…and this is a 
If you've been following the comment threads lately, you already know that we've had a new arrival who has been inspiring much hilarity, Pastor Tom Estes. He seems to be much dismayed at us atheists, and is promising to meet us at the Creation "Museum" on Friday, to discuss matters. He also has a blog where he has been fulminating about the event and wallowing in his own incomprehension. It's funny stuff — he doesn't understand why we would care about the Creation "Museum", and at the same time claims that the myth of Genesis is supported by science. Now if only he would realize that those two claims answer each other: we care because people like Pastor Tom and Ken Ham are misrepresenting the science.
Getting back to the hatred of Ham and the Creation Museum, why? Why do you all care? Especially when you consider that you have the truth? Why not leave us goofy Christians alone on this one? I cannot help but believe that atheists are threatened by Ken Ham because he doesn't need the Bible to disprove evolution, he uses science.
That's right, sacred science.
And not only that, he doesn't care what the scientic community's lemmings think of him. And then, on top of that, he has the nerve to educate as many as possible about the truths of science, which is what the Creation Museum is all about. Thus, he needs to be brought down.
But how? What is Myers going to do? I ask because I've been to the Creation Museum, and it's all science. There's not going to be any Bible-thumping going on. Ken Ham shows how science proves the Bible, and not the other way around, so Myers will have his hands full. (I know atheists are chuckling, but I assure you, it's true.)
Something stands out in that little wail: Ken Ham "doesn't need the Bible to disprove evolution"? "There's not going to be any Bible-thumping going on"?
Pastor Tom doesn't know his hero very well. All you have to do is look at the Answers in Genesis mission statement:
Goal: To support the church in fulfilling its commission
Vision: Answers in Genesis is a catalyst to bring reformation by reclaiming the foundations of our faith which are found in the Bible, from the very first verse.
Mission:
- We proclaim the absolute truth and authority of the Bible with boldness.
- We relate the relevance of a literal Genesis to the church and the world today with creativity.
- We obey God's call to deliver the message of the gospel, individually and collectively.
Bible-thumping is right there at the heart of the organization. That's their whole premise, that the Bible is literally true and all science must conform to it. The Creation "Museum" isn't about science at all, but is entirely about a peculiar, quirky, very specific interpretation of the Bible.
I've also read Jason Lisle's book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, which isn't the ultimate anything, contains no proofs, but does boldly proclaim the absolute truth and authority of the Bible. Right at the beginning, it asserts that the Bible is a central tool in their proselytizing, and that the good creationist should reject the blandishments of secular tempters who demand evidence other than the Bible. (It really is an awful book, too — long, preachy, and whining non-stop about logical fallacies — with the author commits freely — and nowhere does it provide a scrap of reason why we should accept the literal account of the Bible).
But don't just take my word for it. I recently and fortuitously received a copy in the mail of the closest thing to a scientific publication ever authored by Ken Ham, thanks to a generous reader. Even better, it's a double-whammy: it's authored by two of the biggest names in creationism, Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis and John Morris of the Institute for Creation research. These are authorities in their little wacky subdomain of pseudoscience.
Here is that science text:
In this book, geared towards the level of intelligence of your average creationist, we get a plain, clear statement of the Biblical foundation of their beliefs.
(Click for larger image)
What's this? Dinosaurs and people together? Some scientists think that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, long before humans lived on the earth. But the Bible tells us the real story. The Bible tells us that God made the dinosaurs on day six of Creation week, only thousands of years ago. Do you know who God also made on day six to care for the world? Adam and Eve, the first two humans, our great, great, great, great…grandparents. Do you know what this means? Dinosaurs must have lived at the same time as Adam and Eve. Wow! Wouldn't that have been exciting?
That claim completely contradicts all of the geological evidence. It's false all the way down — dinosaurs died approximately 65 million years ago, and modern humans arose a few hundred thousand years ago. There was no overlap. The earth itself is far older than a few thousand years. There is no "science" there.
There is, though, a good reason for being pissed off at these frauds. They are lying to little kids.
