but that's a pure guess on my part, and the rationale may not work for dog breeds, many of which have existed for many human lifetimes.
#203
Posted by: Philip P. | December 10, 2008 12:44 PM
@143 >
I'm afraid I don't get your point here. You start by giving an argument against the idea of God (or other unproven things). Fair enough, that supports what I was saying that people on either side of creation/evolution will argue for what they believe/accept.
But then you go and say God is not exempt from being proven false, which you had already shown in your second sentence. You already gave an example of how the idea of God can be argued against.
So please excuse my confusion here: what's the point of that second part of your post? I never said the existence of God is off-limits as a topic, the entire point of my first post was that people would talk about, and I thought I had implied I was not against it.
I even said I expected all-around better conversation/discussion from the non-believers, the atheists and agnostics. Was your talk about a wino and anal probes and medication to disprove my expectation? Are you trying to show that atheists can be as rude or ridiculous as creationists?
If so, 1) you need to be a bit more creative (pardon the pun). Cries of insanity are old hat. And 2) creationists say much crazier stuff, so you need to raise your own standards to match it.
***
Or maybe it's just that because of the noise in my office I can't think and in a better locale I would understand your point. ::shrugs::
#204
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 12:45 PM
Unless your pants are more majestic than mine,...
Oh, I can assure you they are.
Now I'm imagining a pirate-inspired collection. Could be very cool...
#205
Posted by: kamaka | December 10, 2008 12:47 PM
Maximus @182
Dogs are wolves. They are nicey-nice due to very hard culling and selective breeding.
All the different breeds are not for aesthetics (with some exceptions, like lap dogs), they were bred to perform specific jobs. Terriers for rat control, rottweilers were used as guard dogs and dogs of war, sheep dogs were used for, well, sheep, etc.
#206
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 12:48 PM
Patricia,
this is my Pharyngulact of Contrition :
O Pharyngula,
I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee,
and I detest all my poeing
because I fear the loss of Molly
and the pains of the Dungeon,
but most of all because they offend Thee, Pharyngula,
Who art all good and deserving of all my esteem.
I firmly resolve with the help of Thy grace
to confess my poeing, to do penance,
and to amend my blogging.
Peezed
I will recite it 6 times, which is the number of poed Virginie comments I have committed.
#207
Posted by: Diagoras | December 10, 2008 12:51 PM
@SC
Oh, I can assure you they are.
Where is your evidence of this majesty? Did you do an internet poll?
#208
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 12:51 PM
# 203
I think the point was, Emmett was stating that no-one here would be any more "eager" (your word) to debate the existence of god with you than they would the existence of any other imaginary, mythical creature. It's a fairly cut and dry point, I think...
#209
Posted by: Timothy Wood | December 10, 2008 12:51 PM
did anyone besides me waste the better part of their childhood on a 5 1/2 inch floppy game "Pirates" like... where your family was scattered around the caribbean and it even came with a real map...?
#210
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 10, 2008 12:54 PM
negentropyeater , I hope you have your cephalopod shaped rosary.
#211
Posted by: Chris Davis | December 10, 2008 12:55 PM
Negentropy - is it not time you confessed that Mr. Ham is actually another of your creations?
#212
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | December 10, 2008 12:55 PM
Thanks for all the replies regarding the dogs, anyone know about the evolution of salmonids by any chance?
#213
Posted by: Shaden Freud | December 10, 2008 12:56 PM
negentropyeater,
As your punishment (reward?), you are sentenced to become a sockpuppet at Uncommon Descent. Have at it!
#214
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 12:56 PM
My pirate name: Cannon-Balls Bruno
Better than "Puffy-Shirt Pete" any day :o)
#215
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 12:57 PM
did anyone besides me waste the better part of their childhood on a 5 1/2 inch floppy game "Pirates" like... where your family was scattered around the caribbean and it even came with a real map...?
Oooh... ooohh... a rare chance to espouse some nerdy IT pedantry... I'm all OVER that...
You mean, 5 1/4 in floppy.
#216
Posted by: SteveM | December 10, 2008 12:58 PM
All the different breeds are not for aesthetics (with some exceptions, like lap dogs), they were bred to perform specific jobs. Terriers for rat control, rottweilers were used as guard dogs and dogs of war, sheep dogs were used for, well, sheep, etc.
Yes. It was either a NatGeo or Nova documentary on the dog that showed how all the behaviors we specialize into different breeds are all present in the wolf and have just been slightly redirected to be more useful to us. Sheep hearding in particular uses a number of wolf hunting methods but eliminates the actual "kill" part.
What was even more fascinating was a doeonstrations of how successive breeding wolves for a particular behavior ("not vicious") also resulted in morphological changes that we see in domestic dogs.
#217
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 10, 2008 12:58 PM
Philip P, it's not that existence of your god is off limits for discussion, but that as there is scant evidence for the existence of your god (well, certainly no more evidence for Elohim/Jehovah/Yahweh than there is for Vishnu), few here are interested in debating the existence of your god any more than they would be interested in debating the existence of leprechauns. And, just so you know, I say this as a former Christian, and am aware of the arguments that Christians make in support of Elohim/Jehovah/Yahweh's existence. They're simply not compelling to most who weren't inculcated into the faith in childhood.
#218
Posted by: Timothy Wood | December 10, 2008 12:59 PM
*hangs head in shame*
#219
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 1:01 PM
My pirate name: Cannon-Balls Bruno
Better than "Puffy-Shirt Pete" any day :o)
*sigh*
I'd argue if I could... although, if your name implies a case of testicular elephantiasis, I might not feel so bad.
#220
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | December 10, 2008 1:02 PM
Thanks for the replies regarding the dogs, anyone know about the evolution of salmonids by any chance?
Post a Comment
(Email is required for authentication purposes only. Comments are moderated for spam, your comment may not appear immediately. Thanks for waiting.)
Name:
Email Address:
URL:
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
Posted by: mayhempix | December 10, 2008 1:26 PM
@SC,OM Emmet Caulfied and Patricia
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/pat_boone_isnt_exactly_the_bri.php
#s 243 and 244
Posted by: Matt Heath | December 10, 2008 1:26 PM
Posted by: Diagoras | December 10, 2008 1:26 PM
I got this pirate name when I tossed in my last name. "Frownin' Hidalgo Dawkins." The pirate name generator totally loves me.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 1:30 PM
Thanks for that info, genius. Did you know we landed on the moon?
Yes he is. It's totally evidence that God's work is spreading lies and deceit.
Forever what?
Translation: I'm too ignorant and deluded to understand what the smart folks say so I'll bury my head in the sand and repeat Pascal's wager.
Posted by: Conor H. | December 10, 2008 1:32 PM
About the breeds of dogs: from a livestock breeding perspective, one of the criteria for being a breed as I was taught it was that it "breed true". For example, if you breed a black angus to a polled hereford, you get a "black baldie" with the angus' black coat and the hereford's white head. However, if you breed black baldie's to each other they don't come out with a characteristic appearance. I'm sure if I had payed more attention in my 300 level genetics I could explain this, but suffice to say that it happens.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 1:34 PM
So, a few lame puns make you jolly. Roger.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | December 10, 2008 1:35 PM
@ Brownian 299
Yes. I knew I wasn't alone. It is nice sometimes though... makes you feel smart when someone on the news mentions an abscure Caribbean country, and you can call someone a pinnace as if it were a commonly used insult and then mock them for not knowing what it is.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 10, 2008 1:35 PM
Dammit, Browenian, I had finally scrubbed my memory clean of those things since the last time you mentioned 'em. Thanks again.Posted by: ggab aka truth | December 10, 2008 1:40 PM
My original plan was to keep with the poe thing for a while, but the pirate name generator just gave me "Cap'n Isaac Firepants" and I got so exited that I had to break character and share it.
CAP'N ISAAC FIREPANTS!!!!
That oozes with AWESOME!!
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 10, 2008 1:40 PM
Tulse - As a longtime Bulldog owner and exhibitor, I have to second your opinion on Bulldogs. Almost all Bulldogs in America are 'man-made'.
OK Negentropyeater - as a high priestess of sluttery, I hereby absolve you of your naughty Poes. Perhaps the Rev. will anoint you with something better. *smirk*
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 1:42 PM
#203 Philip P.,
The point, as Celtic_Evolution surmised, is that the (non-)existence of god(s) is, for most of us, a very cut and dried issue that most people are not really "eager" to engage in debate for two reasons: 1) "debate" is a piss-poor way of determining the truth of a propostion -- it's a lot about style, not substance -- and 2) we (most of us), as I tried to explain, consistently require empirical evidence for all existential claims, whereas you don't -- an irreconcilable difference -- making debate utterly pointless. We want evidence, you neither require evidence nor have any to show us.
Not much room for manoeuvre there.
I said nothing of the kind. I said that your particular god is not exempt from the evidenciary requirement that all other proposed entities are subject to. The statement "God exists" is not even falsifiable (unless you have a strange definition of "God") -- not amenable to being proven false -- and therefore an entirely worthless statement whose correspondence with evidence cannot be established.
To drive home the message that "special pleading" will be treated with contempt -- every theist has their own god who they think should be exempt from the evidenciary principle that they're perfectly happy to rigidly apply on everyone elses god. Your god, Yahweh, doesn't exist for the same reason that Apu Nahasapeemapetilon's god doesn't, for the same reason the anal-probing aliens don't: because there's no evidence for them.
Sure, people will talk about it, but not "eagerly debate". You sound like a pretty reasonable guy, but you've no idea how tedious the 429th cretin trying to present the Bible, or some bullshit "miracle of Mount Jermama" as "evidence" is, or try to skip the whole question of the existence of his pet god(s) and move on to something as intellectually bankrupt as presenting the characteristics (loving, caring, forgiving/punishing sin) of this non-existent being, as if it were better than "leprechauns exist because they wear green jackets and shiny buckles". It's utterly moronic and unbearably tedious.
So, if you're not going to be stupid and tedious, then great, people will talk to you.
However, if you are going to be stupid and tedious, then you've jumped into the snark-tank while bleeding. There'll be a merciless feeding frenzy of personal insults and foul language to make you go away and amuse us.
Whining isn't a good start.
Humourlessness isn't a good start.
Supercilious condescension isn't a good start.
FYI, if you thought I was snarky, there are at least a half-dozen regulars here who would simply have told you to fuck off. I'm one of the nice ones (usually) and I'm in a good mood :o)
Posted by: bunnycatch3r | December 10, 2008 1:43 PM
I'd like to welcome all the new Christian fundies to the blog. I've found this place to be a real wild wild west of sorts. Best of luck!
Posted by: Diagoras | December 10, 2008 1:44 PM
@ ggab -
I think as Princess Majestic Pants, it is my honor to invite you to join the Pants-affiliated crew.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 1:44 PM
See, the intentional misleading poe thing makes it difficult for real stupidity smashing.
Posted by: ggab | December 10, 2008 1:46 PM
Patricia
"as a high priestess of sluttery"
I assume that if I were interested in...entering the fold, let's say. I would be expected to get down on my knees, open my mouth and...accept the host? Or hostess, whatever the case.
Perhaps I could be persuaded.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 1:50 PM
Nah... balls of steel, man, balls of steel.
Posted by: ggab | December 10, 2008 1:51 PM
Sorry Rev.
I was just frustrated that no real creos showed up.
Needed to unwind after work.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 10, 2008 1:52 PM
I am surprised no one said this yet. Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!
Please, no more poes. Enough trolls come tumbling through this place. We don't need any faux trolls.
Posted by: Not Poe | December 10, 2008 1:52 PM
I have been reading the comments here and I am apalled at the profanity and sacreligious blasphemy here. You think you have it all figured out well your WRONG. Consider what if I am right and you are wrong what then? My God Is Love and you will burn FOR ALL ETERNITY in
aaaaa fuck it I am so a Poe. Sorry, very bored.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 1:52 PM
A few hours ago I recommended this to Walton, but it has broad applicabilty, so I give you Allen Wood, c/o Damian:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/fyi.php#comment-981847
Posted by: mayhempix | December 10, 2008 1:53 PM
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 1:34 PM
"So, a few lame puns make you jolly. Roger."
I was in hopes you would appreciate the exotic fruits of my labor such as "pois doux" and "ackee" but my appeel has appearantly failed and my dreams pirated away.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 1:53 PM
I just have an itchy trigger finger so I fall for them.
Posted by: Edgar Allan | December 10, 2008 1:55 PM
The bible says that humans are made in the image of God, not animals. Evolution is the way of perverting mankind by first perverting the image that humans have of themselves. It also opens people up to spirit possession. The demon spirits just love animal worship, just look at history.
Evolution isn't science, it just isn't. Microevolution is but there is no valid scientific reason to call humans animals. It is pure hocus pocus propaganda that the spirits use so they can posess humans.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | December 10, 2008 1:58 PM
yeeaaaah... Cap'n Thomas Beerbong. beat that.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 10, 2008 1:59 PM
Edgar, your morphine is very lonely right now.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 1:59 PM
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -HJS
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 2:01 PM
Edgar Allan : Poe !
Posted by: ggab | December 10, 2008 2:01 PM
It's like intellectual cannibalism.
How bored are we if so many of us are reduced to poeing?
Dear God, please provide us with a victim. amen
Let's see if that works.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 2:04 PM
And exlude we proud puffy-shirts?
You just wait until I gather my prodigious party of puffy, pleated-shirt pirates together to pilfer, plunder, and otherwise pillage your prostrated, powerless, pinnace of powdery, pantalooned pirates.
Peh.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | December 10, 2008 2:04 PM
See, for the name Timothy Wood it says Cap'n Finn CannonballsSo how does this thing work - obviously it is based on your name since the same name always gets the same result from my computer.
The most likely explanation is you used a name other than Timothy Wood (and Emmet Caulfield earlier).
But maybe it's also IP address dependent or something, what do I know. Anyone?
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 2:06 PM
I left that discussion in protest when I realized some people couldn't stick to the dried-fruits theme. I mean, if you can't compote a pun on-theme, you don't deserve your moment in the sun.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 2:07 PM
Of course, #261 would make more sense if I could spell "exclude".
Posted by: ggab | December 10, 2008 2:08 PM
Celtic
"You just wait until I gather my prodigious party of puffy, pleated-shirt pirates together to pilfer, plunder, and otherwise pillage your prostrated, powerless, pinnace of powdery, pantalooned pirates.
Peh."
Puck off! That's not a shirt, it's a blouse.
Kneel before the Firepants!!
Posted by: AnthonyK | December 10, 2008 2:08 PM
Oh for fuck's sake. Big poe. What a waste of a thread. Listen, if you guys want to debate creationists why don't you go on a Christian site, speak nicely, and maybe change a few minds. Christians aren't all closed-minded bigots - whereas we, all too often are, or seem to be.
Sorry, but a lot of this debate-the-faux-creationists stuff seems just a little bit like....wanking.
Even to me, and I like wanking.
Real creationists don't come here because we will tear them apart.
But can we have a bit less poeing, please?
Posted by: Edgar Allan | December 10, 2008 2:09 PM
Janine,
All religion, my friend, is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | December 10, 2008 2:10 PM
er... actually im not sure what i put in. i did try several variations of my name because alot of my stuff sounded like other people's names. and i felt cheated.
Posted by: Diagoras, aka Princess Majestic Pants | December 10, 2008 2:11 PM
@ Celtic_Evolution
Pants can certainly do very well sans shirts, puffy or otherwise. Can you say the same, dangly bits out to the elements in your puffy shirt?
However, if you will consent to changing your name to puffy-torsopants, I can, in good conscience, invite your ship into the growing Pants fleet.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 2:11 PM
But... I don't want to burn my blouse...
Posted by: Timothy Wood | December 10, 2008 2:14 PM
hah! someone else used the term pinnace. its totally catching on.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 2:17 PM
Arrrr, but y'need iron balls in them thar pants, arrrrr?
-- Canon-Balls Bruno
Posted by: Cap'n Isaac Firepants | December 10, 2008 2:17 PM
Celtic
"But... I don't want to burn my blouse..."
It's okay, this miraculous ointment seems to be clearing the fire from my pants.
Another victory for science!!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 2:18 PM
I'd reply to this, but I'm afraid it would degrade similarly to the "riding your bike naked" conversation from yesterday... that was not pretty.
Because Puffy-Shirt Pete isn't emasculating enough? How about "wimpy-waders William" or "nancy-knickers Nate".
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 2:18 PM
#273: Cannon-Balls, of course :o)
Posted by: Diagoras, aka Princess Majestic Pants | December 10, 2008 2:19 PM
Are you trying to get in my pants?
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 2:19 PM
This thread has a certain je ne sais quoi to it.
Posted by: JPBrowning | December 10, 2008 2:20 PM
I think the creationist zombies ate part of your brains! This poor thread, while originally filled with some really good information, links, and other goodies that were completely ignored by the creationist invaders has ended up a Poe infested wading pool of limited intelligence.
Btw, I really enjoyed the youtube links provided by RickrOll @ #882 in the previous thread. Simple, to the point, informative, and fun! Thanks!
Posted by: Holbach | December 10, 2008 2:20 PM
Edgar Allan @ 255
If you had half a brain you would be lopsided. Every time you think you weaken our country, not to mention that radish of a brain of yours. "What, me worry!"
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 10, 2008 2:21 PM
ggab - Be careful what you pray for! PZ may grant all the trolls a Solstice fortnight out of the dungeon free card.
Posted by: CodeSculptor | December 10, 2008 2:21 PM
Ok, research.. not that polls are scientific, but as per "secular" or atheist population percentages, especially as per Pew Research, the figures for 2006-2007 is 12 (twelve) percent. That means about 1 in 8 Americans do not believe in God. See http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=386
That percentage is higher than the number of Jews, Hindus, Muslims and all non-Christian religions -- COMBINED. The number of Atheists in the US alone is more than the world-wide population of Jews.
The US was "founded" by people trying to ESCAPE established Christianity as the Church of England under King James I. So if you believe in the King James version of the Bible, then America was founded by people running away from that!
Irreducible Complexity is a fiction invented by a few, and championed by even fewer -- chiefly Behe. It's been debunked time and again in various theaters from the Dover trial court-room to peer-reviewed journals and texts.
If there were ANY research that showed even ONE single valid disproof of any aspect of the theory of evolution, then it would have been :
A> MAJOR NOBEL-PRIZE news and
B> Reason to discard evolution.
Challengers to evolution, provide a single instance of irreducible complexity and we will obliterate it for you. The eye? The flagellum... all been debunked.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 2:21 PM
Bleh. I hate fleeted pants. They're so fr'80s.
Posted by: Edgar Allan | December 10, 2008 2:27 PM
Holbach 279,
A strong argument for the religion of Christ is this - that offences against Charity are about the only ones which men on their death-beds can be made - not to understand - but to feel - as crime.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 2:29 PM
I'm sorry... hold on...
*rubs eyes*...
What??
Posted by: Cap'n Thomas Beerbong | December 10, 2008 2:30 PM
@281 "not that polls are scientific"
hold on just one second. don't confuse the internet poll confounding perpetrated by pharungulites with actual polls.
they may not be precise. but they can tell you exactly how unprecise they are.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 10, 2008 2:31 PM
Huzzah! Holbach - great to see that you have escaped from the monastery. *smirk*
Posted by: ggab | December 10, 2008 2:31 PM
Edgar
I didn't understand a word of #283
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 2:31 PM
Edgar Allen _______
Posted by: moother | December 10, 2008 2:32 PM
PZ, thanks for this new opportunity for us to tell God Botherers that we really find their crackers Über tasty....
hhhmmmmmmmmm..... yummy...
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 2:34 PM
Thus spake Princess Majestic Pants:
That depends on how majestic they are.
-- Cannon-Balls Bruno
Posted by: Edgar Allan | December 10, 2008 2:38 PM
ggab,
I wish I could write as mysterious as a cat.
Posted by: Diagoras | December 10, 2008 2:42 PM
They are imbued with a degree of majesty detectable by the naked eye. (This is me refraining from comments about the explosive quality of your shot.)
Posted by: The Petey | December 10, 2008 2:46 PM
Depends... is it an all-over tan?
yes, except for what was covered by your jock strap
Posted by: ggab | December 10, 2008 2:47 PM
Edgar
"I wish I could write as mysterious as a cat."
But you did, didn't you?
A little slow, sorry.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 10, 2008 2:53 PM
What about atheists that take part in Christian Christmas stories? Are they going to be killfiled? Youtube's MorsecOde for instance...
Can i take this a a new SIWOTI thread and just post targets out here like last time?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 2:54 PM
We're overthinking Edgar Allen...
he's quoting himself... (or, more accurately, quoting the works of Edgar Allen Poe).
It's an attempt at toying with us, methinks...
Posted by: JPBrowning | December 10, 2008 2:58 PM
Emmet Caulfield @ #107
The 3.4% that don't self-identify as atheist probably actually do know what it means. I have a feeling this comes from them living in an area of the country like my own (Knoxville, TN) or worse. Where if you say things like "I'm an atheist" to the wrong person, you're risking violence, or at the very least being called a Satanist or some other silly thing.
Up until recently, I would have never actually called myself "atheist" even though I had given up on god and religion many years ago (I still wonder and have doubts here and there, but I'm quickly reminded of why I gave up on those ideas originally). I think it has to do with the indoctrination that's given to us as children from churches and other religious influences. We tend to see atheism as a bad thing, 'cause it's what we've been taught from a young age.