Morris J, Ham K (1990) What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs. Master Books, Green Forest, AR.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Newfie | August 3, 2009 2:05 PM
Satan created and buried dinosaur bones to test our faith in babby Jeebus... everyone knows that.
Posted by: Kassul | August 3, 2009 2:06 PM
That's a great science text!
"If you don't believe it then why do you care if we believe it and tell other people it's true and that all you scientists are a bunch of wacked-out loonies who are lying to them????!!!1one"
Not sure that I could say that with a straight face. Seriously, how could we NOT care that these people are peddling their ignorant ramblings to the vulnerable?
Posted by: jaywalkker | August 3, 2009 2:09 PM
Is it because of the shared namesake of Noah's most maligned son, used to visit hardship on so many for years, that Ken Ham is such a died in the wool literalist? He's such a fruit loop he should be chasing Toucan Sam.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
August 3, 2009 2:10 PM
As incapable of clear thinking as these people are, it's still hard to believe that they're not deliberately lying when they make statements like this one:
Yes, we didn't leave geocentrists alone when they were lying to people, nor do we leave alone medical frauds like chiropractors, because, of course, we lack good solid evidence against those lies.
We're only worried about lies when we have no answers to them, you know, since we don't care in the least that people are led to idiocy, and sickness and death, by charlatans.
Of course if we didn't respond to the liars they oppose (astrologers, etc.), they'd be whining that we ignore errant nonsense. I thus have a hard time believing that they don't deliberately confuse our opposition on behalf of their hopeful suckers, with opposition to lies that "we can't properly answer" or some such thing.
After all, they claim to oppose lies for many of the same reasons that we actually do, and don't pretend that they should shut up just because they supposedly "have the truth." Ignorant they may be, but they're not so ignorant that they can't recognize their double standard on that score, even if they refuse to recognize it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 2:13 PM
*Where's the dino saddle?*
Telling lies must be science in their minds. At least what little minds that they have. Otherwise, they wouldn't be admitted Liars for JebusTM.
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 3, 2009 2:13 PM
"Why do you all care? Especially when you consider that you have the truth? Why not leave us goofy Christians alone on this one? I cannot help but believe that atheists are threatened by Ken Ham because he doesn't need the Bible to disprove evolution, he uses science."
This style of argument is usually pointless, because it can be used to deflect any criticism. Why does Pastor Este care what atheists think? We cannot help but believe that Christians are threatened by PZ because he can use the science of evolution to disprove not only creationism, but the Bible, Christianity, and the existence of God.
Why else would they be bothered?
Cuts both ways, and any way. "You only argue against me because you know I'm right." Uh huh. Better if nobody uses that one.
Posted by: Splog | August 3, 2009 2:13 PM
W.K. Clifford (1845-1879) - "And no one man's belief is in any case a private matter which concerns him alone. Our lives are guided by that general conception of the course of things which has been created by society for social purposes. Our words, our phrases, our forms and processes and modes of thought, are common property, fashioned and perfected from age to age; an heirloom which every succeeding generation inherits as a precious deposit and a sacred trust to be handed to the next one, not unchanged but enlarged and purified, with some clear marks of its own handiwork."
There you go. Encouraging such rubbish as the creationist museum is doing is immoral.
Posted by: Michelle | August 3, 2009 2:14 PM
As a kid I was fascinated with dinosaurs, so what did my parents do to foster that curiosity? They bought me that book! I still have it (and others) to remind myself how far I've come.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | August 3, 2009 2:16 PM
Is that a theropod wandering past the Neolithic farmers? I don't see a happy ending here.
Posted by: Jennifurret | August 3, 2009 2:16 PM
I'm just honored that not only did he personally want to meet you, but me too! To be on a PZ-level in the eyes of creationists is an honor indeed.
To be honest, it kind of freaked me out. Generally random super conservative evangelical internet people telling 21 year old women you're going to be waiting for them to meet them produces a pretty healthy level of paranoia. Especially when then they go find your twitter account to tell you not to be paranoid. Eep.
Can I please be at the center of the herd at the Creation Museum?
Posted by: Q-Squared | August 3, 2009 2:18 PM
That child's book makes me want to read it for laughs, then tear my hair out over the obvious logic errors that these liars are feeding to kids.
Posted by: PeterKarim | August 3, 2009 2:20 PM
"Some scientists think that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago"
SOME ?! Epic Winer of the understatement contest. Yeah Tyrannosauridae were herbovirus too before The Fall. With razor sharp teeth to kill the tenacious shrubberies!
Posted by: Linda | August 3, 2009 2:21 PM
My neverending fascination with creationists doesn't get old. I especially love their use of ONE religious text to explain the beginning. What's wrong with Zeus? Or the Hindu creation? Or the hundreds of other religious creation stories? Why just Adam and Eve? I'd love it if their alleged "science" can explain that one!!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 3, 2009 2:23 PM
See? It's SCIENCE!
Posted by: PlaydoPlato | August 3, 2009 2:23 PM
So a xtian will believe any outlandish statement so long as it's prefaced by "the bible says"? Cool.
The bible says don't be a dumbass. Learn science.
Problem solved.
Posted by: Randomfactor | August 3, 2009 2:24 PM
Wonder whether the pastor "cares" whether two individuals of the same sex get married? Especially when he claims to have all the truth--what care he if someone else gets it wrong?
(Substitute "eats shellfish/works on Sunday/has an abortion/votes Democratic" or your favorite unbiblical action for the above.)
Posted by: Scooty Puff Jr. | August 3, 2009 2:25 PM
On the Answers in Genesis site it states, "In a biblical worldview, scientific observations are interpreted in light of the truth that is found in the Bible. If conclusions contradict the truth revealed in Scripture, the conclusions are rejected."
It seems that Ken Ham can't even come to any conclusions about scientific matters without consulting the Bible.
Posted by: Father Nature | August 3, 2009 2:26 PM
But PZ, to God one day is as 65 million years and 65 million years is as one day. Therefore the dinos died out in the morning and Adam and Eve were created in the evening. It's easy if "day" can mean...whatever. You just have to apply the right conversion factor.
From the book. "Fun With Theology".
Posted by: Insightful Ape | August 3, 2009 2:26 PM
Dear Tom Ridiculous,
I care about the lies that you and your buddy Ken are spreading, because I am not a hypocrite, as you are. As I mentioned in my post on the last thread you were trolling, evolution has been the basis of geology for 150 years. If you doubt it, go ask the geologists that actually put science to work, and look for and find the deposits of oil and gas that you use to move your car while denying the science behind it.
I am concerned because what you are doing leads to scientific illeteracy, which is a plague. As much as you would like to ignore the facts, impediments that are placed in the way of science by people like you and the politicians you vote into office ultimately harm us all. Case in point: the 8 year delay of research into one of the most promising lines of biomedical field, the stem cells. You are trying to dilute science with religious doctrine, and that is what I object to.
Posted by: arrakis
|
August 3, 2009 2:27 PM
One wonders if James Gurney could sue Ken Ham for stealing the "Dinotopia" concept.
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 2:28 PM
Jesus! No wonder I'm so fucking tired this afternoon!Posted by: Mr.Knuffke | August 3, 2009 2:29 PM
"I ask because I've been to the Creation Museum, and it's all science."
Where, then, did I go two summers ago? Because the Creation "Museum" that I went to was essentially a giant walk-through bible diorama...with dinosaurs AND poison-dart frogs.
Which one of "the Seven C's" is science, again?
Have fun on Friday, friends. It's the only place I've ever seen someone wearing a "pro-life guard" tee-shirt in a non-ironic fashion.
Posted by: Dahan | August 3, 2009 2:32 PM
"Sacred science"?
I'm massively confused.