Not until critical thinking and finding some place for us in the world (not easy in the bible belt as an atheist), are we able to become truly free to see ourselves as atheists and know that's not a bad thing. Or at least, this was pretty much the path I followed.
Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | December 10, 2008 2:59 PM
Spelling his name right, too, unlike some I could name.Posted by: RickrOll | December 10, 2008 3:00 PM
JPBrowning @#278: what you were looking for?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_971160
And here's another! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
For ease of debate. Winning it that is. All i have to do is point to this comment ftw. Sweet. Laziness is awesome.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 3:03 PM
Dammit...
I had that coming. Should have looked at it more closely before posting.
Posted by: ggab aka Firepants | December 10, 2008 3:03 PM
"quoting the works of Edgar Allen Poe"
I admit that I was lost until the mysterious cat post.
It's this damned styrofoam helmet they make me wear.
I know, I know, it's for my own protection.
Posted by: Rick R | December 10, 2008 3:04 PM
SteveM @ 169- "At the beginning of the interview, he seemed like such a nice guy, Huckabee. People need to be nicer to each other, the Republicans have gone too far... Then he starts trying to defend opposition to gay marriage and I remembered why I hated him so much."
Exactly, which is why a lot of people think he's far more dangerous than Sarah "by golly" Palin. Huckabee comes off as much more moderate and likable, gosh darnit! Until he opens his mouth and really lets his views out....
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 3:07 PM
Well he also has more experience and seems a little bit ...um... smarter (did I just Huckabee was smart) than Palin.
Posted by: C. M. Baxter | December 10, 2008 3:17 PM
It's certainly a serious matter
That Edgar is mad as a hatter
He'd suffer less pain
If he'd try to refrain
From consistently shitheaded chatter
Posted by: Holbach | December 10, 2008 3:23 PM
Edgar Allen @ 283
I might as well have been talking to your imaginary god for all the three sarcastic puns I lashed at you, only to have you mumble something incoherent about christ, charity, death beds and crime. A strong argument is made that people who are afflicted with religion are not all committed to insane asylums, which only proves that there are more of you walking around in a deranged state, and only because you morons are in the majority are not more asylums built to keep the streets and sane society free from your insane reantings. I'm willing to bet that your god cannot come here and beat the crap out of me for all the crap I have been giving to his insane hordes over the years. Can you get it to do this? If you can, then I will gladly recant, convert, and join you and your insane hordes and babble puke till I die, and then have eternal pie in the sky. Come on, I like pie, especially lemon meringue.
Posted by: moother | December 10, 2008 3:27 PM
if this quote from the original post hasn't been rehased 100 times then it prolly will be soon...
"Maybe you should write a blog entry calling attention to each insult given to you. I think that's your calling, and it's probably god's intended mission for you in life, to inspire contempt."
Posted by: Cap'n Thomas Beerbong | December 10, 2008 3:28 PM
"not easy in the bible belt as an atheist"
amen.
it is hard to estimate the amount of atheists vs. the amount of people who self identify as atheist.
i've had quite a few deconversions myself. but most of them were flaming heathens before hand. I was just like, "are you aware you're an atheist?" and then sat amused at the shock and horror.
mostly its along the lines of, "yeah, i know you believe in 'god' but your definition of god is so far away from what most people mean that it'd really be best if you used a different word."
Posted by: Edgar Allan | December 10, 2008 3:32 PM
Holbach, 305
I believe it is Montaigne who says--"People talk about thinking, but, for my part, I never begin to think until I sit down to write." A better plan for you would have been, never to sit down to write until you had made an end of thinking.
Posted by: Holbach | December 10, 2008 3:32 PM
C M Baxter @ 304
Good one, but it will never leave the desired impression, especially on his skull, for it is as porous as the ark, and just as imaginary.
Posted by: Holbach | December 10, 2008 3:39 PM
Patricia, OM @ 286
Man, that was a monastery that grew nothing but turnips,"snicker".
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 3:45 PM
nevermore
nevermore
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 10, 2008 3:45 PM
My pirate name is Cap'n Yvette Burntbeard. How I got dubbed a Cap'n is quite mysterious.
Posted by: h | December 10, 2008 3:51 PM
Edgar Allen @ 308
And it was also Montaigne who wrote:
"My reason is not framed to bend or stoop; my knees are."
And so applicable to you, as your reason bends and stoops with your knees.
Call on your god for more assistance, and leave the material quotations to rational beings.
Posted by: Cap'n Firepants | December 10, 2008 3:51 PM
Patricia
I was also dubbed Cap'n.
Especially odd considering I am the very model of a modern Major General.
Okay, that was lame.
I'm a little bored.
Posted by: Diagoras, aka Princess Majestic Pants | December 10, 2008 3:56 PM
When I'm Queen of the Majestic Pants, Patricia, I think I'm totally allowed to knight people - so you could be Dame Yvette Burntbeard.
Posted by: ggab | December 10, 2008 4:01 PM
Princess Majestic Pants
On another forum, I was known as The Sheriff of Naughtyham.
Can you make me The Naughty Knight?
I already have the cod piece.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 10, 2008 4:02 PM
I get to be Cap'n Butch Roughnight. Ooo'er, nudge, nudge.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 4:02 PM
OMGOMGOMG! There's now a Sun-Maid raisins ad at the top of my page! Too funny. Yohoho, all.
Posted by: Cannabinaceae | December 10, 2008 4:05 PM
Yet another comment about design:
Evolution is a design process - albeit a mindless design process. As was surely stated in one or more of the hundreds of comments above (alas, low patience, forgive me, eloquent posters*, for not even glancing), DNA damage** is random (and mindless); selection is nonrandom (and mindless).
From flagella to eyeballs, every supposed example of "irreducible complexity" turns out to have a step by step explanation; often with examples of each step still extant.
It takes rather a large effort to be able to understand the scientific literature: the equivalent of getting a bachelor's degree in science with at least a B+ average. Four years of diligent work. Parroting ignorant quotables is easier, but is about as effective for discourse as solo masturbation is for procreation.
*Forget you, scurrilous posters.
**Damage becomes mutation if it isn't lethal and if the organism has descendants. Thus one could argue that mutation itself is already a first level of selection - selection for DNA damage that leaves the organism viable and able to reproduce.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 4:06 PM
Oooh, stop.
Posted by: Diagoras, aka Princess Majestic Pants | December 10, 2008 4:07 PM
@ ggab
Who am I to deny a piece of cod?
Posted by: The (Puffy Shirt) Petey | December 10, 2008 4:08 PM
In true Pirate fashion,
I am Stealing Celtic_Evolution's pitrate name
I am Puffy Shirt Pete(y) now
arrrgh!
Posted by: The (Puffy Shirt) Petey | December 10, 2008 4:10 PM
And I want to to be on the ship
"Raging Queen"
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 10, 2008 4:10 PM
Oh that appeals to me, Dame Burntbeard!Cap'n of the good ship "Saucy Strumpet".
You left the gate open at the monastery Holbach. I had two turnips show up at my door today. Damned fools.
Posted by: ggab aka Cap'n Firepants | December 10, 2008 4:16 PM
Aye, we may be of equal rank, but I'm the only Firepants!!
Not sure if that's good or bad actually.
Where's my ointment?
Damn that scurvy bar wench! She said it wasn't contagious.
Maybe I just need to wash the codpiece more often.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 4:25 PM
That's sort of like stealing the six-year-old christmas fruitcake sitting on my grandmother's kitchen counter. Is it really stealing if the owner doesn't miss it? ;->
Woo-hoo! Now I can go try and get a new pirate name with "pants" in it.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 10, 2008 4:27 PM
Firepants I'll not stand for you slandering bar wenches. Cease or your bar tab will get several nasty slashes, and I'll tell everyone your codpiece is a false front! *snort*
Posted by: mayhempix | December 10, 2008 4:29 PM
@SC,OM
"I left that discussion in protest when I realized some people couldn't stick to the dried-fruits theme."
It was very sulfite of me and others to branch away from the dry humor. Too much time in the sun I guess (it's summer and 80*+ here in Buenos Aires.)
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 4:31 PM
As any old sea dog will tell you, the calibre of the weapon and the speed of the reload are much more important than the length of the barrel or the force of the shot.
Posted by: Holbach | December 10, 2008 4:34 PM
Patricia, OM aka Dame Yvette Burntbeard
Ha, love that pirate moniker!
Damn, would love to be with you when those turnips come to your door! We will either convert them to reason or have them commit themselves to an insane asylum, from which they probably wandered away from earlier in their lives.
Posted by: The (puffy Shirt) Petey | December 10, 2008 4:37 PM
@Celtic_Evolution
Party pooper
next you'll tell me there is no Father Christmas
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 4:39 PM
I loathe you, maldito mayhempix.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 4:39 PM
///lips quivering... eyes welling///
wh... what do you mean?
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 10, 2008 4:45 PM
Holbach - There's a sign on my door that says "No bible thumpers welcome." Yet they knock anyway. To add to the insult, no matter how rude I am to them they always end by saying they'll pray for me. Grrr!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 10, 2008 4:46 PM
I missed out entirely on the dried-fruit-pun thread, thank whatever. I'd need a really good raisin to stoop that low. Plus I can't fig-ure out a good one for "prune."
Posted by: Diagoras, aka Princess Majestic Pants | December 10, 2008 4:47 PM
Does that mean we're measuring in millimeters, gammal havhund? ( And are we considering the reload because the first load occured rather swiftly?)
Posted by: WRMartin, I.S. | December 10, 2008 4:52 PM
I must have used the wrong Pirate Name Generator. Now everyone on the seven seas is going to make fun of me:
Hawse-Hole Ethel
Anyone want to steal my new name? Please.
Posted by: the (Puffy Shirt) Petey | December 10, 2008 4:55 PM
Holbach - There's a sign on my door that says "No bible thumpers welcome." Yet they knock anyway. To add to the insult, no matter how rude I am to them they always end by saying they'll pray for me. Grrr!
that's called being smug
Posted by: Cap'n Firepants | December 10, 2008 4:57 PM
WRMartin
Hawse-Hole Ethel
That is just tragic.
Posted by: Holbach | December 10, 2008 5:01 PM
Patricia, OM @ 334
On the back of the book jacket about a book of the U S South is this sign:
TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT; SURVIVORS WILL BE SHOT AGAIN
A cautionary warning, and just may hesitate a potential martyr for jeebus!
Posted by: black wolf | December 10, 2008 5:07 PM
Has anyone run an analysis of Poe-ism yet? Looking at our first Poe here, it was alive for half an hour before revealing itself, and then it took about another 90 minutes until people stopped discussing (with) it. If one mediocre Poe can do that with just a few posts, estimate how fast a good Poe could derail and destroy an entire thread with little effort. It's fun to try once, but it becomes tedious and annoying after the first few people do it on the same thread. Please let the meme die, it's starting to smell.
I've learned a lesson months ago: read the entire thread before responding to anything that could be a Poe post. Write your response, but don't submit it until you're sure the Poe hasn't been revealed. Unless you don't care embarassing yourself a bit.
As I say on a different thread, we'll never know if fundies actually exist anymore because we'll keep discussing with Poes for decades (literally) if we don't pay attention.
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | December 10, 2008 5:07 PM
It's interesting that this post notes the lack of expression allowed at creationist sites. For all the whining they do about "academic freedom", they sure do like to shut up all those EVILutionists.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 5:09 PM
Princessa Kungliga Byxor skrev:
Jovisst, metric is preferred, and, no, any competent gunner holds his fire until the last possible moment.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 5:10 PM
Oh, yeah? Try "apricot"!
(It's "Let's hope the nightmare ends soon.")
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 10, 2008 5:11 PM
Yar! Poe'n be punishable by walkin' the plank, ye scurvy pinnace-barnacles.
Ah, we never tired of pinnace jokes.
Between Pirates!, Nobunaga's Ambition, Sun Tzu's Ancient Art of War, Star Fleet I: the War Begins, and the various King's Quest games, I'm absolutely mystified as to how my friends and I got through Jr. high at all. (Could it be God? Must be God. If that's the case, then He must not mind masturbation all that much.)
Thank the FSM my poor high school study habits were already well-established by the time Railroad Tycoon and SimCity were released.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 5:13 PM
Just be thankful you never played everquest or any other MMORPG.
Talk about time sink.
Posted by: Newfie | December 10, 2008 5:15 PM
Poe's aside, 2 points:
1. Demographics on religion (I'll use the U.S for this example) are likely not very accurate. A man may not believe in a literal god, or jebus, even though he attends a Catholic church on a regular basis. But on a census or form, he may be likely to identify himself as a Catholic. Then people use these forms and censuses to compile demographics. Plenty of atheists and agnostics attend or are affiliated with a church for various reasons... sometimes only to appear to be religious. And I'll put a lot of politicians in that category. Otherwise, Pete Stark is the only atheist in congress, and I find this highly unlikely.
2. The Labradoodle had a creator. :P
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 10, 2008 5:15 PM
Don't you people (or would you prefer 'all of you' - sorry about the 'typos' error, but no one is perfect) ever sleep? I left off last night at 12:40am, when I could not get a response to go through (maybe PZ had 'pulled the plug'). Now I see 333 postings already! By the way, come in 99, your time is up! Here's what I tried posting last night:
Emmett - YOU'RE the 'live one' - and so long-winded to boot! The definition of 'abiogenesis' is from Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary - but I guess that the twentieth century is so 'passe' to you. I do find it interesting that you accept 'spontaneous generation' as a scientific idea - does that make YOU a 'liar'? NO - because you sincerely believe this (without any evidence, I should add). I also clearly explained that 'liar' as applied to PZ was used in the same sense that so many of 'the pack' use it. What I REALLY wanted to find out was just how intolerant you people are - even to other scientists who disagree with you - and now I know. The movie Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed was right on the nail! By the way, I 'called' PZ a 'quazi-scientist'.
In addition, now that we're 'talking statistics', do 'all of you' (actually, I thought 'you all', becoming 'y'all' would be more acceptable to y'all) realise that empirical probability can only function if an observational probability can be deduced? Abiogenesis has never been observed, so its empirical probability is ZERO. Natural selection has been observed, so its empirical probability is 1 (or 100%) - near enough. Evolution (and y'all KNOW what I mean) has never been observed, so its empirical probability is also ZERO. Now, I expect y'all to respond with 'the same can be said about God' - not so, because 'it is written' that some have both seen and communed with Him (whether you believe it or not).
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 5:18 PM
wOOt! A real one!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 5:19 PM
only if you ignore the evidence.
Only if you accept anecdotes with ZERO empirical evidence backing them.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 10, 2008 5:19 PM
Little did I know that when I answered a question about one of my many names, I would be causing the restless group to get all piraty.
Wait a second, pirates? I am going to send you all to Neptune and rename myself Veronica.
Posted by: Diagoras | December 10, 2008 5:20 PM
Kanonkula Bruno skrev:
Last possible moment or the best one?
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 5:20 PM
*belly laugh*
Posted by: Kel | December 10, 2008 5:20 PM
Ahhh, Keith's back. The one who knows better than the entire scientific establishment of the last century.
Posted by: Kel | December 10, 2008 5:24 PM
I know the bible says the earth is flat, but in reality it's night at different times in the world.Posted by: Rey Fox | December 10, 2008 5:24 PM
"In addition, now that we're 'talking statistics', do 'all of you' [weird linguistic tangent snipped] realise that empirical probability can only function if an observational probability can be deduced?"
Wow, you sure can talk pretty.
"Now, I expect y'all to respond with 'the same can be said about God' - not so, because 'it is written' that some have both seen and communed with Him (whether you believe it or not)."
So if I were to write down that I saw evolution happening, then you'd believe it? What if I had a friend write down that I saw it? What if I actually printed it in a leather-bound book-wait for it, wait for it...with a silk bookmark sewn into the binding?
How about a scientific jour-no wait, you don't read those, never mind. Perhaps a glossy but inexpensive magazine?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 10, 2008 5:24 PM
Dude: Step away from the single-quotation-mark key. That's it--nice 'n' easy...
Posted by: el maldito mayhempix | December 10, 2008 5:25 PM
@SC,OM
Actually I love winters and, as Jebus would have it, this year I spent the summer in Los Angeles and now the summer here in humid BsAs. I could do with a little less sun and a little more cool.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 10, 2008 5:27 PM
I would've Rev, if they'd been around at the time. For a while back in the mid- to late-90s, a few friends and I played the text-based MUD Ancient Anguish, and I've tried a few free ones like Entropia Universe, but I mostly play computer games when I don't want to socialise with other people.
I do love a good RPG though. One day I'll find that stupid Wizard of Yendor and get that amulet for myself!
Posted by: Cap'n Firepants | December 10, 2008 5:29 PM
Spontanious generation??
Evolution hasn't been observed?
Wait a minute. Are you guys saying he ISN'T a poe?
Well he's using arguments that are decades old and well refuted, so that checks out.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 10, 2008 5:30 PM
'It is written' that Keef Allen is a doofus.
I just writ it.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | December 10, 2008 5:30 PM
Keith Allen:
I'm sorry that being accused of lying bothers you so much - as it clearly does. If I understand you correctly, you claim that if you honestly believe the inaccurate information you've presented, then you're not a liar.
Which either makes you a liar, or grossly ignorant.
Which should we consider you, my child?
Posted by: el maldito mayhempix | December 10, 2008 5:31 PM
@ Patricia, OM.
"Last one out of the room, hand Hitler the pineapple."
There you go carrotlessly throwing hand grenadines again.
Posted by: Diagoras, aka Princess Majestic Pants | December 10, 2008 5:33 PM
Shoves the not-wanted pirate name of "Hawse-Hole Ethel" on Keith. There, WRMartin - you're free to choose a new one. Maybe with a "Pants" in it.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 10, 2008 5:34 PM
Thus spoketh the dunbass:
Evolution (and y'all KNOW what I mean) has never been observed, so its empirical probability is also ZERO. Now, I expect y'all to respond with 'the same can be said about God' - not so, because 'it is written' that some have both seen and communed with Him (whether you believe it or not).
On my, Richard Lenski has been wasting his time. Keith Allen can set him straight.
And please, can you point at a book that has not been pass on from word of mouth, translated a few times; and editted and reedited to fit the prevailing times? Can you point at a primary source?
Just because you are ignorant and arrogant about it does not mean we have grant you credence.
And in case you missed it, most of the thread has been jokes. You are just an other one, just no where near as funny as what has come before.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 5:35 PM
Fallout 3. Awesome.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | December 10, 2008 5:42 PM
Keith Allen:
It's comments like this one: In addition, now that we're 'talking statistics', do 'all of you' (actually, I thought 'you all', becoming 'y'all' would be more acceptable to y'all) realise that empirical probability can only function if an observational probability can be deduced? Abiogenesis has never been observed, so its empirical probability is ZERO. Natural selection has been observed, so its empirical probability is 1 (or 100%) - near enough. Evolution (and y'all KNOW what I mean) has never been observed, so its empirical probability is also ZERO. Now, I expect y'all to respond with 'the same can be said about God' - not so, because 'it is written' that some have both seen and communed with Him (whether you believe it or not). that confirm your inability to actually cope with science. It also raises the issue of whether your claimed degree in math really exists.
After all, the fact that we can't calculate the probability of abiogenesis occurring has nothing to do with the actual probability of abiogenesis.
Oh, and that business about your lies? Since you made a claim regarding the Big Bang that is nonsensical, and later claimed that you got that description from Hawking, we can state quite unequivocally that you're a liar.
I'd suggest you rethink your tactics, but you've given no indication that you've brought any actual thought to your postings.
Remember that Christ didn't care for liars.
You have been proved to be a liar.
Try to think about that.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 5:45 PM
Keith me boy, are you ready to show us the physical evidence for your imaginary god yet? Keep in mind, you have to prove your case, not make our "fail". It hasn't failed in 150 years, and your opinion doesn't make it fail. Show us the evidence by citing the scientific literature.
Posted by: Newfie | December 10, 2008 5:46 PM
I have a one eyed Pete
Posted by: el maldito mayhempix | December 10, 2008 5:47 PM
Keith Allen
"What I REALLY wanted to find out was just how intolerant you people are - even to other scientists who disagree with you - and now I know. The movie Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed was right on the nail!"
Anyone who would reference such a boring silly "movie" as Expelled when talking about intolerence and science certainly does not allow any intelligence to enter his discourse. We are intolerant of fools who profess scientific expertise then use god, jebus, the bible an/or the logical fallacies of ID as proof of concept.
In other words, you are silly superstitious pompous poseur.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 5:52 PM
King's Quest was the first game I ever downloaded from a Pirate BBS. I remember it as being one of the most exciting things I had done to that point (I was pre-teen, and hadn't yet discovered the wanton temptations of the flesh). But, nothing wasted more time in my teen years than the original "Leisure Suit Larry" game... which, in retrospect, probably played some part in getting me more interested in those wanton temptations of the flesh... hmmm...
Posted by: Diagoras | December 10, 2008 5:57 PM
@ Celtic_Evolution
How is that we've not mentioned Guybrush Threepwood and his nemesis, LeChuck? Monkey Island, ftw.
Posted by: Newfie | December 10, 2008 6:00 PM
Yup, brilliant Poe. And it took the discussion critical thought and dropped it right on the fundies doorstep... it will resonate among its intended target, and will lead to a huge first step for many.
this came to me just now, could be the oregano.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 10, 2008 6:02 PM
Thank goodness Keith is here to explain statistics to us. I'm gonna be so happy to explain to my manager that I'll be finally able to earn the salary they've been paying me for the last four years.