Posted by: Anonym | August 3, 2009 2:34 PM
Can't beat their business plan; the bell curve practically guarantees success -- all those dumb-ass sheep just aching to be fleeced.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 3, 2009 2:35 PM
Pastor Tom whines:
Because this country is falling far enough behind the rest of the damn world in terms of intelligence and contributiuon to science. So as long as Ham continues to advertise his "museum" in public spaces like museums and other places where young minds can be exposed to his lies and idiocy, you're damn right we won't leave him, one of you "goofy Christians", alone about it. We will continue to protect them under the umbrella of reason, logic, and critical thinking.
When will "you goofy Christians" leave the rest of us alone? Yeah... unlikely, I know.
Posted by: Lynna | August 3, 2009 2:35 PM
Oh, boy! I'm loving that fence built to keep the dinosaur penned it. That wimpy fence wouldn't keep a horse from roaming off the reservation, let alone a dino. Not only is the big picture wrong, but every detail is also wrong. If you're going to get anything wildly wrong, go all the way, I say.
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 3, 2009 2:35 PM
"Ken Ham shows how science proves the Bible, and not the other way around, so Myers will have his hands full. (I know atheists are chuckling, but I assure you, it's true.)"
You know, I wanted to mention something to Tom in one of the other threads -- sort of give him a head's up, so to speak. It's rather obvious from this passage, and other things he's said in Comments, that he thinks that PZ Myers and most of folks with him have no idea what they are in for: they don't know what exhibits they will see, what information they will read, or what displays they will encounter.
That is not true, Tom.
There have been a lot of reports (with photos) available online since the museum opened. Some of them are very detailed, with word-for-word descriptions of all the 'scientific' evidence. Most of the people who are coming with PZ's group have a pretty good idea of what they're going to come across because they've read books and essays by Ham and other creationists. But at least some of them -- including, I'm going to guess, PZ Myers -- have more than a vague idea. They've read those detailed reports of this very museum, and seen the photographs. Outside, inside, beginning to end.
They're prepared. Well prepared, with specific rebuttals to the displays considered in advance. I think you're imagining a kind of wide-eyed bewilderment that there are no Bibles, no posters depicting Jesus playing with children. "But this ... this is attacking at the heart of what we thought was true -- using our own method!"
No. Sorry. That isn't going to happen. Better brace yourself for it now.
Posted by: Lynna | August 3, 2009 2:37 PM
That's Ray Comfort happily clinging to the head of the sappy dinosaur on the cover of the booklet. I swear it looks like him.
Posted by: uberlieder | August 3, 2009 2:37 PM
Click on the link to the pastor's blog! Best comic ever!
Posted by: daveau
|
August 3, 2009 2:38 PM
Jennifurret@10-
You're just special, I guess. Creepy, though.
Pastor Tom:
I'll take that bet...
Posted by: Jello | August 3, 2009 2:39 PM
That brings me back. When I was about 8 my aunt, an evangelical, gave me, at the time a member of mainstream liberal catholic family, a book much like this one for my birthday because at the time I was obsessed with dinosaurs. I read the book cover to cover and found myself very confused by the ridiculous claims the book made, many of which boldly contradicted what I already knew, and sought out my mom for clarification. Now my mom had not bothered to review the book to see what it was actually about. I'm not sure what else she thought a book with a picture of a velociraptor boarding Noah's ark could be about but she let it pass by at first. However, once I started babbling on about T-Rex eating watermelons, yeah that one was in there too, she realized that my fundyloon aunt had pulled a fast one on us and the book was removed never to be seen again. So, in the end, no permanent damage to my logical faculties was done, but it was a very strange episode that demonstrates just how easy it is to disseminate this B.S. to the uninformed and impressionable.
Here's a link to the book's listing on amazon in case anyone has a meddling fundyloon relative and they wish to dodge this particular bullet. Not that most of you need it.
http://www.amazon.com/Dinosaurs-Bible-David-W-Unfred/dp/0910311706/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249324494&sr=8-4
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 3, 2009 2:39 PM
Is that a theropod wandering past the Neolithic farmers? I don't see a happy ending here.