No, the response, as received above, is "Bullshit," not, "Yeah, well, you can prove God either, so nyah-nyah-nyah." Despite what it would please you to think, Keithy-boy, the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming, Jehovah himself would be hard-pressed to come up with an alternative theory were he to show up at the Nobel ceremonies in person, car-pooling with Shiva, Thor and Quetzalcoatl (all of whom have 'talked' to and been seen by real people too ya know, so 'Nyah, nyah, nyah!').
But enough of you; you're neither informative nor interesting (and most assuredly stupid). You have provided another datum (perhaps you can ask whatever friend provided you with your half-assed stats knowledge what 'datum' means) in Brownian's Corollary to Poe's Law: A creationist cannot effectively parody an evolutionist, because nearly all creationists by default do not understand the theory well enough to parody it.
Creationists like Keith here even fail at predicting our responses, likely because doofuses (doofi?) like him learn some bastardised straw-man version of 'evolushun' at Sunday School, or some other such fairy tale factory.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, | December 10, 2008 6:05 PM
Oregano he says....
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 10, 2008 6:08 PM
Scríobh Banphrionsa na mBrístí Mórga:
Before you pull away, the optimum for a full broadside, but while you can see the whites of their eyes.
Det var kul, men nu måste jag sova en stund. Vi ses.
*wave*
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 10, 2008 6:10 PM
Exactly. Similarly, one might as well ask what is the probability of terrorists blowing up the WTC with airplanes?
Ah, glad you mentioned LSL Celtic_Evolution. Yet for all the hooplah, the game was more punny than prurient (who knew that the most obvious symptom of 'the clap' were glowing and flashing blue pixels in the inguinal region?)
Posted by: Newfie | December 10, 2008 6:13 PM
yep. seemed to have dropped an of and an ' in my post there to. I'll put up with a few typos though ;)Posted by: Kel | December 10, 2008 6:15 PM
I've spent so much time in the last couple of weeks playing Fallout 3 and I've barely done anything in the game. Most epic gaming experience since Oblivion!Posted by: Insightful Ape | December 10, 2008 6:16 PM
Dear Keith the quaisihuman/troll, I don't KNOW what you mean by evolution(as you named that horrible Expelled rubbish as your source), but SPECIATION has been directly observed. As for you God, there is no shortage of people who claim they have seen him, not even of people who claim to BE him. You just need to ask a shrink, or experiment with acid.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 6:16 PM
Keith Troll,
And you claim to have a degree in Science ?
Btw, 50 years ago, a man walking on the moon had never been observed. Was its empirical probability ZERO (for whatever the fuck that means) ?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 6:19 PM
They're releasing more downloadable content in jan, feb and march.
I actually haven't played in a week. been working on some photo stuff. But going to fire it up tonight.
one of the best games I've played in years
Posted by: Kel | December 10, 2008 6:21 PM
Keith's idea of evolution is Cat => Dog. Of course there's no scientist who thinks that and anyone who actually knows about evolution and common ancestry sees the comical absurdity of such an argument, but his idea of evolution is much like Kirk Cameron's idea of a transitional form.
Posted by: Kel | December 10, 2008 6:24 PM
I can't wait for the PC editor to come out, when there's user-generated content the game is going to be brought to another level.Same, last game I remembered enjoying this much was Vampire: Bloodlines.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 6:26 PM
Keith has bought into the old argument that if evolution fails by asking inane questions, his idea is right. I'll help make sure he proves his idea, starting with his imaginary sky-daddy. No sky-daddy, no creation.
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 10, 2008 6:28 PM
PZ closed the old thread less than 12 hours ago, then invited his flock/pack to do some more name-calling - and y'all are SOOOOO obedient to your puppeteer! I know y'all would like to believe that I am upset about being called a liar, but it doesn't bother me one jot or tittle (I would have put that in quote marks, but I don't wish to upset some of y'all) - believe it or not. Your rantings, barbs, name-calling, profanities, etc. impress none but yourselves - the 'let's all pat one another on the back and joy in our smugness' academy of atheists (sorry about the quote marks, but they were necessary here). Just to completely wind y'all up. someone asked for just one piece of evidence for Creationism - how about The Universe!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 6:32 PM
Keith, fail in one try. First show physical evidence for your imaginary creator. Time to put up evidence that can be shown to of divine origin by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 6:33 PM
IRONY METER GO BOOM!!!!!!
liar
Who says we're trying to impress anyone?
How about No! That's not evidence. That's hand waving. And you call yourself a scientist?
You are a poor scientist Dr. Venkman.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 6:36 PM
Scurvy Keith 'Billowy Britches' Allen spews:
Posted by: Travis | December 10, 2008 6:36 PM
Yes Keith, it is very strange, PZ posts something and people start posting comments. That is bizzare! Whenever I go to a blog and see comments I also assume those people are brainwashed and are just following the writer.
Yes, some people have called you names, you seem to have earned this over time. Some people though asked you to justify what you said and were quite fair criticising it. Is their a reason you will not reply to them?
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 10, 2008 6:36 PM
Excellent! I'm so glad Keith Allan, Liar, has turned up on a current thread where all and sundry can observe his unique mix of willful ignorance, clueless dishonesty and comments thick with misused 'punctuation'.
Welcome to the Freak Show! Gather 'round, gather 'round - see the amazing idiot! You won't believe how stupid he really is! Perplexed by a spherical Earth and people living in different timezones!
PZ should charge a nickel for a gander.
Posted by: Kel | December 10, 2008 6:37 PM
So when biologists observe speciation, are they lying Keith?
When geneticists see patterns in our DNA that can only be explained about natural selection, are they lying?
When zoologists look at comparative mythology and see similarities that could only be explained by evolution, are they lying?
When palaeontologist look at the fossil record and see a gradual emergence of life in the rocks, are they lying?
When geologists through a variety of dating methods test the age of rocks to be billions of years old, are they lying?
When physicists observe the speed of light to be a constant in a vacuum, are they lying?
When astronomers use a variety of measuring techniques to observe the distance of stars in our own galaxy to be almost 100,000 light years away, are they lying?
When they see dwarf galaxies orbiting our galaxy that are measured to be around 200,000 light years away, are they lying?
When they see neighbouring galaxies that contain as many stars as our own millions of light years away, are they lying?
When they observe distant galaxies that are billions of light years away, are they lying?
All the evidence in science has to be consistent, a young earth and an abrupt start to life simply contradict what we know about the cosmos and what we know about the planet through means of empirical investigation. All you have to say Keith is that "Creationism is my faith" and leave it at that, trying to disprove evolution with precambrian bunnies of your own minds making just highlights now ignorant you are of scientific knowledge.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 6:37 PM
Keith Troll,
rather than continuing with your rant, just answer the question, until and including July 19 1969, A man walking on the moon had never been observed. Was "the empirical probability" of it occuring on July 20 1969 ZERO ?
Yes or No ?
I thought you said you had a degree n Science.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 10, 2008 6:38 PM
Alright, who's Poe is this?
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 10, 2008 6:38 PM
Insightful Ape (strange sort of handle, but I guess that you are convinced of your ancestors) - do you realise that you just called me God?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 6:39 PM
arrgh... scabrous blockquote fail...
*headmast*
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 6:40 PM
Feynmaniac, no Poe, just a deluded godbot who thinks he can con us with any physical evidence to back up his delusions.
Posted by: dinkum | December 10, 2008 6:42 PM
What a waste.
348 posts and we get this? Dude's not even trying.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 6:42 PM
Nope Old Keith Troll is a real one. A real dumb one, but a real one.
Posted by: Travis | December 10, 2008 6:43 PM
*sigh* this is the pattern I keep seeing here. A number of people have posed questions to Keith, Keith however ignores them and posts something largely irrelevant to any real discussion, such as commenting on Insightful Ape's handle. Ignoring the questions does not make them go away.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 10, 2008 6:44 PM
Good thing Keith "Inferiority Complex" Allen doesn't know about the squid-ink drills.
Oh...shit.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 6:45 PM
Travis, ignoring questions is all he has--and he knows it. If he has to show evidence, he is sunk, like any other creobot.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 10, 2008 6:45 PM
Insightful Ape, #380, wrote:
My experience with the latter resulted in both an owl and a river talking to me telepathically; no god, though. Maybe I should have taken less - or more...
Posted by: Travis | December 10, 2008 6:48 PM
I know, I know, I keep hoping for better. I just feel I should point it out to him. Often we are blind to our own behavior.
I do not expect anything to change however.
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 10, 2008 6:48 PM
Let's be clear about one thing - are y'all now insisting that Speciation is Evolution? If so, then all (better make that ALMOST all) Creationists actually agree with you! By the way, it would have been more apt to call this thread: New thread for PZ's old wines.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 6:49 PM
Keith, instead of assuming we know what strawman version of Evolution you are using, why don't you tell us?
Then we can address it properly.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 6:50 PM
Keith, it's time to show evidence for your imaginary god. What's the problem? You don't have any? You have to answer our questions or we will stop answering yours.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 10, 2008 6:51 PM
Keith Allen, Liar, wrote:
Wait, PZ's a winemaker now? Oh no, it's just Keith's poor spelling. Way to distract us from all the questions you're dodging, Keith.
Posted by: Kel | December 10, 2008 6:54 PM
Mutation, selection, speciation. Those are the mechanisms under which evolution operates. You don't get speciation without mutation, and selection means that successful adaptations will be carried on in the genepool.That's evolution, it's not a cat turning into a dog (the only people who ever say this are creationists), it's not spontaenous generation, it's descent with heritable modification.
Posted by: Newfie | December 10, 2008 6:56 PM
Keith Allen
My ancestors were apes. Sooo... by your analogy, your ancestors were gods?
If if makes you feel better, I guess.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 6:56 PM
Keith Troll,
I'll repeat my question, it shouldn't be a problem for you, as you have claimed to be endowed with a degree in Science;
-until and including July 19, 1969, A man walking on the moon had never been observed. Was "the empirical probability" of it occuring on July 20, 1969, ZERO ?
Yes or No ?
Posted by: OrbitalMike | December 10, 2008 6:58 PM
Keith,
Interesting choice for evidence. The Universe.
Just how does that relate to a creator? The Universe is evidence of ... the Universe. You say it's evidence for Creation, Jared says it's evidence of the Aum, Golgafrinchans claim it's evidence of the big sneeze. I just view it as reality, and not specific evidence of Creation since that word implies the existence of a creator, the existence of which is not needed, nor proven. If you are claiming t ...
oh never mind, Keith. There is no evidence that any rational argument will penetrate through the biblically thick wall you've built around your mind.
Observation: Keith Allen is a Goddidit.
Hypothesis : Keith Allen is a Goddidit, Ken Ham fan, that is impervious to rational arguments
Prediction : If Keith Allen is a Goddidit, Ken Ham fan, that is impervious to rational arguments, then any attempt to reason, debate, drum sense into Keith Allen's brain will result in denial of specific evidence; poor attempts at humor; ad hominems; reposting old, discredited, "not even wrong", pseudo-scientific assertions as scientific facts, etc.
Methods and Materials : Pharyngula, negentropyeater, sastra, patricia, sc, etc;
Controls : Um, got me there (Walton??)
Experimentation : http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/new_thread_for_ken_hams_old_wh.php
Conclusion : Keith Allen is a Goddidit, Ken Ham fan that is impervious to rational arguments. All predicted behavior has been observed in the subject.
Hypothesis A: Keith Allen is a Goddidit, Ken Ham fan that is impervious to rational arguments who projects his fears on sane people .
etc. etc. etc.
Posted by: Sarcosapien | December 10, 2008 6:59 PM
I bet Keith was awesome at dodgeball. I wonder if he finds inspiration there when dodging questions?
Posted by: Monocotyledon | December 10, 2008 6:59 PM
If you need a topic to prime the pump, how about conversing about the combination of charlatanry and ignorance that are needed to be a prominent creationist?
Hi all, I'm new here.
Having never, to my knowledge at least, met a creationist personally (although plenty online), I am finding it very difficult to understand the mentality of "prominent" creationists like Ken Ham and those at the Discovery Institute. Recently here in Australia, the TV program "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" was broadcast ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ ) and it was clear that despite what some in this thread have said, all creationists are not morons. However, it was equally clear that the proponents of ID that were featured were blatantly cherry-picking the scientific literature to support their stance, and that they were familiar with evolutionary theory to the extent that they were able to do this.
Obviously, most supporters of ID/creationism are not well-educated in scientific understanding, and simply mouth what they are told to believe. In this, they are no different from other naive and gullible people, and their psychology is no mystery.
Those in the forefront of promulgating ID propaganda, on the other hand, I find perplexing, and I'd welcome your views. Do they know that they are lying, but feel that the end (religious hegemony) justifies the means? Are they so intellectually crippled by their religious belief that they are effectively suffering from a form of cognitive dissonance, and genuinely cannot see the falsity of their arguments? Or is there another explanation?
Thanks.
Posted by: Mandy | December 10, 2008 7:00 PM
@ #312
No way! That's what I get when I put in my maiden name, Cap'n Yvette Burntbeard! Crazy, teh internets. So we either have the same name, or we're using different generators. Very interesting!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 10, 2008 7:00 PM
My mom's an ape. So's my daughter.
Me? I'm a scientist, so apparently I think I'm a god (that 'right' Keef?).
I'm fixin to smite somebody.
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 10, 2008 7:02 PM
Precisely which of my questions have been answered - lots of bluster, insults (water off a duck's back however - just realised that I may be claiming ancestry to a duck, quack,quack!), profanity, name-calling, snide comments, etc. Whatever you claim, these tactics are never conducive to a serious debate - the louder you scream is irrelevant. I've already given 'evidence' of Creation - there is DESIGN everywhere! Design IS evidence. Now - are y'all saying that Speciation IS Evolution? If YES, then we are all in agreement (well, excluding insulting and boorish behaviour).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 7:04 PM
Keith, you have testified to evidence, but you have presented none. Total fail your your part. Your word is worthless. Cite the evidence from the scientific literature.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 7:05 PM
OrbitalMike:
Walton's a libertarian goofball, but not a godbot, AFAIK.
Better Controls: Pete Rooke and Fr. J.
Posted by: Kel | December 10, 2008 7:07 PM
What design cannot be accounted for by natural laws?Posted by: Travis | December 10, 2008 7:08 PM
The design questions have been answered over and over now. Here and in many other places because this is hardly a new statement.
Your question about speciation was also answered and very recently, only a few posts up.
Posted by: CJO | December 10, 2008 7:08 PM
someone asked for just one piece of evidence for Creationism - how about The Universe!
[plagiarizing myself]
Creationists love this line, that somehow, 'The Universe,' in and of itself, constitures "evidence," for any position.
It does not. In fact, it's a clear example of circular reasoning. The nature of the universe is the question at issue. It is the very thing that needs explaining.
Take evolution: Science proceeds from the observation that adaptive complexity abounds in the natural world and makes further, systematic observations in order to formulate an hypothesis and a methodology for testing it. The practice of this activity has resulted, as it so often does, in a rejection of the common-sense notion that all this adaptive complexity must have sprung fully formed from the Creator's forge. In fact, all the actual evidence (the result of detailed observation and hypothesis testing) has revealed that all life is related and that adaptations arise from the differential reproduction of forms favored by the environment.
This is not a matter of "two opposing interpretations of the same data." The creationist interpretation arises from naive observation, not filtered by methodological rigor. It is in fact fostered by an unwillingness to engage with the actual data.
So, Keith, what is it about the universe that you think provides evidence for your preposterous fairy tale?
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 10, 2008 7:08 PM
Keith's already demonstrated he's baffled by the concept of the time zones resulting from a spherical earth.
So how the heck is going to be able to process that, since Darwin proposed his ideas 150 years ago, we've only had that long to observe modification in species? You can't expect him to understand that's a very small fraction (oops, that probably reminded him of his own god's inability to calculate pi - sorry!) of the billions of years life has existed on this planet.
Keith probably doesn't believe grass grows, either. Maybe magic lawn fairies replace the old blades with new, longer ones every couple of nights or so.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 7:11 PM
keith.
What is your understanding of what the Theory of Evolution says?
Posted by: Travis | December 10, 2008 7:12 PM
Where is this time zone discussion? On the original post? I'd like to read that.
Posted by: Kemist | December 10, 2008 7:13 PM
Dude, I think you don't understand... We were hungering for a godbot, like, well, like sharks hungering for fresh meat. Do you think sharks want to impress their prey as they eat it ? They just care that it's yummy and juicy. In your case, well... it's the entertainment value that matters.
The stupider the better. Martyr complex is very fun also. Complaining about insults then saying it's "water on a duck's back" is not very credible, by the way. We expect you to leave "praying for us".
Just thought it would be fairer to tell you. Don't expect the preaching, threats and "christian love" to do anything else than amuse us.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 10, 2008 7:15 PM
Keith Allen, continuing to pretend that Kel, and many others, haven't aptly addressed his questions:
Ahem... I've already said this but it bears repeating...
You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 7:15 PM
Monocotyledon, people can believe in both religion and god. Some scientists, like Ken Miller, believe in god, but are ardent evolutionists. They are able to compartmentalize their thinking to separate the professional from the personal.
The typical creationist cannot or will not compartmentalize their thinking, and the concept of believing in god overwhelms their thinking. God must be first, not an after thought. So they try to bend meager facts to support their ideas. People like Ken Ham may or may not believe, but they see a way to make a fast buck by encouraging people to put god over science. So they become the professional fact benders. Are they necessarily less intelligent, no. But they don't think rationally, so they do get caught up in contradictory moments.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 10, 2008 7:17 PM
Argghhh....I was just making a joke with Keith being a Poe. I dealt with him on the previous thread. I knew I should have added '/joke' at the end. My bad for forgetting that sarcasm doesn't come across well on the internet.
Anyway, on the previous thread the non-Poe said,
Etymology fallacy. Just because a word has its origins from something else doesn't mean anything. Evidence isn't always visual and isn't always obvious.
You obviously have no understanding what Chaos theory is. You simply took "chaos" at the popular meaning and made some stuff up.
I don't like the fact that my alcoholic uncle who still lives with his parents at the age of 50 is my relative, but I accept it. Besides, what's wrong with a dandelion?
As a Christian do you accept that man was spontaneously made from dust (i.e, non-living matter) and woman from his rib?
Why does a book written/inspired by an omniscient being need to approximate? Also, Ahmes in the 17th century BC approximated pi to about 3.16. Why is the bible behind 17th century BC mathematics?
Posted by: Newfie | December 10, 2008 7:19 PM
The observable Universe was Created from the Big Bang, and it followed the Design of the Physics of General Relativity. What happened before the Big Bang is not known or understood, yet.
So, I agree with you Keith, in some strange way.
Posted by: Cannabinaceae | December 10, 2008 7:21 PM
Monocot,
I share your perplexity. You might think that people who achieve a certain degree of success must have done that by being relatively perspicacious. A corollary to that assumption would be that they would accept the utility of critical thinking and have some grasp of history and culture. It is perplexing when they appear to be utterly delusional.
Personally, I think that they know they are wrong, but are unwilling to admit it, and feel like traitors for being such cowards. They cannot face the shame of honestly declaring their acceptance of reason, and punish themselves by redoubling their efforts to believe nonsense. This drives them crazy.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 10, 2008 7:21 PM
LMAO!!!
I think the noble Labrador cared a lot, and liked it.
I wonder...
Thou shalt not ever participate in a thread before having read all of it, for that would be evil.
------------------------
After 347 comments, we finally get the real thing! Hooray!!! :-) :-) :-)
Evil never sleeps? Some of us do. Er... No, actually, what's going on is that the unspoken premise of comment 355 is correct: in PZ's empire the sun never sets. Some of us here are from the USA, others from Brazil, others from Europe, others from Australia, others from New Zealand...
WTF? "Empirical probability"? There is no such thing.
Oh, man. If everything that's written is true, we both have a problem.
I hereby write down that I have seen evolution happening. In a petri dish. Overnight.
Posted by: Lee Picton | December 10, 2008 7:22 PM
I notice the thread has picked up with the reappearance of the troll; he's not very bright and not very interesting. But all the posts contribute, however slightly to PZ's pocketbook. He did admit that Crackergate produced a flat-screen TV. By encouraging the trolls, will it help with the offspring's tuition?
Posted by: el maldito mayhempix | December 10, 2008 7:23 PM
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 10, 2008 6:48 PM
"... it would have been more apt to call this thread: New thread for PZ's old wines."
Great wine ages well.
Thousands of years old myths as truth? Not so well.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 10, 2008 7:25 PM
Travis, #425
Keith wrote, upthread:
He doesn't seem to realise that there are some people awake when others are asleep. I chose to interpret this as meaning he's not too familiar with the concept of different time zones resulting from a spherical earth.
Sure, it's snarky on my part, but clueless liars like Keith always bring out the nasty in me.
Posted by: Travis | December 10, 2008 7:28 PM
If I post more, shorter posts, will PZ get more money? I sort of like the idea of helping him out by posting.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 7:32 PM
I'm not sure if it is per post or per view. I like to use post with trolls who complain about PZ, making them realize the best way to "hurt" him is to stay away. Some, like Pete Rooke, are too dense to understand this concept.Posted by: Travis | December 10, 2008 7:33 PM
Wowbagger, you make me feel stupid for pointing out the obvious. I should have thought of that, especially as I have traveled enough to know better.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 10, 2008 7:36 PM
Posted by: CJO | December 10, 2008 7:08 PM
"Creationists love this line, that somehow, 'The Universe,' in and of itself, constitures "evidence," for any position."