As the story goes, all carnivores were vegetarian (vegan in fact) and friendly and playful as can be until [/queu terrifying music and ominous lighting] after the apple was picked. Since the dino appears to be just passing by it would appear that the apple hasn't yet been picked. QED they are in no danger yet. This is how bible science works. :)
Posted by: 386sx | August 3, 2009 2:39 PM
Good thing they built that fence to keep out that T. rex!! Smart thinkin.
Posted by: DaveX | August 3, 2009 2:42 PM
Back when I wrote my blog entry (titled: "Thanks, PZ!" and linked in my URL) about the "Evidence in Evolution" mini-book and visit to the local religious bookstore, I mentioned finding this book with my daughter in the upstairs kids area of the store. We were alternating between laughing like two kids looking up "poop" in the dictionary, and trying to keep straight faces whenever employees would walk by. If it's anything like the museum, you're liable to bruise a rib or two laughing during your visit!
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 3, 2009 2:42 PM
Thanks for posting this PZ, now I can tell for sure that Ken Ham is a True Christian.
In my old cult, Pastor taught us this answer to any godless hell bound doubter -
God said it,
The bible proves it,
I believe it.
Ham & Tom probably have that on matching T-shirts.
Posted by: Mark G. | August 3, 2009 2:43 PM
Seriously though, isn't there some way to hold these people accountable? It seems downright criminal - creationists are perpetrating a fraud on the public, and there is nothing we can do about it? This is so frustrating.
Posted by: Stellar Moose | August 3, 2009 2:44 PM
Ken Ham has a similar book titled, The Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved!
Here's an excerpt from page 34...
Ham then goes on to cite the Epic of Gilgamesh, England's story of St. George slaying a dragon in a cave, and China's affinity for dragons as evidence for dinosaurs existing with humans.
He also asserts that the 16th Century Historia Animalium records the presence of animals that are defined as dinosaurs today.
There's more, but I'm laughing too hard to continue typing.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | August 3, 2009 2:45 PM
But they're _farming_ so it has to be _after_ they ate the apple.
I think they've contradicted themselves there.
Posted by: Tristan | August 3, 2009 2:45 PM
Pastor Tom Estes
Tom Estes
T. Estes
Testes
Anyone else get that?
Posted by: Sandra Kay | August 3, 2009 2:48 PM
sacred science
Oh man, this is getting good!
Posted by: Anonym | August 3, 2009 2:50 PM
According to 'Hard Truth', it cost his last group of devotees $1600 just to get free of him -- jus' sayin'.
Posted by: glbrown | August 3, 2009 2:50 PM
These folks are well on their way to obfuscating themselves into oblivion so half of me is actually cheering them on. Boy I wish I could be at the shrine with you guys. Godspeed oh mighty warriors.
Meanwhile I wonder what they are going to use as an argument when Venter and Sutherland get together and start making plants and animals from dirt and water under a sun lamp.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/abs/nature08013.html
These smart people have spent their lives making mistakes and trying again, repeating this cycle for what must have seemed like forever and look what they have to show for it. Sutherland is creating pieces of RNA from scratch right now. Venter is copying and modifying life right now. It's only a matter of time until I can order a custom plant on the web. Just imagine.
Ken and Tom have done literally nothing for the same amount of time. Joe Sixpack is quickly figuring out that one group is a provable benefit to society and the other group is bat shit crazy.
We can only hope.
Posted by: Lynna | August 3, 2009 2:51 PM
Why is the baby dino standing on the big dino's nose wearing such uncool kicks? Get that baby dino an internet connection for footwear shopping; and maybe even a Nike sponsorship.
Posted by: bobxxxx | August 3, 2009 2:52 PM
"Why not leave us goofy Christians alone on this one?"
Pastor Tom Estes, a better question would be when are you shitheads going to stop harassing biology teachers and let them do their jobs.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 3, 2009 2:52 PM
Bible science
jimmiraybob you owe me a ginger ale. ;)
Posted by: JafafaHots | August 3, 2009 2:54 PM
If I'd had parents that bought me that book, I'd have a very hard time ever talking to them again.
Then again, my dad DOES read Michelle Malkin and Pajamas Media every day...