They never seem to get the fact that they have a predetermined conclusion to which they try to fit, twist or deny the evidence instead letting the evidence lead them towards an objective conclusion.
Posted by: John Morales | December 10, 2008 7:45 PM
Guys (and gals), give Keith credit - he actually found this post! And he actually reads (though he doesn't address) comments!!
Keith is the brightest specimen out of the hammies who've been led to Pharyngula.
I suppose hand-waving assertion is evidence, of a sort :)Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 10, 2008 7:47 PM
Newsflash:
Evolution is defined as "descent with heritable modification".
Of fucking course speciation is evolution, under any definition of "species" (there are at least 25 that different biologists use).
Stupid design, you mean.
Why are we -- land vertebrates except modern birds, not just humans -- born through a bony ring, instead of simply through the belly?
Why do we -- vertebrates and BTW killer jellies, not just humans -- have eyes that are inside-out, so that the light first has to pass a layer of blood vessels and nerves before reaching the light-sensitive cells, and so that it has to hit those cells at the far end? It doesn't have to be that way: the eyes of cephalopods (squid, cuttlefish, octopuses, nautiluses) are the right way around.
What kind of bright idea was it to use DNA as the material of heredity, and not, say, PNA, considering the fact that DNA falls apart when stored in water? We spend lots of energy to constantly repair it.
I could go on for hours (but I won't because it's almost 2 at night here). My point is that intelligent design is not an option. You have only two options: Either there is a stupid, incompetent designer, or there is no designer at all.
As I keep saying, creationism is blasphemy... :-)
At the top of comment 348.
Posted by: Sastra | December 10, 2008 7:49 PM
Elsewhere, Keith Allen had written:
I have a question I wanted to ask you in the other thread, but, by the time I got back to it, it was closed. So, in case you're still up for dialogue, I'll ask now.
You'll agree, I assume, that you are completely made up of atoms -- protons, neutrons, and electrons. None of these atoms are alive. They're not dead, of course, they're nonliving matter.
And yet you are alive.
If I used that as an example of "life coming from non-life," would I be wrong? And, if so, how and why?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 10, 2008 7:53 PM
I think he made a different mistake: he assumed this was some kind of tiny parochial US forum, because he's not used to keeping in mind that the USA isn't the whole world.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 10, 2008 7:56 PM
You're missing Keef's 'point.' He agrees with you that speciation would be 'evolution,' 'if' he admitted that speciation 'happens,' which he does not. He's a micro vs. macro 'kind': natural selection and adaptation OK, but speciation is a 'fairy tale.' Just to clarify the particular brand of idiocy being peddled here.Posted by: Monocotyledon | December 10, 2008 8:03 PM
#428 Nerd of Redhead:
Monocotyledon, people can believe in both religion and god. [I think you meant "both evolution and god"?] Some scientists, like Ken Miller, believe in god, but are ardent evolutionists. They are able to compartmentalize their thinking to separate the professional from the personal.
Indeed. I know many Christians and other theists, but as I say, no creationists. The more introspective and intelligent of these are people readily able to accept that faith and knowledge are discrete entities and thus need not conflict.
I'm increasingly of the view that religiosity (and the absence of religiosity) are neurologically based. Perhaps the inability to compartmentalise that you refer to is similarly seated in brain function.
Posted by: Monocotyledon | December 10, 2008 8:08 PM
Personally, I think that they know they are wrong, but are unwilling to admit it, and feel like traitors for being such cowards. They cannot face the shame of honestly declaring their acceptance of reason, and punish themselves by redoubling their efforts to believe nonsense. This drives them crazy.
If that's the case--and I certainly hope it is!--then there is hope for them yet. The question then arises, how should one engage with such people? I can understand the temptation to mock them, but that's hardly likely to persuade them.
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 10, 2008 8:12 PM
At last - at least one of y'all says that Speciation IS Evolution. Now, having finally got a YES, then all there is to Evolution would be: whales were/are/will always be whales (just different species of same), , y'all know where this is going! So, since y'all keep asking ME for evidence, where is the evidence for any other scenario for whales, etc? Also, I am accused of ignorance (I chose this from all the profane descriptions) - yet one of y'all says dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible - PLEASE check out WHEN the word 'dinosaur' was coined!!! The same member of the pack also appears to believe that an elephant moves its tail like a CEDAR TREE!!! Yet y'all think I'M ignorant (etc!). FINALLY (meaning I'm signing off now - not out of fear of y'all, but because you can more happily concentrate on slapping each other's backs), the description of the eye's design fully explains why y'all cannot SEE!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 10, 2008 8:14 PM
Keith, still no physical evidence for your imaginary god. Speciation happened. Period. End of story. Deal with it. Quit lying to yourself so you quit lying to us.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 10, 2008 8:15 PM
Keith, define evolution.
Posted by: ggab aka Cap'n Firepants | December 10, 2008 8:18 PM
Keith
Let's be clear now.
You don't accept evolution? Where, and when come to think of it, do the various species (kinds?) come from?
Posted by: Holydust | December 10, 2008 8:18 PM
Poes are a huge waste of everyone's time.
Please refrain from posting them. Please.
Posted by: Holydust | December 10, 2008 8:21 PM
P.S. Keith: Sorry, but you've spouted a well-known fallacy.
Design is NOT evidence. Read all about it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI100_1.html
Posted by: clinteas | December 10, 2008 8:22 PM
OMG !!!
Neg,
what did you do hahahahaa
When I just read through this mess,my first thought when I read " Virginie" was,hey nice,a french creationist,at least she'll have manners.......
Posted by: Kel | December 10, 2008 8:25 PM
No at one stage whales were just colonies of bacteria and will always be colonies of bacteria. Just as they were once fish (but not always fish), amphibians, reptiles, terrestrial mammals and finally to their current form. You are looking at the ends of each branch but not following the path back to the trunk.Whales are related to us, our ancestors speciated from whales a couple of hundred millions of years ago. Animals that led to whales went one way, animals that led to man went another. But at the heart we are still both offspring of that common ancestor a couple of hundred million years ago. Where we see speciation now is just more branching on the evolutionary tree, like twigs coming off branches, then more twigs coming of previous twigs.
The tree of life:
\/.\|/...\/
.\../...\/
..\/..\./
...\/.|/
....\|/
.....|
Posted by: Holbach | December 10, 2008 8:26 PM
Keith Allen @ 348
Good grief, are you related to Edgar Allen, your confederate in nonsense?
In your last sentence you said "some have both seen and communed with him, whether you believe it or not". So I suppose that the last bit is the deciding factor and qualifies it as proof that your imaginary god exists, whether it does or not? You have but to show us your god standing in front of us and saying "Hey", and we will definitely buy it. Again, if a mentally disturbed person in an asylum said he saw god and talked to it(notice the "it"?) you would say he is full of shit and definmitely belongs where he is. But we are to believe that you see your god and talk to it and not consider you insane? Are you mad?
And you said in #417 that there is design everywhere and design is evidence. If I discovered the image of your god in a turd lying in the street, am I to assume that this turd image is divinely designed and therefore evidence for your god's existence? What am I to exclaim when I see this miraculous image of your god in a turd, lying in the gutter after having been crapped out by an uncaring dog? "Holy Shit"? Come on, get the crap out of your brain and get real. There is no god but the imaginary thing that resides in your unbalanced mind that can still differentiate between an image of your god on a dog turd and one which your minds forms. All insane bullshit.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 8:27 PM
clinteas,
it was all your fault ;-)
Posted by: John Morales | December 10, 2008 8:30 PM
K:
Gotta love the triumphalism :)That quote shows Keith is ignorant of taxonomy, since he clearly confuses species with the higher order taxa.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 10, 2008 8:37 PM
David Marjanović, #443, wrote
Yeah, I know. If it'd been anyone else I'd have let it pass without comment - but Keith the Liar is such a disingenuous tool that I refuse to let him get away with anything that I can be amusingly snarky about.
Oh, and according to his early posts, he's from New Zealand. Maybe we can send Ichthyic around to slip journal articles under his door...
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 10, 2008 8:42 PM
Holbach #455,
I doubt it, the previous "Edgar Allan" really was a Poe (Edgar Allan Poe), and I have checked his comments (apart from the first one), including his replies to you, were directly quotes from Edgar Allan Poe.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 10, 2008 8:43 PM
Poester trolls replicate by fucking themselves.
Posted by: mayhempix | December 10, 2008 8:47 PM
"Poester trolls replicate by fucking themselves"
This comment not intended for negentropyeaterpoes.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 10, 2008 8:55 PM
I know. I wanted to trigger comment 447. Here goes:
Why?
Ever seen Basilosaurus, Georgiacetus, Rodhocetus, Ambulocetus, Pakicetus, Remingtonocetus, Ichthyolestes, Indohyus, Diacodexis, Gujaratia? Probably not. So first look them up and then come back here to continue the discussion.
Well, "tree" is among the worst metaphors I can think of for any dinosaur tail.
What's really going on here is that it's not an elephant -- and not a tail. It's a hippo, and it's the penis. Just like how the "stones" are the testicles; neither elephants nor any non-mammals (like dinosaurs) possess a scrotum.
It doesn't even correct for chromatic aberration -- except in the crudest possible manner: only 4 % of the color receptors in the human eye are for blue. Lenses that correct for chromatic aberration have been made for centuries, but none of these designs is found in any vertebrate eye (at least).
What have I missed?
"Edgar Allen" was evidently a pun on Keith Allen and on Edgar Allan Poooooooe!
Posted by: Another Lost Soul | December 10, 2008 9:02 PM
*sigh* Why are the fundies never around when you need them?
As for the pirate name thing, my name came up as "Tripod" Lindsey Scarr. The quotes were already there.
What is this "Tripod" to which they refer...?
Posted by: RickrOll | December 10, 2008 9:18 PM
So, you want fundies? i got none. Only wishy-washy intellectually dishonest christians. But, if you are still interested...
Posted by: Another Lost Soul | December 10, 2008 9:27 PM
@ RickrOll #464
I'll pass. The watered-down ones just aren't as much fun to beat in a debate ^_^
Posted by: RickrOll | December 10, 2008 9:37 PM
Another Lost Soul- meet Nance. http://womenintheword.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/evolution-evaluation/
She's alot of fun, right guys? She was was on the SIWOTI thread. And just because they aren't fundies, doensn't mean they can't be goaded into showing pigheadedness and such Exhibit A of that: http://suddenlyatheist.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/responding-to-the-suddenly-christian/
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | December 10, 2008 9:58 PM
Pillage, then burn. -Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates
Posted by: C. M. Baxter | December 10, 2008 10:11 PM
It's certainly a serious matter
That Keith is mad as a hatter
Oops, I already used this way back there. Should've waited.
Posted by: Insightful Ape | December 10, 2008 10:13 PM
Hey Keith, you don't have a clue what speciation means. Look it up in a dictionary(if you know what THAT is).
And no, whales weren't always whales. As it turns out the fossil transition for whales from land mammals is one of the best on record.
As for design-of course it everywhere. And it shows that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Look at an eye, and how can you deny the love of his Noodly Goodness? Besides, there are plenty of people today(including me)who have been touched by His Appendages. You may not believe me, but that still puts the FSM on the same footing as your god.
Posted by: Simon Scott | December 10, 2008 10:23 PM
Mine also, especially when you consider that a curly-coated retriever is better looking that a stupid labradoodle, and is just about as smart as a labrador.
We have one of each btw - a yellow lab and a liver-coloured CCR.
Posted by: melior | December 10, 2008 11:51 PM
#463:
Even a pirate with two peglegs takes them off at night.
Posted by: g2 | December 11, 2008 12:32 AM
Ken Ham has a museum? Doesn't he know that the term "museum" refers to a Temple for the Muses? That's why the Christians burnt down the Alexandrian Museum containing the great library of antiquity. He's obviously going straight to Hell if he ever gets out of jail.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 11, 2008 1:36 AM
G2, it is Kent Hovind who is in prison. Ham is a free range pig.
Posted by: rcn2 | December 11, 2008 2:33 AM
Responding to #93 from wayyyy back:
There's nothing morally abhorrent about abortion? That's as morally questionable as the Christian definition that life starts at conception. Obviously a late term abortion with a healthy foetus and developing brain is morally abhorrent. Or do you define a person simply on their location? If it was possible to jump in and out of the womb would the baby become a person, and ethically wrong to kill, and then not a person, and perfectly fine to abort, back and forth, over and over again?
It's only your body when their isn't two of them. Then it gets complicated.
Cheers
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | December 11, 2008 2:34 AM
Here's a few I've picked up in my career.
Barnacle Brain Edmund
Mad Sam Flint
Dirty Beeper Sterner
Will McKracken
Mizzen-dog Maurice Smythe
Swashbuckler Domingo the Dark
Plunderin' Billy
Captain William Drake
One Swivel Gun Jane (It was freezing, I was desperate, you try finding a pair of pants when your ship is being shot away all around you. Besides, it was a kilt.)
Boatswain Charlie Swachbuckler
Posted by: JoeB | December 11, 2008 3:03 AM
For those interested in Dog evolution and their relation to wolves, get a hold of: Dogs: A startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution, 2001, by Frank and Norma Coppinger. You can read excerpts and the table of contents at Amazon. Should be in any good sized library.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 11, 2008 3:08 AM
close, but not quite: the descendants of whales [i]will[/i] always be, in a way, whales. BUT the predecessors of whales [i]were[/i] not always whales. evolution is a one-way street, meaning the descendants are all that their predecessors were (to a point), but not the other way 'round., so:-- whales will always be whales, mammals, reptilians, fish, multicelled lifeforms, lifeforms.
--a non-whale, mammalian ancestor would be a mammal, a reptile, a fish, a multicelled lifeform, a lifeform, but not a whale
-- a reptilian ancestor would be a reptile, a fish, a multicelled lifeform, a lifeform.
-- etc, utnil you arrive at the most primitive lifeform, which is only that: a very basic form of life
what you don't seem to understand is that [i]speciation[/i] means that if two populations become different enough, they become two new [i]species[/i], different from each other, and from the original population, but still being part of the original population at a higher level. that's called taxonomy. it does not mean that no new species ever evolve, it means that each new species will be still part of all the things that the species of its origin was.
hence, humans are apes, apes are primates, primates are mammals, mammals are vertebrates, vertebrates are animals
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 11, 2008 3:11 AM
HTML fail. note to self, PREVIEW, then post :-p
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 11, 2008 3:45 AM
or to put it in a different light, imagine there was an immortal alien observing the development of life on earth, and classifying it into taxonomies as life developed:
-->originally, there was only the species "lifeform". then there were several species (animal, plant, fungus, and two kinds of single celled life forms), which were all lifeforms. at this point, "lifeform" stopped being a species and became a genus.
-->from the species animal developed vertebrates and non-vertebrates; at that point, "animal" stopped being a species, and became the genus, while "lifeform" became the family
-->vertebrates became several different other species, including "cetacean" (mammal that looks like a fish), at which point, "vertebrate" became the genus, "animal"became the family, "lifeform" became the order
-->the species "cetacean" (mammal that looks like a fish) split and developed into 3 subspecies of whale, including baleen whale
and so on, until you arrive at the current state, with lifeform, kingdom animal, phylum vertebrates, class mammal, order cetacean (suborder baleen whale), family furrow whale, genus Balaenoptera, species acutorostrada
note that everything up to "order" is a whale, but they're NOT the same species. and if Balaenoptera Acutorostrada (Minke Whale) split into two new species again, we'd have to invent a new term for them. currently we use sub-species, and that might be enough for the length of human existence, but our imaginary immortal alien might have to some up with something else entirely.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 11, 2008 4:49 AM
"I hereby write down that I have seen evolution happening. In a petri dish. Overnight."
Good, good. Now throw in a few "thee"s and "thou"s and maybe hint at eternal consequences for not believing in it, and we should hook ourselves a Keith. Hallelujah, It Is Written.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 11, 2008 4:58 AM
Jadehawk, you forgot the Empires- Prokaryota and Eukaryota. For shame. There is also a different conception where it is 3 domains, which is interesting as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_kingdom_system
Posted by: SC, OM | December 11, 2008 5:07 AM
Nope, pretty sure it's still my body, asshole.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 11, 2008 5:35 AM
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080721/arons
Posted by: Perplexed | December 11, 2008 6:14 AM
Any idea how long this pointless debate can continue.
Reason and evidence can never win because it's arguing against a point of view that requires neither and yet is certain that it's correct.
So how long until they give up, any guesses?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 11, 2008 6:43 AM
If it was possible to jump in and out of the womb would the baby become a person, and ethically wrong to kill, and then not a person, and perfectly fine to abort, back and forth, over and over again? - rcn2
Well that's rather the point: it isn't possible, and moral decisions should take account of such facts. Nature has provided us with a very obvious dividing line - birth - in deciding when to assign full human rights. Until then, the foetus is physically contained within the mother's body, and physiologically parasitic on her.
to put the dividing line we need in deciding when, between the fertilised ovum (which is obviously not a person) and the adult (who obviously is), to assign full human rights
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 11, 2008 6:46 AM
Sorry - last paragraph in #485 was supposed to have ben edited out.
Posted by: Pimientita | December 11, 2008 7:26 AM
No. That said, at least atheists thank the paramedics for their hard work when they save our lives instead of giving all of the credit to an invisible sky-fairy.
Oh, and your analogy fails because we can actually see the results of paramedics' work and trace it back to them. Unlike Ken Ham and your imaginary friend.
Posted by: CosmicTeapot | December 11, 2008 7:27 AM
If you put Keith Allens name in the generator, you get:
Ham-Hands Patrick
Figures!
Posted by: CosmicTeapot | December 11, 2008 7:30 AM
So sayz Pantin' Hank Dregg
Ooh Aargh Huff Huff
Posted by: Ken Rhorer | December 11, 2008 10:59 AM
Logical Fallacy: Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person). Attacking the arguer rather than his/her argument.
You see, if you have a weak case, the only solution is to attack the person bringing forth the argument. All I see here are attacks but where's the beef? I dare you to have an intelligent conversation. Read the evidence found here and then rebut it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 11, 2008 11:05 AM
But you see Ken, all of that has been answered, in spades. When the Creationists chose to ignore all the actual empirical evidence for evoltuion and continue to regurgitate the same debunked canards over and over ad nauseum, we get annoyed and resort to ridicule to show our utter distaste for the deceitful and willfully ignorant actions of the folks that you link to.
Posted by: abb3w | December 11, 2008 11:08 AM
Keith Allen: I've already given 'evidence' of Creation - there is DESIGN everywhere! Design IS evidence.
You've claimed the validity of design as an inference. Technological design is itself an evolutionary process of competitive selection of variations; see historian George Basalla's book "The Evolution of Technology" for elucidation. The fundamental difference between blind evolution and deliberate design is the latter has a specific element of purpose (or "agency" in philosophy jargon). Your claim of design does not have any explicit evidence to support a claim of purpose, since at present you have not given an explicit purpose to claim. No evidence, no purpose, no point, no theory, no science, NO COOKIE!
Keith Allen: Let's be clear about one thing - are y'all now insisting that Speciation is Evolution?
VARIATION:
1) Variation exists in all populations.
2) Some of that variation is heritable.
3) Base pair sequences are encoded in a set of self-replicating molecules that form templates for making proteins.
4) Combinations of genes that did not previously exist may arise via "Crossing over" during meiosis, which alters the sequence of base pairs on a chromosome.
5) Copying errors (mutations) can also arise, because the self-replication process is of imperfect (although high) fidelity; these mutations also increase the range of combinations of alleles in a gene pool.
6) These recombinations and errors produce a tendency for successively increasing genetic divergence radiating outward from the initial state of the population.
SELECTION:
7) Some of that heritable variation has an influence on the number of offspring able to reproduce in turn, including traits that affect mating opportunities, or survival prospects for either individuals or close relatives.
8) Characteristics which tend to increase the number of an organism's offspring that are able to reproduce in turn, tend to become more common over generations and diffuse through a population; those that tend to decrease such prospects tend to become rarer.
9) Unrepresentative sampling can occur in populations which alters the relative frequency of the various alleles for reasons other than survival/reproduction advantages, a process known as "genetic drift".
10) Migration of individuals from one population to another can lead to changes in the relative frequencies of alleles in the "recipient" population.
SPECIATION:
11) Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can "favor" different traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.
12) A new species develops (often initiated by temporary environmental factors such as a period of geographic isolation) when a sub-population acquires characteristics which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation from the alternate population, limiting the diffusion of variations thereafter.
SUFFICIENCY:
13) The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of initially similar life forms over time.
14) Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on Earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct forms indirectly observed from the fossil record.
That's what Evolution IS. If you have a problem with Evolution, you have a problem with one or more of these fourteen points. Which one is it? Please provide evidence that any of the points are incorrect.
While the origins of life are a question of interest to evolutionary biologists and frequently studied in conjunction with researchers from other fields such as geochemistry and organic chemistry, the core of evolutionary theory itself does not rest on a foundation that requires any knowledge about the origins of life on earth. It is primarily concerned with the change and diversification of life after the origins of the earliest living things - although there is not yet a consensus as to how to distinguish "living" from "non-living".
Evolution does NOT demand that all variations are explained this way; that there are no other mechanisms by which variation may arise, be passed, or become prevalent; or that there is no other way life diversifies. Any and all of these may be valid topics for conjecture... but without evidence, they aren't science.
Posted by: Corey Purdy-Smith | December 11, 2008 11:27 AM
"If it was possible to jump in and out of the womb would the baby become a person, and ethically wrong to kill, and then not a person, and perfectly fine to abort, back and forth, over and over again?" - rcn2
In such a case there would be no need to abort. The woman could just refuse to let the feotus back in.
Posted by: Corey Purdy-Smith | December 11, 2008 11:31 AM
"If it was possible to jump in and out of the womb would the baby become a person, and ethically wrong to kill, and then not a person, and perfectly fine to abort, back and forth, over and over again?" - rcn2
In such a case there would be no need to abort. The woman could just refuse to let the feotus back in.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 11, 2008 11:32 AM
Oooh, that gives me an idea...
D'Souza's cracked me up.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 11, 2008 11:51 AM
Ken -
when someone acts ignorantly, and is called ignorant, it's not an ad-hominem.
I'm starting to actually think that religious fundies like Ken here are in fact afflicted with a physical condition whereby words that actually provide evidence against their magically, sky-fairy provided beliefs are in fact invisible.
Ken, you've GOT to be kidding... there are literally more than a HUNDRED posts between this thread and its predecessor that give clear, simple, and abundant explanations for EVERY argument that's been posed by anyone who's appeared here so far. In fact, one with very little understanding of science or evolution could, and SHOULD be able to read through this thread and have a pretty fair understanding of how evolution works, fundamentally. That you can claim to have read through these posts and claim that "there's no beef" is simply astounding, and shows a propensity that you, and other god-bothers have for "cherry-picking" information. That is, selectively reading and citing bits and pieces of a larger discussion, pointing out the few, out of context items that even closely fit your argument, and completely ignoring any relevant or substantive information that might show you to be an ignorant half-wit.
And that's what you've done here. If you'd actually READ through ALL of the posts, you'd never make that statement.
Oh... and yeah, we also spend alot of time pointing and laughing, where necessary. It's well deserved.
No, you dare us to have a CIVIL conversation where we instantly kneel and show deference and undeserved respect for your poisonous mythology. Sorry, respect is earned. And if you've intentionally come to a godless liberal blog expecting civility while you espouse your silly mythology and demand we respect your lack of evidence... well, you're an idiot.
You're confusing the meaning of 'evidence'. Pick up a book (preferably one written within the last hundred years or so). Find out for yourself what "evidence" is, from a scientific standpoint. You really don't understand the word, I'm afraid.
Posted by: CosmicTeapot | December 11, 2008 12:09 PM
Thanks a lot Emmet @495
Looks like I'm, huff, huff, related to Jerry Falwell, AKA Sweatin' Bruno Dregg!
Still, there's always a, huff, bad 'un in every family.
Pantin' Hank Dregg is still not, huff, huff, amused though.
Ooh Aargh Huff Huff
Posted by: SC, OM | December 11, 2008 12:14 PM
That is how I will refer to him from this day forward.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 11, 2008 12:20 PM
CosmicTeapot,
Don't worry, he's not doing much sweating any more.
SC,OM,
Indeed. Cap'n Buttwipe has a great ring to it and couldn't be more appropriate.
Posted by: Ken Rhorer | December 11, 2008 12:38 PM
I finished reading all the posts and several have posted YouTube videos. Here are a few of my own. Again, instead of attacking (Ad Hominem), let's have an intelligent conversation:
Evidence against evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBhiXoK30ms
Evolution fraud
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M3rUKKTiNo
Part 2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncsBSMmqZaM
Solar System evidence- First of nine parts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtFjGvf6QFg
See http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=mayartay&view=videos for the remainder of the series and more.
The Lucy fossil
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/lucy/lucy-shes-no-lady
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 11, 2008 12:42 PM
george w. bush......Pants-Down Davy
dick cheney..........Butt-Ugly Elmer Hacke
Mike Huckabee......Pirate Laird the Fruit
Sarah Palin............Can't-Remember-Where-the-Damn-Treasure's-Buried Brit
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 11, 2008 12:48 PM
Those are amazingly appropriate.
Posted by: Jadehawk | December 11, 2008 1:09 PM
www.talkorigins.org
ok, done. next?
Posted by: B. | December 11, 2008 1:16 PM
@Ken Rhorer
I just clicked on the first youtube link; there's a guy pretending that "there is no transitional fossil" between fish and amphibians. That is not "evidence against evolution", is not evidence for nothing except creationism dishonesty. That means: LYING. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik )
I've always asked myself, what is a "transitional form" ( between fishes and amphibians, let's say ) for a creationist ? how should it look ?
Posted by: Josh | December 11, 2008 1:22 PM
All forms are transitional. Species evolve until they die. We don't even look for transitional forms, per se. We look for transitional features. You want to have an intelligent conversation; I'm all for it. But first we must make sure we're using the same terms. This is a conversation about a science subject. Please constrain the conversation to terms and phrases we actually use when talking about evolution.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 11, 2008 1:22 PM
Sure, lets.
Who is going to represent your side? Those videos already have broken the intelligent conversation rules you established.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 11, 2008 1:28 PM
How about this Ken.
You provide us with specific evolutionary research you question. Tell us why you find it to be wrong or insufficient and then show your empirical evidence that refutes it. We can start from there.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 11, 2008 1:38 PM
Ken -
You're new to this "attacking evolution" nonsense, aren't you? All you've done is come up with some of the most popular (and weakest, incidentally) arguments against evolution that we've already covered and debunked at least a hundred times before. But you're far too lazy to look for answers that might actually come from accredited, peer-reviewed scientific journals, and didn't originate from AIG, aren't you?
If you want us to take you seriously, you're going to have to stop using AIG as a reference for anything "factual". AIG is a propaganda site with no more factual basis in the sciences than mugglenet.com. No one in the scientific community believes that anything found in AIG has any merit, scientifically. None of its claims or finding are based in evidence. None of them are backed up by any scientific journal, nor are an of them supported in any independent, scientifically administered study. Why would you intentionally use that as a reference for an "intelligent" discussion about science? That's not intelligent at all, Ken.
The only thing you will find in AIG that even remotely rings true is that evolution may not have every answer for every question we have regarding the natural world and the origins of life. But that is not how the theory of evolution works... nor any scientific theory, Ken. And besides... not having all the answers doesn't automatically mean "god did it". Sure you are aware of that, right?
Try reading this in regards to the "lucy" garbage AIG tried to pass off: http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/09/lucy-you-got-some-splaining-to-do.html
Posted by: Admiral (yes, ive been promoted) Timothy Beerbong | December 11, 2008 1:38 PM
...ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
*gasp*
hahahahahahahahahahaahahahaahaha...
*breathes heavily*
Did he just seriously cite AIG?
That's awesome.
Literally inspiring awe.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 11, 2008 1:45 PM
Like a taxidermist's hoax, half-fish and half-frog; two organisms cut apart and glued together:
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/fishibian.html
(Note that the above page does also do a very good job in explaining what "transitional" fossils do look like; as Josh@#506 summarizes, taxonomists look carefully at the transitional features, which include a large matrix of homologous bones, and their shapes and relative locations. I recommend it as a link to show to creationists who are unclear on the concept.)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 11, 2008 1:45 PM
Ken, lets make sure you understand a little of how science works.
First of all, science is the volume of papers that comprise the scientific literature. That is a very large amount of evidence.
Secondly, only science can be used to refute science. Religion cannot refute science, nor can science refute religion. But religion looks bad when it differs dramatically from the scientific knowledge.
For a theory to be scientific, it must be published in the scientific literature, and it must show the supporting evidence for the theory. Citing the scientific literature is an appropriate way to describe the evidence. For the theory of evolution this is a minimum of hundreds of thousands of papers. Absolutely none for any other theory.
In science, the burden of proof is always on those making the claims. Disproving one theory does not automatically prove your own. You still need positive evidence for the claim.
Journals sponsored by groups, such as creationist and ID organizations, which have been declared religious by the US courts, are not scientific and cannot be cited as evidence in a scientific argument.
I'll add more to this as needed.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 11, 2008 1:52 PM
Ken Rhorer,
The fact that you think YouTube vidoes and creobot crap sites like AnswersinGenesis could possibly be of any scientific relevance tells us all we need to know about your ignorance and stupidity. If you have actual arguments to make, make them here; otherwise, go play with your alphabet blocks.
Posted by: Herbie McGonagall | December 11, 2008 1:53 PM
Let's see...
the trouble with evolutionary biology is that all the "evidence" was planted by Satan, after the Fall, to confuse us. God did create the world in six days a few thousand years ago, just as the Bible says. But Satan wanted to hide and obscure this from us, so he filled the world with red herrings and misleading scientific evidence. This is why all the scientists are wrong - they're not lying, they're not incompetent, but they've been misled by Satan.
Ken Ham is right, but he's going down the wrong track. We can't "prove" using "evidence" that the Earth was created by God, because the "evidence" was put here by Satan to confuse us. We have to reject "evidence" altogether, in favour of what the Holy Ghost tells us in our hearts - because our senses, our instruments and our reason can be deceived by Satan. We must just trust in the love of God, in the redeeming blood of His Son Jesus Christ, and in the power of the Holy Ghost. I hope that you all can see through the tricks of Satan and be saved!
Posted by: Deckhand Timothy Beerbong | December 11, 2008 1:56 PM
amen. preach it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 11, 2008 1:57 PM
perfect
Posted by: Walton | December 11, 2008 2:04 PM
OK, time to come clean: the above, Herbie McGonagall @ 514, was a Poe posted by me under a pseudonym. Apologies if it annoyed anyone.
I did this as a response to my own challenge, having noted today that virtually all the parody posts I've seen here are easy to identify. I wanted to see if I could do a better job, but on reflection I think it was probably pretty obvious that it was satire.
Just out of interest, did anyone believe "Herbie McGonagall" to be a real creationist?
Posted by: Walton | December 11, 2008 2:04 PM
OK, time to come clean: the above, Herbie McGonagall @ 514, was a Poe posted by me under a pseudonym. Apologies if it annoyed anyone.
I did this as a response to my own challenge, having noted today that virtually all the parody posts I've seen here are easy to identify. I wanted to see if I could do a better job, but on reflection I think it was probably pretty obvious that it was satire.
Just out of interest, did anyone believe "Herbie McGonagall" to be a real creationist?
Posted by: Walton | December 11, 2008 2:04 PM
OK, time to come clean: the above, Herbie McGonagall @ 514, was a Poe posted by me under a pseudonym. Apologies if it annoyed anyone.
I did this as a response to my own challenge, having noted today that virtually all the parody posts I've seen here are easy to identify. I wanted to see if I could do a better job, but on reflection I think it was probably pretty obvious that it was satire.
Just out of interest, did anyone believe "Herbie McGonagall" to be a real creationist?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 11, 2008 2:06 PM
No I didn't but I loved that line I bolded.
as I said. Perfect.
Posted by: Walton | December 11, 2008 2:11 PM
(Sorry for triple post - not sure how that happened.)
Posted by: Deckhand Timothy Beerbong | December 11, 2008 2:16 PM
eh. not a particularly good poe. but entertaining none the less.
Posted by: Lucifer | December 11, 2008 2:19 PM
Little-known fact: My so-called "rebellion" was actually the first labor dispute.
Things went downhill from there.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 11, 2008 2:22 PM
Ken Rhorer, there's a YouTube user called thunderf00t (that's a double zero, not a double O) who's doing a series called "Why do people laugh at creationists?". Watch that -- last time I checked there were 25 parts.
I didn't, but only because you explained the fideist position so clearly. I'm sure there are lots of creationists out there that express it in more muddled ways that they haven't understood themselves...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 11, 2008 2:26 PM
Priceless.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 11, 2008 2:27 PM
Walton,
No, it was quite obviously not by a real creationist: I don't know of any who claim the evidence was planted by Satan. That would require a basic recognition of the strength of the evidence for evolution, which almost all creationists carefully avoid acquiring. (I say "almost all" because there has been mention on this blog of some PhD biologist or geologist who recognised and admitted the strength of the evidence, but decided to pull his brain out and throw it away anyway, as required by his interpretation of the Bible.)
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 11, 2008 3:20 PM
Hm.
Ham?
(searched using (site:www.answersingenesis.com satan) ; using Google cached link because the direct link gives a security failure)
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:https://www.answersingenesis.com/articles/cm/v25/n3/bubble
It's kind of implicit rather than explicit, but he certainly seems to be saying that anything that contradicts God and the bible is an illusion of Satan.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 11, 2008 3:43 PM
*sigh* Emmet, I'm afraid our funding for the 'get Walton a hooker' campaign is going to take considerably more work than I had originally planned. The poor boy can't even successfully Poe himself.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 11, 2008 3:43 PM
Walton,
Honestly, it was too well-written. The real trolls who believe something like that never express it either as succinctly or as grammatically. It may sound snobbish, but it's not really. I know there are theists (such as yourself) who are capable of structuring sentences and paragraphs and organising their thoughts into writing pretty well without a lot of errors, but I haven't seen a fundagelical troll yet whose postings weren't riddled with spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors.
The major problem for the Poesters is hitting the right balance between literacy and beliefs. Subtly misspelling "atheist" as "athiest", abusing an apostrophe or two, or using capitals for emphasis once or twice would be enough, but the Poesters can't seem leave it at that. Instead, they over-use all of these little shibboleths to the extent that the parody becomes rather over-the-top.
For my part, I dislike the most convincing Poes. The very obvious ones can are humourous and sarcastic, drawing attention to a particular fallacy or hypocrisy, and everyone gets the joke. The ones subtle enough to be convincing, though, are far too numerous, and just an irritating waste of time. That said, I admit that I've never found the "pretending to be a complete asshole" genre of humour funny, but the success of The Office tells me that many others do.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 11, 2008 3:50 PM
#528 Patricia, OM:
Yes, but at least he's trying. He might yet get the poker out all by himself.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 11, 2008 3:56 PM
Optimist!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 11, 2008 7:26 PM
What happened to poor old Ken? He was going to refute us atheistic evilutionists, but appears to have given up the idea. Maybe having to really cite some evidence drove him off. Wimpy troll.
Posted by: Kel | December 11, 2008 7:33 PM
It's a shame that all he did was linked to videos, the first entitled "From Darwinism to Nazism" (which with a title like that you know it's going to be unbiased and informative.) It would be better if he just laid out his arguments in text form so they can be responded to in text form, and who knows he might have actually learnt something. Probably not but a man can dream.
Posted by: Travis | December 11, 2008 7:50 PM
I am really quite disappointed. I had high hopes for this new thread because the old one started to pick up but it did not pan out properly. While I am impressed there have been over 500 posts here but something was missing.
Posted by: Travis | December 11, 2008 7:55 PM
Ugh, awkward word usage in that last sentence. I have a terrible habit of changing a sentence in one place and forgetting to read it again to make sure the rest still works.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 11, 2008 8:01 PM
Yeah, the old thread had to die since the number of posts had reached the slow-the-system-down numbers. I think the creobots are a bit baffled by the second click, then they realize they are on the front page with the whole blog jumping on them instead of being hidden in the back with just a few of us yapping at them. And the fact that they can post at all seems to confound them too, as most creationist blogs don't allow posts. The typical post: Surpise to be able to post. Screed about our incivility and intolerance. Screed about closed minds. Screed against evilution. They'll pray for use. End of post. Not really exciting.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 11, 2008 8:25 PM
Hypocrisy: you're doing it right
Hey, you want an intelligent conversation? How about you explain what you think evolution is, and we explain why you are wrong?
Posted by: Malcolm | December 11, 2008 9:09 PM
Nerd of Redhead,
Didn't you know that allowing posts is a sign of closed-mindedness?
Posted by: One Swivel Gun Jane | December 12, 2008 1:31 AM
What I want to know is where do you find decent 2 pounder shot in this here port. There be a boat load of creotard targets out them, and I aims me to metaphorically plug a few of them scalawags.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 12, 2008 1:53 AM
One Swivel Gun Jane:
Yo!
There's alot to choose from if you look into the other posts on her site! Have fun!
http://womenintheword.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/evolution-evaluation/
Posted by: Brownkan. OM | December 12, 2008 1:57 AM
Fuck, but I can't stand pugnacious moron assholes like Ken Rhorer. I have a full-time job. I've better things to do with my spare time than to try to disentangle the web of stupidity and half-facts that make up his world-view for no benefit to myself.
I'll be perfectly happy to instruct him on evolution (or any number of other subjects) at my standard consulting fee of $90/hr.
I'm afraid I can't accept personal cheques. As a Christian, his reputation precedes him.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 12, 2008 2:03 AM
Posted by: Brownkan. OM
.....ummmm, a little rushed are we lol?
Posted by: The Voice of Reason | December 12, 2008 2:20 AM
All you athiests are fools! None of you have any knowledge of the basic truth that laws require a lawgiver! Nothing in the universe could exist without laws, and we can also know with unwavering certainty that they are absolute laws!
But you can't follow even this simple chain of reasoning, and instead wish to presuppose that in fact, there IS no absolute law! And it is because of this state of perpetual lawlessness, that you are mired in your sin and stupidity. You even lie about the FACT that there is a moral system of laws, God's laws, so you can remain in your foster parent's care- Satan's. But why try to say these things, you atheists are too DENSE to realise that you are moronic. I'll explain slowly for you.
We know there is a moral law because:
1. absolutes are undeniable. Absolute moral truth is best known by our reactions not our actions.
2. we cant know injustice unless we know justice. You can't know what is wrong unless you know what is right. The reason we know whether a map of Australia is accurate or true is because we have an absolute standard (the country of Australia) by which to measure.
3. real moral disagreements imply an objective moral standard. We can debate map A verses map B of Australia, because we have a real unchanging standard to compare them. Without a real unchanging standard of good the difference between Mother Theresa and Hitler is nothing more than a matter of opinion.
4. we would not make excuses for doing wrong if there was no moral law. What is the point?
5. we wouldn't know the world was getting worse or better if there was no moral law. Secular humanist love to tell us that the world is so much worse because of religion. How do they know what worse is if they deny a standard of good?
6. there would be no human rights without the moral law. There would be no way to judge the Nazis, Saddam Hussein, or other war criminals without a standard beyond government or international law.
Simple. I pray that you all may invite God to be with you, that you may walk with him as I have. There is still time yet! God bless.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 12, 2008 2:48 AM
This is false, but even if it were true, we would know that the God of the bible is not the God of absolute moral truth because that God repeatedly violates his own moral laws, and orders people to violate those laws.
And we know that the God of the bible is cruel and unjust.
This is completely and obviously nonsense. Do disagreements about food imply an objective taste standard?
What's your excuse for lying? What's your point?
More garbage and nonsense.
You don't need much of a standard of good to know that people killing other people because of religion is bad.
More garbage and nonsense.
The only moral law that is necessary is the golden rule, and the variants and expansions of that rule. All "moral law" flows from considering what it would be like to be in the place of the one you're contemplating doing something to. Note that "How would you like it if that were done to you" and "do unto others what you would have them do unto you" and "do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you" and "Do as you would be done by" have no mention of, nor need of, God.
May you abandon your insanity and delusion and realize that morality does not need God and has nothing to do with God.
Posted by: clinteas | December 12, 2008 3:22 AM
Oh golly gosh,we have a live one.....
Just cherry-picking here,but that one is actually a nice example of your being brainwashed into belief into absolutes,absolute truth,absolute power...
Whats that line from Star Wars ? "Only the Sith think in absolutes" or somesuch....
Posted by: clinteas | December 12, 2008 3:27 AM
You need a standard for that,an absolute standard to tell you whats right or wrong? The secularists I know sure dont,nor do chimpanzees or chihuahuas,for that matter.....
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 12, 2008 3:34 AM
Have we ever see Voice of Reason before? My Poe-dar is going off, mostly because the post is well-written and lacks all-caps, bible verses and superfluous punctuation. Plus, a fundie who knows enough about the world outside to US to use Australia as an example seems a little unlikely to me...
Posted by: clinteas | December 12, 2008 3:38 AM
Kel,are you pulling a Neg on us? LOL
Posted by: The Voice of Reason | December 12, 2008 3:56 AM
Here's just another way to show you wrong- since you guys obviously do not get it yet:
I went to the bank to withdraw $1000 from my account yesterday. I filled out the withdrawal slip and handed it to the cashier. She pecked on the computer a while and then told me that I only had $852.47 in the account. Now, we are living in a culture that says truth is relative. So she cannot really know what is really in the account. My truth is just as valid as hers. So I said, "Well that may be true for you, but not for me. Give me my $1000."
So now I have to find another bank. Apparently bankers do not like dealing with people who are out of touch with reality.
Is truth relative? Many people insist there are no absolutes. What do you think? Oh that's right, Secular Humanist all think that they can extract morality from a bank account with NO money in it- the mortal world we all live in. We are all born into evil natures, and the fact that you deny this is part of that. Man, by his very nature, is hostile to God.
To explore this questioning of truth, perhaps I should discuss three possible sides of the issue:
1) Is truth absolute?
2) Is truth knowable?
3) Is truth exclusive?
Truth is absolute. Truth has been described as "telling it like it is." If something is true, it is true for all people everywhere at all times because truth corresponds to its object. To deny absolute truth is self-defeating.
Truth is knowable. Truth about reality is knowable. To deny truth is knowable implies knowledge of the truth which is, once again, self-defeating.
Truth is exclusive. If "A" is true, then "not A" is false. Truth is not dependent on our feelings or preferences. If something is true, it is true whether we like it or not.
It follows then that all religions cannot be true because they teach opposites. While many religions have true beliefs, the religions themselves cannot all be true because they are mutually exclusive teaching opposites. Atheism is for many of the commentators here (Holback, BobC, Truth Machine- who abhorrently won an award for being a good servant of Satan, as it would appear) a religion, and if you think that denying this is proof that it isn't, then the word that you all need to look up in the dictionary is "denial."
May God help you to see the error of your ways.
God bless.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 12, 2008 4:04 AM
I think we're going to need a new thread for the new thread...
VoR wrote:
Indeed. But even if what you say it the truth (no pun intended), why do you assume that the source of that truth is your god and not Allah, or Brahma or Vishnu or Ahura Mazda or Wotan or any one of the other thousands of deities someone at some time has chosen to believe in?
Posted by: Baal | December 12, 2008 4:24 AM
The Voice of Reason @549
"It follows then that all religions cannot be true because they teach opposites. While many religions have true beliefs, the religions themselves cannot all be true because they are mutually exclusive teaching opposites."
Aren't you in for a surprise when you die, christian!
Posted by: The Voice of Reason | December 12, 2008 4:28 AM
Satan is as old as the universe and very wise, he doesn't need to eavesdrop on your thoughts to come up with ways to torment you. All of the tactics he uses to influence your testimony he has used on a million others before you. It is a simple strategy, no? All the other religions are inventions of man, as is shown by the utter lack of historicity in other faiths.
The Abhramic Faiths are central to the politics of the world because it is quite clear that God Moves the world. But, as we all know from jihad-ist sects of Islam, Satan Can even trick the devout followers of our brother faiths into heinous things, simply by playing on the idea that Their God Allah is somehow not to be compared to Yewyeh. It is all too clear that Christ was closest to the truth when you see the new religions that are created out of Satan's handiwork from this distorted image of God's Will. Why Else would the Biggest religions in the World all be from the Same man- Abraham? Truth- God preserves it beyond Mortal lives and civilizations.
In Rev. 12:11 John says the Saints overcame Satan by the blood of the lamb and by the word of their testimony. That is good news and bad news for us. The good news is that Satan cannot do anything about the blood. We are living post-resurrection. If you are a receiver of grace, no longer an object of wrath and judgment - signed and sealed by the Lamb of God. Just as God demonstrated at the first Passover, the blood of the lamb has been painted on the doorposts of your soul and neither Satan nor his demons can enter in.
The bad news is that although our adversary cannot control you from within, but he can and does try to control you through your circumstances. Since he is defeated by the blood, the only strategy he has left is to influence your word, your testimony. Sometimes there is not a hint of love on your tongue -- only the poison of sin. Is that your testimony? Dear one, this is not a testimony that overcomes.
The bottom line is you are in a spiritual war; you might as well get your licks in while you can.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 12, 2008 4:34 AM
Hmm, I'm going to channel my inner MAJeff for this one:
Shorter Voice of Reason:
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Christ blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah God blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Posted by: CosmicTeapot | December 12, 2008 4:34 AM
The voice of reason @543
I thought I'd been touched by god once, but it was only Father Murphy.
Posted by: The Voice of Reason | December 12, 2008 4:45 AM
How interesting. I give my wisdom handed down from God, and what happens? Exactly what God said would happen. But it doesn't matter. Any person who is willing to accept the truth will be redeemed. Even among our brother faiths, no doubt is there in my mind that God will save those who cannot help but be ensnared in their culture. God is no monster, though you obviously think so. But what good is talking when someone has on earplugs and a blindfold?
When was the last time you were really honest with yourself about your life, your lifestyle? When was the last time you took a really hard look at yourself, a moral inventory if you will? Most of us avoid such an uncomfortable introspection, some tragically live with a lifelong avoidance of the truth. But you and I both need to face the truth before our holy God if we want to render the enemy defenseless. Don't hide, don't deceive, but bare your soul before God.
Meet me halfway, meet God halfway. He only needs a little of your time and effort to change you forever into a real Force for good in this lost and miserable world. Blessings, I say. Anger is for the reprobate, the children of Hell that wallow in their futile efforts to usurp God's power on this planet. I need no such sting to kill the demons haunting this place. My God is bigger. My God will win, and he will share the spoils of his victory to all who help. That is what I am, merely a helper.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 12, 2008 4:47 AM
*Stuck Speechless by teh stupid*
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 12, 2008 4:52 AM
Responding to Voice of Reason's continued pointless blather:
Yawn.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 12, 2008 4:55 AM
Anyone else notice that the writing seems somewhat....patchy, for lack of a better word? Huh? Could this be a new species of Poe? Is it a hybrid Poe, an amalgamation? Wouldn't be too surprising if it was just some kind of cut and paste creotard though. Originality ins't something one can expect from a Mutt religion.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 12, 2008 4:59 AM
A mass-murderer is not a monster?
You are a hypocrite, really. You speak of absolute truth, and then become all relativist in regards to your "Abrahamic God", who murdered many innocents, and ordered others to murder innocents.
Why should we believe someone who is so obviously dishonest; who rejects an absolute standard of truth while claiming that such a thing exists?
Posted by: CosmicTeapot | December 12, 2008 5:04 AM
Why does the voice of reason reminded me of General Chang droning on in the Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country, just before he gets a photon torpedo up his exhaust pipe?
Posted by: John Morales | December 12, 2008 5:07 AM
This VoR godbot sure is prolix and vacuous.
And what's with this needy god business? God needs this, god needs that, god will eventually win, blah blah.
You're talking about the Biblical god, right? Might as well say Sauron is no monster - it's just as truthful to the story, and Sauron is just as real as your god.Bah.
Posted by: The Voice of Reason | December 12, 2008 5:38 AM
Rom. 9:14-23
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
"16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."
God's power is his own, and his ways are his ways, higher than ours. Destruction of Pagan cultures was the mark of God's path to dominance in the world. His truth is meant to be absolute, but as time where's on, blood-letting becomes unnecessary. This spiritual war is now a war of words. What good is a nice theology if it cannot be universally declared to be the truth, in all lands. Without the destruction of the wicked, God is nothing more than an idea.
Standards and laws are meant to be upheld. It is unrealistic for even Christians to say that Evil doesn't not have to be stopped by our efforts. And i have addressed the unspeakable things done in God's name- though tools of Satan they were.
Imagine your next door neighbor's daughter was murdered in this school shooting. You know the parents are not saved. The mother met with psychologists and friends, but for some reason she turned to you for answers knowing you believe in God. "How can you worship a God who would allow this to happen?" she demands from you.
What do you say? What is the reason for the hope you have within you?
If God asked you to allow your child to go on a journey that promises tribulation, pain, suffering, who among us would say yes? What if He added, "On this journey your child will experience tribulation, pain and suffering. But I will never leave his side. I will promise to pick him up when he falls. I will carry him when he no longer has the strength for another step. I will comfort him in his sorrow and rescue him from the evil one. And as a result your son will know Me as Father and Friend. He will trust Me in all his ways. He will recognize My voice. And he will cause many to seek My face. Now will you allow him to go with Me?"
In order for one seed to bear much fruit, it must die. We are the harvest of the many seeds that have died before us.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 12, 2008 5:45 AM
This is got to be one of the most empty-headed trolls i have ever seen. At the same time, this whole "truth" motif seems very, very familiar...
Posted by: The Voice of Reason | December 12, 2008 5:54 AM
It is getting quite late, and I must be off. But if you guys think you have me stumped, post a message:
http://womenintheword.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/can-you-handle-the-truth/
The sad thing is that I've known all this stuff for years, and yet no one seems to recognize it as what it is: truth. Feel free to make comments and ask more questions, because I know the Man with all the answers!
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 12, 2008 5:57 AM
Maybe an Australian fundie, in view of the time, quite probable.
Ken Ham probably has some disciples in his own land.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 12, 2008 5:57 AM
Just like destruction of the kulaks was the mark of Stalin's path to dominance; just like destruction of the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and physically unfit were the mark of Hitler's path to dominance in the world; just like destruction of pretty much anyone who wasn't a peasant was the mark of Pol Pot's path to dominance.
Relativist and hypocrite that you are.
Is God unjust? Of course he is! Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot could all have equally claimed "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
Romans 9:18 is probably the most damning. To some, God does not even give a choice. He makes them dance to his evil tune, then punishes them for doing exactly what he made them do.
You worship a despicable tyrant.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 12, 2008 5:59 AM
Current response to The Voice of Reason:
Zzzzzzz.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 12, 2008 6:05 AM
It's quite safe to say that The [B]oR won't be back. If you guys want to make a lasting impression, she's pretty much given you a free pass. Hell, i'm gonna take it and show him a thing or two!
Posted by: John Morales | December 12, 2008 6:05 AM
VoR, you're rambling, and aren't addressing comments so much as just block pasting arbitrary drivel.
I'd say, I don't worship anything - God is just a particular anthropomorphic superstition that primitives use to try to rationalise events in this indifferent universe. I'd say, the best way to avoid such in the future is to hope for rationality and the rule of law to spread, and abandon wishful thinking.I'd speak with, ahem, the voice of reason.
You, on the other hand, would spout some platitude such as "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."
Posted by: RickrOll | December 12, 2008 6:11 AM
John: Me at #568, VoR @564. Take advantage. Strike back. It feels weak to just wait here and ambush unsuspecting retards all day lol.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 12, 2008 6:12 AM
I still would like to call Poe on VoR.
Moreover, I submit as hpothesis that the culprit is RickrOll.
RickrOll, is that you ?
Posted by: RickrOll | December 12, 2008 6:22 AM
Nooooooo, it's not_technically_ poe. Real person, Real views. Hell, i even characterized her in a Far Better light than what i've seen of her. Guess i Can't trick the trickster hahaha.
Good sluething Neg. *clapping* I'm seriously dissapointed in you guys for not picking up on it. The whole thing reeked of Poe. Or fundie, or whatever you might call this newfound tactic.
Alas, this was all in an effort to damage the arrogance of this moron. Sorry guys. I've been banned from her site. So i thought i might as well give her some cred out here on the interwebs. She's free to come over here and refute anything I might have mischaracterized, or whatever. But it was a taste of red meat, at any rate.
Posted by: John Morales | December 12, 2008 6:26 AM
RickrOll @570, I keep a Pharyngula tab open, but mostly I'm doing other stuff. It's one thing to address weirdoes here, but my SIWOTI syndrome isn't so acute that I have to follow them to their den.
Posted by: John Morales | December 12, 2008 6:32 AM
RickrOll:
FFS, that's the whole point!That's very annoying, R. I've adjusted my perception of you accordingly.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 12, 2008 6:32 AM
Hmmmm, i guess so John. 'Tis a shame, though, to let the person swim in their own intellectual muck.
Note- almost everything was direct from source. The whole bit about political empowerment of the Israelites (As if) was something i made up to fit with the res, Convincing? Do not worry, the hypocrisy remains utterly intact, and her arguments are in tatters. At the end of the day, that's what matters, eh?
Posted by: clinteas | December 12, 2008 6:34 AM
Okay,
can we be done with this now? Please?
As in,seriously,please?
Im sure most of us are doing this while doing something else,working,playing,watching TV,the last thing i need is this Poe shit.
Seriously.
Posted by: The Voice of Reason | December 12, 2008 6:35 AM
so I was a Poe ?
Posted by: RickrOll | December 12, 2008 6:38 AM
@577: tsk tsk.
And it's Not poe. It's a real person. It was from her lips to your ears. And don't worry, one time thing.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 12, 2008 6:44 AM
looks like we've got a poed Poe, a Poe&Sup2; ?
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 12, 2008 6:46 AM
sh*t, Poe²
Posted by: clinteas | December 12, 2008 6:48 AM
RickrOll,
this whole spiel with the links to and the poeing of that lady's blog you obviously frequent to the point of trolling,is getting tiresome.
If you need to shoot fish in a barrel to feel intellectually superior,I dont want to know about it.
Neg's Poe was at least original.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 12, 2008 6:54 AM
Can you stop with the fucking Poes? It's really starting to shit me off and I doubt I'm the only one. The Man Upstairs* probably isn't going to think too highly of it either.
*By which I mean our bearded overlord, who actually exists - not the judeo-christian god, who doesn't.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 12, 2008 7:12 AM
It's not about feeling intellectually superior, it's about ruining their belief system, undermining their faith. Instilling Doubt. That's what this site is about, isn't it?
The idea was original. But again, if i knew that it was going to be taken as poe-behavior, i wouldn't have bothered. I just think that this place shouldn't allow us to take for granted that there are many xians who fly under the radar and have a large following. It is that slow cultural poisoning to which i refer.
And apparently Nance has Several blogs- though i've only ever seen the one. I'm sorry if it was a major inconvenience to ruin the reputation of one more influential hypocrite christian.
But who payed for this? I did. My ass is the one that gets chewed for all of this. No big deal. That the insanity is shown for what it really is means more to me than the persecution i deservedly get for behaving in such a rude manner. And i do not doubt that i deserve it. I just was unaware about what a splash this would make. This is, after all, a token thread for fundies to get laughed at. I just thought that it was a serious matter that needed slightly more serious treatment.
I apologize for the inconvenience.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 12, 2008 7:22 AM
geez, even when i apologize, i come off as a snarky pissant.
Sorry.
*Sigh*
Posted by: clinteas | December 12, 2008 7:22 AM
Im sorry,I can only speak for myself here of course,but I believe I speak for most people here when I say that ruining anyone's reputation is not why I am here,or posting on Internet blogs in general.
This is about discourse,and education,and fun,and the odd rant when you encounter willful ignorance and stupidity,but certainly not about ruining anyones reputation.
Youre on your own with that one.
I never saw it that way.
And as I said before,a lot of people visit this blog while doing something else,and while having a busy day,so the last thing they need is this Poe bullshit.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 12, 2008 7:25 AM
Looks like my Virginie started a real infection, despite commiting suicide after 30 minutes. It's a highly contagious disease, there has been at least 3 or 4 Poes in this thread alone, none suicidal though, and there is now the risk that it has gone threadborne.
What's the best remedy against Poe infection ? Having started it, I feel responsible to finding a way to end it.
If we could at least contain the infection to this thread alone and avoid that it goes threadborne that would be sufficient as this thread seems to be on a slow death trend anyway.
Posted by: John Morales | December 12, 2008 7:31 AM
RickrOll:
And you've done just the opposite - all you've achieved with your disruption of her blog is to reinforce a negative stereotype and strengthen her and her readers' faith.Seriously not cool.
---
negentropyeater, I wouldn't worry about it. If we get sucked in, we get sucked in.
Maybe, though, a refresher is in order:
Posted by: RickrOll | December 12, 2008 7:34 AM
"This is about discourse,and education,and fun" Clinteas
Yeah, those things that instill doubt in fundie religion. I Don't doubt education as being key to this site's existence, it would be insulting not to realize this, but the other main point is laughing our asses off at the stupidity of creotards and ruining their appeal for the less informed on the matter.
"none suicidal though"-Neg
You mean the poe itself or the act of poeing? It's safe to say that i now have 0 friends on this blog now.
Posted by: clinteas | December 12, 2008 7:47 AM
Ah mate,dont take yourself too seriously,or us for that matter,Im pissed off about the Poe,but I'll get over it....So will the others...
Neg,
Im singing along to Moustaki songs,I can still sing along,but used to understand the text too,and I cant really anymore,its annoying,might buy a French book tomorrow...:-)
*Il suffirait du presque rien*
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 12, 2008 7:50 AM
EickrOll,
I meant that the fake identity commited suicide by revealing itself.
Don't worry about it, just learn from the experience, and you still have friends on this blog.
It's a tough blog, people speak their minds openly, but from what I've seen, if the commenter gets better, most of them pardon easily and forget about it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 12, 2008 8:00 AM
Forget about what? My memory ain't what it used to be.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 12, 2008 8:00 AM
*Il suffirait de presque rien*
literally, *very little (or almost nothing) would be sufficient*
but it's not a good translation. Depends on the context.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 12, 2008 8:06 AM
You too ?
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 12, 2008 8:08 AM
Sorry, should have been:
Yours too ? ;-)
Posted by: clinteas | December 12, 2008 8:16 AM
Memory,what memory???
*Je voudrais sans la nommer vous parler d'elle*
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 12, 2008 8:34 AM
*I would like to talk about her without naming her*
This one is much more poetic in French.
Posted by: Nick Gotts, OM | December 12, 2008 8:40 AM
Despite not having wasted time on this particular Poe, I'll add my voice to the request that we get no more of this time-wasting nonsense from regulars. If the Poe is easily recognised as such, there's no point; if it isn't, those who invest time and effort in formulating arguments against it are going to be pissed-off when they find out. And can it with the convoluted justifications, RickrOll.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 12, 2008 9:17 AM
But then, what isn't?
Posted by: SC, OM | December 12, 2008 9:25 AM
But then, what isn't?
Seriously - in what other language could you name a film something like Chacun cherche son chat and get away with it?
:)
Posted by: clinteas | December 12, 2008 9:31 AM
SC,
I love those 20s posters,the Toulouse-Lautrec or artsy ones,got my whole apartment plastered with them....
Chat noir,and all those....
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 12, 2008 9:51 AM
Please. How many seconds of thought would it have taken to understand that?!?
Voice of Reason is fully capable of making herself ridiculous. You don't need to do it for her.
For the record, it didn't quite sound genuine. It was written too coherently. Then someone told you to use more capitalization-for-emphasis, and in your next post you did, though in the one after you returned to what appears to be your Normal level (see?). Then someone told you to godbot more, and your next post consisted mostly of Bible verses while the ones before didn't contain any...
Exactly.
Don't worry, we'll get over it. Just don't ever do it again.
(And stop using capital letters for emphasis. Use HTML instead.)
Posted by: MC | December 12, 2008 12:35 PM
"godless evolutionists"
At least you see the problem.
Posted by: MC | December 12, 2008 12:41 PM
"I suggest you look up 'seperation of church and state'"
Was that added to the Constitution since last week?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 12, 2008 12:52 PM
I see you are unfamiliar with a couple of men named Jefferson and Madison.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 12, 2008 1:02 PM
The worst sins of the parody poes, it gets way too self reflective and extremely tedious. A false persona is not going to having even the surprising personality traits that even the most ridiculous of creationists will show.
Posted by: Nance | December 12, 2008 3:42 PM
rickroll-
The depths to which you will stoop astonish me. Where is CJO to call plagarism, or does he only police Christian blogs?
You need help, please check yourself into the nearest psych-ward. There are lots of people there who will think you are brilliant.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 12, 2008 3:46 PM
pot. kettle. black.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 12, 2008 3:49 PM
Nance, we've already determined that anything you say must held up to the highest scrutiny. So amen to the Rev. Pot. Kettle. Black
Posted by: CJO | December 12, 2008 3:57 PM
Plagiarism? Where?
(I'm honestly not following this. What, did Rickr0ll copy and paste stuff off of Nance's blog to pull a pseudo-Poe?)
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | December 13, 2008 1:35 AM
I believe God.
I do not believe religion.
Evolution is backed by millions of man hours of observation and experimentation.
Creationism aint got shit.
Nobody has ever spoken for God.
Fossils speak eloquently for evolution.
How you behave speaks louder than what you profess.
I'd rather read Poe than pull a poe.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 13, 2008 3:29 AM
"The depths to which you will stoop astonish me."
If you had any intellectual honesty this would not be a problem. There's a long list of things that you have never answered to/for on your blog Nance:
-The invalidity of the Ontological argument
-The invalidity of the Cosmological argument
-The proof of speciation (macroevolution), 2x
-The proof that God of the Gaps is fallacious and also not applicable to abiogenisis- more than once
-The refutations of many, many creationist claims @Talkorigins.org
-Complete failure of creationism to account for the similarities between man and chimps
-The complete pwnage of your "absolute truth" claims
-God is completely arbitrary and/or has no free will
-The mischaracterization and bastardization of other Christians who do not share your views (Zacharias)
-The lack of freedom in heaven which you apparently espouse
-The Bastardization of Democrats
-The Immaturity
-The rampant logical fallaciousness
-The Obama=Hitler post comments
-The post link that was discussing the problems of dogmatic religion/theology ("Tragic Tale" post here)
-The point that your fiscal policy that makes no sense (spiritual economics)
-The observation of your defensive, irrational emotionality
-The utter lack of effort to contribute to reasonable dialogue
-No willingness to learn anything that doesn't fit your preconceptions
-trying to avoid real science by invoking "in your words" multiple times
-contradiction with above- scripture is a big book of someone else's words
-no current scholarly understanding of scripture
-Description is scientific, prescription is theology
- no current knowledge of cosmology (willful ignorance?)
-Ignorance of the 2nd LoT
-plagiarism
- overwhelming hypocrisy
-contradiction with science and Christian scientists' findings
-Changing your beliefs and lying about doing so (all of a sudden you believe evolution huh Nance? *roll*)
-flaming
-copping out ("if you expect me to be the bigger person then you are going to be sorely disappointed")
-ignoring discussion
-intimidation tactics
-Lying about my answering you
-claiming that i was being dishonest- see "projection".
-why aren't humans still perfect? Or does perfection not exist at all?
-No response to "God is lazy" and "you are hearing voices"
-Ah, True Christians
-attempting to define what God can and cannot do
-hand-waving other denominations
-Immaturity
-strawman
-scapegoating me
-Cowardice- inferred, since you won't be returning.
I'm sorry, but she had patience for me? More often than not, i was trying to contribute to the discussion, but she constantly wanted to ignore the issues at hand and constantly play defense, making absurd fallacious remarks, and generally act childish. She debates like a pro. Too bad there isn't a time limit on blogging.
"You need help, please check yourself into the nearest psych-ward."- Nance (aren't i nice, a proper noun as opposed to an expletive? No, i can't take my frustrations out on you)
And wasn't it you who said, "It is good to be a "lunatic" for Christ."? Pot. Kettle. Black
Just for kicks, why don't you tell me where i made an egregious apologetic error? What did i say that was a mischaracterization of you?
Posted by: RickrOll | December 13, 2008 3:32 AM
And the list is even chronological, for ease.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 14, 2008 5:07 AM
Sorry for any redundancies in the list, i was going post by post, and some very startling patterns emerge. Safe to say, after compiling this list, i wouldn't Want to try and get her to make sense. I simply do not have that amount of time on my hands.
But if someone would gladly bring her out of her foxhole- whoops, i guess that means Nance is a "foxhole faith christian"- and onto a more even playing field, this would be very great, very conducive to discussion.
But she's free to continue living with her mind in a box, because that simply is about all there is for her sense of intellect. Some people's minds are too small, and so they put them in boxes so that they won't lose them. Funny how this often correlates with "blockhead", "screw loose", and other entertaining euphemisms. But, once again, she is perfectly free to ignore her duty as a christian to be a spokesperson for Christ if she so wishes to.
Posted by: Connie | December 15, 2008 11:33 AM
These athiests are obviously terrified of Ken and all other Bible believing Christians. Witness the nastiness, hatred and panicked name-calling that comes with pure terror. Supposedly rational, "scientific" minds such as these explode with anger when confronted with an opposing belief system. Why is that?.....
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 15, 2008 3:32 PM
No Connie. You are projecting. We are sick and tired of Ham and people like him who think that magical stories un-supported by actual empirical science can be substituted for the real science that is being done out there.
Sick and tired of creationists pretending to have answers when all they have are hand-waving and fables. Sick and tired of those who rely on faith instead of reason injecting their ignorance into what should be a search for answers. Sick and tired of people who don't know what it means to form a conclusion from the evidence instead of the other way around.
Sick and tired of crooks and liars cloaked in priests and pastors garments claiming to know more than those who've spent their lives bettering themselves through education on specific subjects. Educated to actually be able to understand the research and evidence but then be told that someone who uses a 2000 or some year old book to predetermine their conclusion knows better than them.
Sick and tired of idiots who can't spell atheist.
Where do you fit Connie?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 15, 2008 3:48 PM
Connie, you are a hoot. Science is a belief system. Classical avoidance of the real agument. Creationism relies on belief. Belief in god, belief in a holy book that is always right no matter what the evidence says.
Science looks at the evidence and makes conclusions based on the evidence. No god involved. It is an evidence based system. Theories are constantly refined and nothing, repeat nothing, is held sacred. The theory of evolution has 150 years of refinement behind it, hundreds of thousands or more of scientific papers describing the evidence behind it. All science does is make religion and religious theories like creationism look silly since they don't fit the evidence.
So you believe in a silly religous theory. Not our fault, but yours for not following the true evidence, but following religious faith to believe in an irrational theory.
Posted by: Kel | December 15, 2008 4:08 PM
Terrified? Nah, it's done out of absolute futility. You see Ken Ham thinks he knows better than the entire scientific community, he thinks that the last 150 years of scientific research in cosmology, astronomy, geology, palaeontology, and biology has all been completely fallacious. We've seen galaxies that are billions of light years away, we've measured rocks on our world and from others that are over 4 billion years old. We have a progressive fossil record, and not a single piece of data in the last 150 years (and there have been millions of scientists working on this) has ever falsified evolution.Yet Ken Ham thinks he knows better than all of those people combined. So instead of trying to sell his ideas to the scientific community, he preaches to the masses. This is dishonest and an act of intellectual cowardice. He's mocked because what he's saying completely contradicts everything several fields of science all converge together to tell us. And why? Because some old book of mythology says so. Ken Ham is a liar, a manipulator of minds and he's arguing against a method that he obviously doesn't understand. Calling him names is mocking the absurdity that is that missing link incarnate. When he stops evangelising nonsense and wants to play science, he can fight for his ideas in academia... but somehow getting a bunch of ignorant [not an insult btw] people to echo back "were you there?" and think that's an appropriate response doesn't bode well for his intellectual honesty. He's a fraud who misrepresents science for his own religious agenda.
Posted by: Scott Morrison | December 17, 2008 11:30 PM
"by aligning themselves with a creationist institution that is a laughing stock to the rest of the world, and a mark of shame to the United States."
Please don't presume to speak for the rest of the world. I represent part of the rest of the world and fully support and appreciate the work of AIG.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 17, 2008 11:41 PM
Scott Morrison,
You're obviously a masochist of some kind. However, if you really want to have your ass handed to you for making stupid statements it'd serve you better to do it on a thread that's still active, and where the commenters will give you the thrashing you deserve - and seem to desire.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 17, 2008 11:43 PM
Ah, Scott, why do you think coming here and professing you support for fairy tales will impress us? Just show me five papers from the scientific literature that back up AIG. Until then fairy tales of the religious versus factual evidence of science. Religion looks silly when It doesn't have facts behind it and lying to justify their inane positions based on a 2000 year old book of fiction doesn't make religion look truthful. Just pathetic.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 17, 2008 11:46 PM
I represent part of the rest of the world and fully support and appreciate the work of AIG.
then you would be part of the "laughingstock" portion, as identified in the post you were responding to.
so, technically, he was indeed speaking for you, and correctly.
you can reiterate it again if you so wish, but what's the point?
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 17, 2008 11:52 PM
Fine. We'll do it here, then.
No doubt Scott means he represent that part of the 'rest of the world' which is trapped in the Dark Ages. Yay! Tonight Soctt's going to party like it's 1399!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 18, 2008 7:50 AM
Awesome. Thanks for letting us know that you support an institution built on distorting, denying and outright fabricating scientific evidence to support their claims.
And yes you would be the part that is contained in the "laughingstock" designation.
Posted by: Inlove | December 23, 2008 9:33 PM
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lust, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this, they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgement and perdition of ungodly men. 2 Peter 3:3-7
Talk about late to the party. However late, my intent, if allowed to be posted, is not to spend my time in debate, but to present the gospel of salvation by grace through faith. I am not a pastor, or minister. I am not a professional scientist, or blogger. I fully understand that this text will be ridiculed and dismissed by many, but if only one will come to know my King, my Jesus, and my reason for celebration this week, I consider the ridicule worth it.
My God that created this world, as well as everything in and above it in 6 days, extended his love towards me, while I was dead in sin, Christ died for me. Because due to Adam's sin and without Jesus' ultimate sacrifice, I would be sentenced to death and eternal seperation from Him. That when I confessed with my mouth and believed in my heart that He died for me, was buried, rose on the third day and ascended back to heaven to one day return for me, I was saved from eternal damnation and through repentance and and daily sacrifice of myslef, He lives through me.
I understand that this simple message will be difficult to accept, but know that it is not impossible. It is with a child like faith that one must come before my King and believe in such a simple solution to all the questions made so difficult.
It is not my intent to insult the many uniformitarian presuppositions required for such a secular mind that obvoiusy dominates this post and denies the existance of my God and His creation that is so evident. It is not my intent to defend AIG, Mr. Ham or Mr. Huckabie, but to defend my King, the Lord Jesus Christ my Saviour. He is my defense and will return one day to complete His ultimate defense revealing the mysteries of the universe for all to see.
In love until all have heard and Merry Christmas!
I Peter 3:15-17
Posted by: God | December 23, 2008 9:39 PM
And will you ever feel dumb when you die and meet Me.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 23, 2008 9:50 PM
InLove, and fuck you too for all your blather about an irrelevant god and even more irrelevant bible. Your god doesn't exist, never did, never will. No physical evidence exists for any deity. The bible was written by men to subjugate other men. Most of the bible was written many years, sometimes hundreds of years after the fact. It also borrowed myths from the surrounding cultures. Don't religious people ever read the true history of their bible? Happy Squidmas. Happy Monkey.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 23, 2008 10:22 PM
Inlove,
Of course. You're not here to debate rationally because you would lose. Just spewing assertions and not following up the responses is typical of your kind.
No, it's not impossible. If I drink a gallon of paint and hit myself in the head with a hammer, maybe, just maybe I'll accept it.
Do you really honestly believe no one here has heard this stuff before? We have and we know how ridiculous it is.
Yes, children are extremely naive. However, they have an excuse being new to the world and not completely matured yet. What's yours?
_ _ _
I suspect you're just a drive-by and won't stick around. Try and spread your imperialist religion and get some brownie points at from Jebus. Your kind does everything they can do avoid debate because you know your religion can hold up to scrutiny.
Happy Monkey
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 26, 2008 5:01 PM
InLove,
lay off the bong dude
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 26, 2008 5:06 PM
or at least quit bogarting and pass it over here!
Posted by: Nan | August 24, 2009 11:43 PM
Mr. PZ Myers, first of all, let me tell you that you've really impressed me as an "educated evolutionist" by your apparent brain-storming to come up with SO many names to call Ken Ham (and in APHABETICAL order too!) W0W! Looks like you'd use some of those educated brain cells to do something more worth while though. You and/or some of your followers mentioned how Ken and Christians are trying to force their views and Creationist beliefs on you and your children? Well how about how the Christian children who have had to hear and learn about evolution in school when most schools do not tell the Biblical view of Creation? Its the Christians and their children who are being cheated, not you! We live in a so called free country, but you do not want everyone to have equal rights do you? Ken Ham is a brilliant man, as is so many that I've met and heard speak that are affiliated with him. He is only doing what God has told him to do, which is to GO, teach, be my disciples.
Have you ANY idea about how complex the human skin is? How about a birds feather, the way its similar to our skin in that its similar to being woven? Dr. Menton teaches all about thesee type things at the Creation Museum. How can ANYONE be so dense as to believe that something that intricate, that complex and miraculous could have "JUST HAPPENED" ? You can believe that YOU came from apes, but I know I sure didn't! I came from the SAME decendant as you did, ADAM!!! I'll continue to believe that God CREATED everything on earth, as well as all the galaxies, etc, before I'd believe an old man from the 1800's. WHY would modern day scientists believe that one simple man could come up with ALL of the answers as to where people, animales, etc came from and what it sprung from? What made him so special? I'd think that todays scientists would have at least a little more intelligence than Darwin did, since we have come so far with modern day science, equipment, dating, etc.
This is part of an article found on the internet that says:
We don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. This was found on a site about Darwin and his "theory". (The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." FYI, the site that this was on is here : http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm
Notice it says all about science...... which is what you all "claim" is the true, correct view of any normal person. Ha! Thats a matter of opinion people! Wake up before its too late for you! Listen to Ken, listen to Dr. Menton, and so many others who know the TRUTH!
Ken is not stealing any money from anyone! They give it freely to help further OUR beliefs and cause!! One thing you should know... I'm sure Ken as well as THOUSANDS of others pray for you all, no matter how cruel you are! You know, Satan will attack people who are TRYING to do whats right for their God and Savior! So I will tell you now as its been said in the past "Get behind me Satan!!" God bless you and every other so called Evolutionist, humanist, WhatEverist, for you surely are in need all you can get.
Posted by: Nan | August 24, 2009 11:49 PM
Mr. PZ Myers, first of all, let me tell you that you've really impressed me as an "educated evolutionist" by your apparent brain-storming to come up with SO many names to call Ken Ham (and in APHABETICAL order too!) W0W! Looks like you'd use some of those educated brain cells to do something more worth while though. Instead you spread all these wild stories about evolution on this and other websites, and I'd not doubt that you also mislead your students at Morris.
I'm sure you and/or some of your followers mentioned how Ken and Christians are trying to force their views and Creationist beliefs on you and your children? Well how about how the Christian children who have had to hear and learn about evolution in school when most schools do not tell the Biblical view of Creation? Its the Christians and their children who are being cheated, not you! We live in a so called free country, but you do not want everyone to have equal rights do you? Ken Ham is a brilliant man, as is so many that I've met and heard speak that are affiliated with him. He is only doing what God has told him to do, which is to GO, teach, be my disciples.
Have you ANY idea about how complex the human skin is? How about a birds feather, the way its similar to our skin in that its similar to being woven? Dr. Menton teaches all about thesee type things at the Creation Museum. How can ANYONE be so dense as to believe that something that intricate, that complex and miraculous could have "JUST HAPPENED" ? You can believe that YOU came from apes, but I know I sure didn't! I came from the SAME decendant as you did, ADAM!!! I'll continue to believe that God CREATED everything on earth, as well as all the galaxies, etc, before I'd believe an old man from the 1800's. WHY would modern day scientists believe that one simple man could come up with ALL of the answers as to where people, animales, etc came from and what it sprung from? What made him so special? I'd think that todays scientists would have at least a little more intelligence than Darwin did, since we have come so far with modern day science, equipment, dating, etc.
This is part of an article found on the internet that says:
We don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. This was found on a site about Darwin and his "theory". (The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." FYI, the site that this was on is here : http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm
Notice it says all about science...... which is what you all "claim" is the true, correct view of any normal person. Ha! Thats a matter of opinion people! Wake up before its too late for you! Listen to Ken, listen to Dr. Menton, and so many others who know the TRUTH!
Ken is not stealing any money from anyone! They give it freely to help further OUR beliefs and cause!! One thing you should know... I'm sure Ken as well as THOUSANDS of others pray for you all, no matter how cruel you are! You know, Satan will attack people who are TRYING to do whats right for their God and Savior! So I will tell you now as its been said in the past "Get behind me Satan!!" God bless you and every other so called Evolutionist, humanist, WhatEverist, for you surely are in need all you can get.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 25, 2009 12:01 AM
Nan, you posted your whine on a months old thread and soon it will be buried. But I do congratulate you on writing a screed that no body will read.
Posted by: Nanette | August 25, 2009 12:06 AM
Mr. PZ Myers, first of all, let me tell you that you've really impressed me as an "educated evolutionist" by your apparent brain-storming to come up with SO many names to call Ken Ham (and in APHABETICAL order too!) W0W! Looks like you'd use some of those educated brain cells to do something more worth while though. Instead you spread all these wild stories about evolution on this and other websites, and I'd not doubt that you also mislead your students at Morris.
I'm sure you and/or some of your followers mentioned how Ken and Christians are trying to force their views and Creationist beliefs on you and your children? Well how about how the Christian children who have had to hear and learn about evolution in school when most schools do not tell the Biblical view of Creation? Its the Christians and their children who are being cheated, not you! We live in a so called free country, but you do not want everyone to have equal rights do you? Ken Ham is a brilliant man, as is so many that I've met and heard speak that are affiliated with him. He is only doing what God has told him to do, which is to GO, teach, be my disciples.
Have you ANY idea about how complex the human skin is? How about a birds feather, the way its similar to our skin in that its similar to being woven? Dr. Menton teaches all about thesee type things at the Creation Museum. How can ANYONE be so dense as to believe that something that intricate, that complex and miraculous could have "JUST HAPPENED" ? You can believe that YOU came from apes, but I know I sure didn't! I came from the SAME decendant as you did, ADAM!!! I'll continue to believe that God CREATED everything on earth, as well as all the galaxies, etc, before I'd believe an old man from the 1800's. WHY would modern day scientists believe that one simple man could come up with ALL of the answers as to where people, animales, etc came from and what it sprung from? What made him so special? I'd think that todays scientists would have at least a little more intelligence than Darwin did, since we have come so far with modern day science, equipment, dating, etc.
This is part of an article found on the internet that says:
We don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. This was found on a site about Darwin and his "theory". (The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." FYI, the site that this was on is here : http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm
Notice it says all about science...... which is what you all "claim" is the true, correct view of any normal person. Ha! Thats a matter of opinion people! Wake up before its too late for you! Listen to Ken, listen to Dr. Menton, and so many others who know the TRUTH!
Ken is not stealing any money from anyone! They give it freely to help further OUR beliefs and cause!! One thing you should know... I'm sure Ken as well as THOUSANDS of others pray for you all, no matter how cruel you are! You know, Satan will attack people who are TRYING to do whats right for their God and Savior! So I will tell you now as its been said in the past "Get behind me Satan!!" God bless you and every other so called Evolutionist, humanist, WhatEverist, for you surely are in need of all you can get.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 26, 2009 2:06 PM
I have an idea how complex human skin is Nanette. How about you let me sew those two flaps of yours over your mouth shut with a nice decorative herringbone stitch?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 26, 2009 2:07 PM
Nan and Nanette, evidence for your imaginary deity: zero. Ergo, it doesn't exist. Evidence that your babble is inerrant: zero. Good batting average.
Evidence for evolution: hundreds of thousands of scientific papers in the peer reviewed scientific literature, which is found in the libraries of colleges and univerisities world wide.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 26, 2009 2:36 PM
Nan,
And how about all those children of flat Earthers who have to hear about the world being round ?
That's right, but not in the way you intended.
How the hell did you conclude that? Criticizing someone is not taking away their rights.
Lie.He can do whatever the voices in his head tell him to do as long as it doesn't break the law.
He's a biologist, what the fuck do think?
It didn't "just happened" (btw don't make up things your opponent said and put them in quotes). Evolution by natural selection was the process that made it happened.
Seeing you throw your feces here only convinces me only more that we are descended from apes.
So you prefer to believe Jews from circa 6th century B.C.E rather than a scientist who came 24 centuries later? Oh, and BTW biology has come a long way since Darwin.
Strawman. Darwin didn't come up with ALL (and stop putting random words in caps) the answers. He came up with the general mechanism of how it happened. Besides, you believe the AiG has all the answers as to where people and animals came from.Scientist do have more knowledge than Darwin did and that knowledge overwhelmingly points to evolution by natural selection.
No, he's promoting falsehoods to get it.
More evidence that "God bless you" is the Christian "fuck you".
BTW, how the fuck did you post three times after we have gotten rid of that time out error?!
Posted by: JackBlacker | August 26, 2009 3:30 PM
I have been a onlooker here for sometime now. I didnt want to post until I was able to give back just as I have recieved from here. During the hard time
of the economy today I felt obligated to share with you how I have made it the past 6 months. Now I know this really has nothing to do with this site but as we all know
we each need tomake money and survive ourselves. Furthermore I wanted to share a site with you that can easily help you as it has helped me. In the past 6 months
I have been learning Internet Marketing techniques from using Blackhat and WhiteHat stratigies.
With these techniques I have been able to quit my job and focus just my time to internet marketing and now am making arounf $400 a day. My goal in the next 2 months is to beable to make $1k a day.
If it wasnt for this site http://www.moneymakerdiscussion.com/forum/ None of this would have happened. If your down and out and needing to make some online I suggest you check out this site.
If you join the site then you will ba able to see many more private methods to making anything from $100 a day all the way up to $1000's daily. It just takes a little work on your part but in the end these methods truly work.
Posted by: Nanette | August 28, 2009 9:57 PM
**Besides, you believe the AiG has all the answers as to where people and animals came from.
Patricia, your words are so impressive! I have to wonder if your a mother or not.. I surely hope if you are, that you do not talk to them as you have me! What an example!If so, then you could benefit from what you've threatened to do to my mouth! Its just ridiculous how so many of you can only threaten, or criticize with your POTTY mouths!
For those of you who think its such a bad thing to capitalize a word, so what? MAYBE just maybe you'll get the idea.
**Nerd of Redhead, How the hell did you conclude that? Criticizing someone is not taking away their rights.
So many of you on this site think that Christians are trying to force their beliefs/ideas on you or your children, BUT, your views are the ones taught in the classroom, so why how I concluded what I did, that Christian children are the ones being cheated, by NOT being taught Creation.
**He's a biologist, what the fuck do think?
btw, really impressive language from someone who thinks they know so much about everything! Can't think of something more intelligent to say instead of the potty words? I have to wonder if you talk like that in front of your mom or kids, etc....I was NOT saying anything about what he is or isn't! I was just asking do you have any idea of the complexity of skin? no way things that complex just happened. BTW maybe I shouldn't have put it in italics, I was NOT meaning to say that Ken or anyone else had said that! I said it!
**So you prefer to believe Jews from circa 6th century B.C.E rather than a scientist who came 24 centuries later? Oh, and BTW biology has come a long way since Darwin.
Yep, I do prefer to believe what God told men to write and record in the Bible about creation and everything else found in the Bible! You believe what Darwin wrote right? Same thing. We all have that choice.
**Besides, you believe the AiG has all the answers as to where people and animals came from.
Thats where your wrong! I believed God created the world and EVERYTHING in it LONG LONG before I ever knew who Ken Ham was!
** More evidence that "God bless you" is the Christian "fuck you".
BTW, how the fuck did you post three times after we have gotten rid of that time out error?!
Sorry, but I really do want God to bless you all, thats true and it was NOT meant in the rude way you think it was meant! I cannot tell you how I posted 3 times. At least one time I realized I'd forgotten something. Not sure about what happened on the other time. Whats it matter? all you have to do is scroll down :)
The main thing is this....... everyone wants to jump everyone on any little thing that is against what THEY believe....... Everyone has the right to choose. Everyone has to right to voice their opinion. I just have to question the way in which so many of you here do that. There is NO need to use such filthy language to get your point across! Show a little intelligence by using your brain to get your point across without the unnecessary potty mouth please! To me that kind of language just shows ignorance....... again, thats MY opinion...... everybody's got em!
ou said :
Posted by: Sastra | August 28, 2009 10:08 PM
Nanette #638 wrote:
There's also no need to point out vocabulary you don't care for, time and again. Yes, we understand. You don't care for bad language.
But the language and attitude aren't as important as the ideas themselves. It's not just a matter of picking and choosing a "side" you want to be on. If we value getting to an understanding of the world that's as objective as possible, we'll try to take our selves -- desires, feelings, needs -- out of the picture, and just look at our methods. How do we know what we think we know -- and might we be wrong? If so, how would we find that out?
A question: if it's actually the case that evolution happened and you accepted this, and considered your religious beliefs against this -- would you then become a theistic evolutionist? Or an atheist?
Posted by: Rorschach | August 28, 2009 10:32 PM
Nanette, once more missing the difference between myth and reality.
But that's not a bug in fundies, it's a feature.
Posted by: E.V. | August 28, 2009 10:41 PM
but you have no real data to back it up - no empirical evidence. You just believe in magical thinking - Gods, elves, fairies, djinni, unicorns. What you don't believe in elves, fairies and djinnis? They're no less preposterous than a magical god who has unicorns listed in his followers' Bronze Age compilation. Show actual evidence for your god (and the Bible doesn't count).As for your potty mouth hang up: you're one fucked up repressed old lady. Unless your parents used IVF, then they fucked to conceive you as well as indulged in other forms of sexual congress including oral. You need to get over it, Toots.
The earth is @4.54 billion years old.(Overwhelming evidence for it if you're not a stark raving idiot for Ken Ham's line of bullshit) Chimps are our closest living ancestors (more overwhelming evidence via DNA) and God is a human construct(no evidence beyond the anecdotal for ol' Yaweh/Zeus/Odin). People made up the concept of deities. Live with it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 28, 2009 10:44 PM
Nanette, you aren't getting it. Only science should be taught in science class. Science decides what is science. It is not up to a popular vote, and science overwhelmingly says evolution is science. Creationism is not science, never has been, and never will be.Creationism is a religious idea. If it is taught is school, it should be taught in a comparative religion class, mythology class, or philosophy class. Since it isn't a science, it has no business in a science class, any more than reading a novel by Faulkner. That is your problem, you can't understand the category creationism belongs to.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 28, 2009 10:50 PM
Yep, I do prefer to believe what God told men to write and record in the Bible about creation and everything else found in the Bible!
you prefer to believe you can breed striped animals if you put them in front of striped sticks?
or haven't you gotten that far in your collection of ancient goatherder stories yet?
see the difference between you and the people that actually make it possible for you to live, is that the rest of us actually have to work in the REAL world, and in the real world, very little of what is "written" in the various versions of your tome of children's stories has any practical application - because it's easily demonstrably wrong.
You can shove your head up your ass as far as you wish, but reality will still be there when you finally come out to take a breath.
You should be thanking those of your fellow humans who haven't abandoned reality, as it's US who provide you all the things you've come to rely on daily, including the computer you just typed your screed on.
Posted by: John Morales | August 28, 2009 11:00 PM
Nanette:
It serves an useful purpose (indicating vehemence).
I refer you to The Percent Company's rant Putting the "Fan" in "Profanity" for a well-argued justification for such.
I think you find it a convenient excuse to evade the substance of the comments, by focusing on the terminology.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 28, 2009 11:04 PM
That should be the Pharyngula banner on the top of the page, given how often I want to hit some stupid fundie over the head with those words on here.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 28, 2009 11:04 PM
No, no, Nanette. What is taught to students is not a civil rights issue. It is an issue of what is most factual and truthful. Go your route and the door is opened for people just as disconnected to reality as you to demand that slavery was good for the African kidnapped from Africa and that the Holocaust did not happen and besides, the Jews deserved it.
Show where your interpretation of the bible supports your version of creationism, whining that Ken Ham is a genius and doing the big sky daddy's work does not count. And just so you know, biologists can do all of their work without ever referencing Darwin. Darwin is one of the points where the knowledge begins. Darwin is not the be all and end all of biological knowledge. Your knowledge about the subject is so shallow that even a non scientist like me can see your ignorance.
Posted by: Stanton | August 28, 2009 11:10 PM
Perhaps Nanette likes seeing children, wearers of polyester and eaters of pork, cheeseburgers or shellfish being stoned to death, like it says in the Bible, too?Posted by: SC, OM | August 28, 2009 11:13 PM
I LOLd.
(In vaguely-related news, I'm supposed to be going to the red Sox game tomorrow, but it's not looking good. :()
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 28, 2009 11:23 PM
No, no, Nanette
Is that anything like Rochelle, Rochelle?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 28, 2009 11:24 PM
In vaguely-related news, I'm supposed to be going to the red Sox game tomorrow, but it's not looking good. :(
HATE, HATE, HATE YOU! (Desperately missing Fenway)
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 28, 2009 11:31 PM
I know too much baseball/Broadway trivia. I understand this reference.
MAJeff (Don't you need to change your moniker?), I never was a fan of Seinfeld. I had to google the reference.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 28, 2009 11:31 PM
Oh, great. Now I've got that ("...from Milan to Minsk...") stuck in my head. :)
Sorry!
Posted by: SC, OM | August 28, 2009 11:36 PM
But it was Bette Midler!
(OK, I've admitted that I've been called a gay man trapped in a straight woman's body... But it was Bette Midler!)
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 28, 2009 11:38 PM
MAJeff (Don't you need to change your moniker?)
Nah....got an internet presence under this name. Doesn't matter that I'm in ND now...well, except for finding decent food.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 28, 2009 11:40 PM
But I am not a gay man trapped in a straight woman's body. Gay men's icons really do not resonate with me.
Damn, I think I am starting to get confused here.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 28, 2009 11:48 PM
But NDJeff, I have done fine with a fluid moniker. But I have had OMnivore for a while. I should find an other word with an OM theme.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 28, 2009 11:49 PM
Gay men's icons really do not resonate with me.
Damn, I think I am starting to get confused here.
BUT IT'S BETTE MIDLER!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 28, 2009 11:52 PM
But NDJeff, I have done fine with a fluid moniker. But I have had OMnivore for a while. I should find an other word with an OM theme.
It's strange. Teddy's death this week....I don't want to lose the MA. The Bay State will remain part of me, and I'm anticipating, AT LEAST, an annual trip back. The MA ain't going anywhere.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 28, 2009 11:53 PM
For The Boys changed my life.
Sorry, I have to get snarky now.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 28, 2009 11:57 PM
This was what I was going to post before going in search of a video on WooTube:
But my point is, well,...Bette. Should need no explanation. :)
But
says it all.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 28, 2009 11:59 PM
MAJeff, I am sorry that I am making you defensive. I meant that as a throw away joke.
I hate emoticons. Yet I also have a hard time creating tone with the written word.
And I need to go to sleep now. Yet an other early day.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 29, 2009 12:00 AM
Got called a homo on the way home and heard a comment about HIV as I walked past. Ah, it's good to be gay in America
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 29, 2009 12:02 AM
Well, maybe if she got Barry Manilow and Katie Sagal back.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 29, 2009 12:02 AM
MAJeff, I am sorry that I am making you defensive.
You aren't. no worries.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 29, 2009 12:08 AM
As a good night peace offering, here is a clip of Bette Midler I am sure you have not seen.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 29, 2009 12:10 AM
I do, too, and I finally gave in. So much of real-life communication is nonverbal, and it's just impossible (or extraordinarily difficult) to reproduce without some clues.
FUCK.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 29, 2009 12:15 AM
Got called a homo on the way home and heard a comment about HIV as I walked past. Ah, it's good to be gay in America
No worries. I was called a dumb immigrant for speaking my native language despite being born here in the USA.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 29, 2009 12:17 AM
As usual, SC sums it up nicely.Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 29, 2009 12:39 AM
FUCK.
Yeah. Was having a great night. Then, well....same shit forever and everywhere. Completely expectable and shocking at the same time. wev
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 29, 2009 12:44 AM
How do you know that it was really God who wrote it? Surely if it doesn't match up with what the natural world tells us then a) God didn't write it, b) God deceived us by making it look otherwise, or c) God is clearly incompetent. So do you believe in a deceptive god, an incompetent god, or that the bible is the work of man?Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 29, 2009 12:48 AM
No wonder no one has seen that clip, I failed the first time.
As for MAJeff's story, that is all too common. There is a reason why some of us get surly, we have damned good reasons.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 29, 2009 1:05 AM
Found it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_vdlhsvI1M
Cheers. :)
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 29, 2009 1:11 AM
I just love that Bette, and her accompanist (Barry Manilow), got her start in the gay bathhouses of NYC.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 29, 2009 1:48 AM
Nannette,
Because they are the ones supported by the facts.
No one is preventing you from teaching your children Creationism. You can bring them to Sunday school. You can teach them creationism yourself. However, when they learn science they will learn the facts. We also don't teach children astrology or a flat Earth either.
Where did I say I thought I know so much about everything? I know enough to know that I knew very little and that creationism fails tremendously when one looks at geology, biology, embryology, astrophysics, archaeology etc.
As for language, many others have responded to this better than I could have. Sometimes profanity is very appropriate, like SC,OM's comment @ #666 (the number is just a coincidence!). If you don't like it then you can either not read my comments or find some sort of profanity filter. Naughty words is hardly the most horrifying thing you'll on the internet (just type '2 girls, 1 cup' in a search engine and see how many hits that gets!!!).
Your comment was addressed to PZ. I see as much reason to ask a biologist if the know about the complexity of the skin then to ask a mathematician if they know about square roots.
It didn't "just happened". There was a process called evolution by natural selection. It wasn't like a tornado going threw a junkyard and assembling an airplane. It was more like a mountain being built gradually over eons.
You are free to believe whatever you want, that doesn't make it true.
Those ancient Jews lived in very primitive times. Their ignorance on the subject on the origin of life and the universe is forgivable (the exact value of Pi however they could have done better considering the Egyptian Ahmes lived a millenium before they did and got it within 0.6%). However, in this day and age on the shoulders of these huge giants if you're not seeing it's because you have your eyes closed.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 29, 2009 1:55 AM
Nanette,
I don't believe Darwin was infallible. He got many things wrong, most notably the mechanism of inheritance.
Look if you are going to debate with someone you have to try (at least) to understand them and not merely project your line of thinking onto them. You have faith in God, but we don't have "faith" in evolution. We believe it because the evidence is overwhelming for it. You believe the bible is infallible, but we do NOT think works of science are. You may have a messiah, but we don't. Darwin a bright man but he was only human.
You missed my point. You yourself are presumably human and you think you know how animals, humans, etc. came to be (i.e, God did it). So I don't see how you can critize Darwin for theorizing the origin of species.
The phrase, as I've seen it used, is very condescending and passive aggressive while being masked as a blessing. "I'll pray for you" works even better that way. That's how it's a "fuck you".
Everyone has the right to believe what they wish and everyone else has the right to criticize those beliefs. As long as they don't try to silence others from voicing their opinions it's all perfectly well. If you don't want to hear or read the criticisms then you are free to turn away.
You should really tell Ken Ham that since he doesn't allow comments (even by his followers) anywhere on his site. Meanwhile you, a Christian, are allowed to comment here on an atheist blog.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 29, 2009 2:33 AM
Do you know how science works? It's not Darwin's word vs the authors of the bible, it's the cumulative enterprise of millions of scientists doing research and releasing peer reviewed papers challenging the frontier of the unknown. I don't believe what Darwin wrote, Darwin was just the man who first came up with the notion of natural selection. He didn't get everything right, and evolution has since moved on from there. It now takes into account genetics, something Darwin never did. It is backed by a huge fossil record, something Darwin never saw. It has genetic backing in the case of DNA - something completely unknown to Darwin. And best of all it has observed instances of mutation, selection, adaptation, and speciation in real time.We don't believe in evolution because "Darwin said it", evolution is believed in because the natural world attests to evolution every time the biological and geological record of life is observed.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 29, 2009 2:47 AM
Which creation myth should they be taught? Hindu? Greek? Iriquois?
Why?
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 29, 2009 2:53 AM
If you want to teach Christian children creation in religion class, go ahead. Nothing is stopping you from doing that. But we are talking about science, and science relies on the scientific method and the scientific process. If you want creation taught in science class, then you must first fight for it in academia. While creation is not science, but religion, then it has no place in the science classroom. Don't you get it? Creationism is not taught in science because it is not science, it is religion.Posted by: UKFREESIM | August 30, 2009 5:11 AM
http://www.Freepaygsim.co.uk
Found this site on another forum you can order a free payg sim and it comes with £5 credit on with no top-up required aswell,
For Free you cant go wrong can ya?
Thought this would be a nice way to join the forum
Posted by: ChrisPark | September 1, 2009 10:59 AM
Alright, today i am going to show you some tested ways to make 400 dollars online, the fast and easy ways to help you make your 400 dollars fast online. There are plenty of methods you could use to make 400 dollars fast online but some of them are a complete waste of your time and never actually work. I make over 3000 dollars a week online and i will show you exactly where to find all the info i use to make my income online, so you can get started at making 400 dollars a week online and move up to making much bigger money a little later Ok?
Right, all you need to start making 400 dollars online fast is a computer with internet connection! That's all you need as far as equipment goes, but you will also need to bring a little dedication and some of your time if you want to start making 400 dollars and more online. As you probably already worked out it will be you that has to implement the methods to make 400 dollars online, i can't do it for all of you guys, i would never be able to keep up as there are thousands of you who want to make 400 dollars online!
If you want to skip all my blabering and get started making 400 dollars online then Click The Link Below
http://unibaq.com - Unibaq.com
Posted by: JackBlacker | September 1, 2009 1:19 PM
I have been a onlooker here for sometime now. I didnt want to post until I was able to give back just as I have recieved from here. During the hard time
of the economy today I felt obligated to share with you how I have made it the past 6 months. Now I know this really has nothing to do with this site but as we all know
we each need tomake money and survive ourselves. Furthermore I wanted to share a site with you that can easily help you as it has helped me. In the past 6 months
I have been learning Internet Marketing techniques from using Blackhat and WhiteHat stratigies.
With these techniques I have been able to quit my job and focus just my time to internet marketing and now am making arounf $400 a day. My goal in the next 2 months is to beable to make $1k a day.
If it wasnt for this site http://www.moneymakerdiscussion.com/forum/ None of this would have happened. If your down and out and needing to make some online I suggest you check out this site.
If you join the site then you will ba able to see many more private methods to making anything from $100 a day all the way up to $1000's daily. It just takes a little work on your part but in the end these methods truly work.
Posted by: ChrisPark | September 2, 2009 4:31 PM
Hello. My name is Chris. I'm from USA. And yeah, hope to be a long time member of this forum!
Here's a photo of me :) http://lmageshack.us/img/chrisP.jpg - Just so you know who i am!
Posted by: JackBlacker | September 4, 2009 3:00 AM
I have been a onlooker here for sometime now. I didnt want to post until I was able to give back just as I have recieved from here. During the hard time
of the economy today I felt obligated to share with you how I have made it the past 6 months. Now I know this really has nothing to do with this site but as we all know
we each need tomake money and survive ourselves. Furthermore I wanted to share a site with you that can easily help you as it has helped me. In the past 6 months
I have been learning Internet Marketing techniques from using Blackhat and WhiteHat stratigies.
With these techniques I have been able to quit my job and focus just my time to internet marketing and now am making arounf $400 a day. My goal in the next 2 months is to beable to make $1k a day.
If it wasnt for this site http://www.moneymakerdiscussion.com/forum/ None of this would have happened. If your down and out and needing to make some online I suggest you check out this site.
If you join the site then you will ba able to see many more private methods to making anything from $100 a day all the way up to $1000's daily. It just takes a little work on your part but in the end these methods truly work.
Posted by: TracieAnn | September 17, 2009 12:24 AM
[b]How to Treat Cellulite?[/b]
Now say good bye to the cellulite with RejuvinX. Cellulite deposits are very difficult to deal with, but now we can deal with it very easily. Cellulite deposit scan be easily treated by natural extracts. RejuvinX is a very effective cream to tackle the problem of cellulite in a very natural manner. It is a much better option than liposuction and painful yet expensive way outs.
[b]Effectiveness of RejuvinX Cellulite Reduction Cream :[/b]
RejuvinX Cellulite Reduction Cream is a actually a toning mechanism that helps to tone up the skin. RejuvinX is the perfect way out to achieve a great skin without any blemish. It is known that no matter how much weight you shed the cellulite will still be very evident in the affected body parts. rejuveniX would act a great toner for cellulite prone areas like hips, thighs and arm pits.
We have heard about the prowess of caffeine when drunk. Caffeine can also be applied on the skin to rejuvenate the dormant skin cells. It further goes on to break the fatty molecules deposited in various body parts. It has been clinically proven that a regular use of RejuvinX would lead to a healthier skin.
[b]Rejuvin X Stretch Marks Cream Review :[/b]
It is also a great cream to ensure that the collagen levels are restored in the body. RejuvinX Stretch marks cream I s also a great amount of news and raising quite a few eye brows out of sheer admiration. The cream triggers a natural exfoliation thus lower the tone of the skin around the marks to make them look light. These creams contain all the goodness of green tea extracts and vital vitamins.
You can always try a hand on this product as it may be ordered free on the Promotinal website., the free trials for both the creams is available : [url=http://doiop.com/qq5780]Rejuvinex Website[/url]
Posted by: TracieAnn | September 17, 2009 1:44 PM
Hello all,
I would like to take this time to tell you all about my recent experiences with this cream I found.
Basically a long story short, after 3 kids my stomach was look, not so nice as I would like it to. I had horrible stretch marks and tried everything I could think of to get rid of them, until my aunt told me about rejuvinx. Like I said i've tried it all before and was very skeptical, but went ahead and bit the bullet.
I started using it and no lie, within 3 days I started noticing a reduction in the marks. Nothing drastic at first but I continued using it for another 30 days and now I am no longer ashamed to show my stomach off. I feel beautiful again, and regain a feeling I never thought would return.
Now I'm not one to normally recommend product to people but this is one thing that every woman should know about, if you are interested in it, you can see and judge for yourself. Below here is a link to more information on it.
[url=http://doiop.com/qq5780]Rejuvinx Website[/url]
Thank you all, and god bless!
~Tracie
Proud mother of 3
Posted by: hanseleiselstrom | November 3, 2009 9:48 AM
Hello
I am Hansel
I am just new to this forum, but already have my first question for you guys:
Does any of you guys (or girls) know of any online seksshop where you can order safely and privately. And also offer free of charge Shipping worldwide?
for example (but then with worldwide shipping) [url=http://www.zannel.com/onlinesekshops?public_preview=true]seksshop online[/url]
I would really apreciate your help.
Thank you so much!
Hansel E.
Posted by: jorgegeraldandum | November 4, 2009 7:41 AM
Whatsup?
Me am Jorge form Espagna!
New to This Forum. Thank you for letting me join to it. I appreciate it much!
I have signed up, because I have a burning question:
I am looking for a similar supplier for sex speeltjes.
For those of you who dont know what sex speeltjes are. they are sextoys.
I recently discovered using them with my lovely american wife. Our life between the sheets has improved so much!!!
So if you have any questions which to use or how to use them please visit my [url=http://www.dezinedepot.com/user/32656]online sex speeltjes blog[/url].
[url=http://www.quizilla.com/stories/13987393/online-sex-speeltjes][/url]
Posted by: ASjaptefaubjest | November 10, 2009 9:30 AM
Hello all
diazepam 5mg
Diazepam is Valium’s generic name.
[url=http://www.scrapbook-paradise.com/]generic valium[/url]
As this drug cause congenital defects, pregnant women are prohibited to use Valium.
http://www.scrapbook-paradise.com/ - valium 5mg
If you are taking Valium in its liquid form, make sure that you have with you the measuring spoon that goes with it.
Posted by: ASjaptefaubjest | November 10, 2009 6:44 PM
Hello all
http://www.pblcbatonrouge.org/ - generic clonazepam
However, Klonopin wafers are also available and it?s not necessary to drink water with them as they get easily dissolved in saliva.
[url=http://www.pblcbatonrouge.org/]buy klonopin online[/url]
This drug helps people to get relaxed and completely out of nervousness and stress.
clonazepam medication
You can take this drug alone or can be taken with some other drugs that have been manufactured focusing to provide solution to the seizure disorders.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 12, 2009 11:14 AM
Kinda fitting that blatant falsehoods, money-making scams, medications that can cause brain damage, and sex shops that presumably sell implements useful in the rape of piglets are all so prominently advertised on a Ken Ham thread :P
Posted by: ASjaptefaubjest | November 17, 2009 4:16 AM
Hello all
http://www.golfpoloshirts.net/ - cheap zoloft
Wipe out depressionOrder Zoloft at discounted price! Zoloft (Sertraline) always in stock!
[url=http://www.golfpoloshirts.net/]zoloft pill[/url]
It is best absorbed when taking orally and it is concentrated in the plasma 4-6 hours after ingestion with corresponding half life of 13-45 hours.
buy zoloft
Wipe out depressionOrder Zoloft at discounted price! Zoloft (Sertraline) always in stock!