Posted by: Josh | August 3, 2009 2:54 PM
But, but...wait.
Even if that is supposed to be A&E in the illustration, didn't clothing come after The Fall? With shame and sin and all that? Shouldn't that theropod* be at least starting to become predatory in that case**?
*It's not a T. rex; there are at least three digits on the right hand.
**Did everything immediately become a carnivore as soon as Eve bit? Did it take some time? Was it a process of Turning Carnivorous over time, where the animals experienced some sort of fucking Teen Wolf metamorphosis?
Posted by: Brian Rapp | August 3, 2009 2:56 PM
Christ on a pogostick. These people are dumber than a box of hammers. It's funny, in a sick, perverted way, how these same morons who constantly deride science don't seem to have a problem with it when it's used to build bigger and better bombs.
Posted by: Lynna | August 3, 2009 3:01 PM
Jennifer, you have been singled out, elevated to the status of Unholy Woman because you illustrated the situation perfectly in a cartoon. Cartoons are accessible to Creationist minds.
(Not any irony or subtleties, mind you, but the basic cartoon still breached the closed minds.) Congratulations. And take your body guards with you.
Posted by: JanitorforChrist777 | August 3, 2009 3:01 PM
"That claim completely contradicts all of the geological evidence."
Hahaha. Thanks for going ahead and listing all that evidence. This is the best you atheists have. Name-calling and saying "nuh-uh".
The only sounds in hell louder than the atheists' collective lies are the weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 3:03 PM
Oh, how Tom Estes would chortle and snicker at the Hindu Creationist Museum. "Our museum is backed by Ken Ham's science," he would assert after rolling his eyes at exterior display of multiple gods of both sexes,"unlike this obviously made up version of creation to reconcile Hindu texts and their ridiculous belief that cows can be sacred." Indeed, Tom left knowing that science, even though he really just barely knew a tiny smattering of the fundamentals, was on his side.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | August 3, 2009 3:04 PM
Ah, I know Tom Estes' type because I used to be like him when I was a credulous theist. I suspect, if he's like I was (I'm trying to avoid making too many assumptions towards him, since he seems a little too eager to do this toward us), he doesn't wish so much to understand atheists or the atheist point of view, but rather he wants to put us into a box that he can explain away using religious thinking and justifications. It's a type of strawman, I guess.
Now, maybe I'm wrong and he just simply isn't informed on why we feel the way we feel, I can only draw conclusions based on my own previous experiences as a religious fundamentalist. I would often find this sort of thing threatening to what was, at the time, an already shaky and doubt-filled belief in a god that I saw very little evidence for. So I would come up with justifications in my mind for why scientists thought the way they did or why atheists thought the way they did. I would think "Oh, they KNOW that god is real, but they want to keep sinning!" I would think this even though I also believed, contradictorily, that the reason God didn't prove his existence to us with evidence and demanded faith was because if he did so, there would be no free will. Do you see the problem with this? I was assuming atheists KNEW god existed while also believing that nobody could know god existed. Only after giving up on a faith that led me to such compartmentalization did I realize the absurdity of it.
So this is my theory on Tom Estes: he's not trying to honestly understand or debate our position. He is, in essence, "thinking out loud" in those posts, trying to comfort himself and those who believe as he believes. It's much easier to swallow than to try to accept any of the truth of the matter.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | August 3, 2009 3:05 PM
"Is that a theropod wandering past the Neolithic farmers? I don't see a happy ending here."
You guys have it all wrong. That is *obviously* a sheep-theropod watching the flock.
Posted by: Rick R | August 3, 2009 3:05 PM
"But they're _farming_ so it has to be _after_ they ate the apple."
They're also wearing clothes, so it's definitely post-fall.
Right, Ken? The bible says Adam and Eve were naked before the fall. Why do you enjoy lying to children?
Posted by: Kane148 | August 3, 2009 3:06 PM
OMG I totally read that book as a child as part of my fundamentalist indoctrination! Sends chills down my spine seeing it again lol
Posted by: co | August 3, 2009 3:06 PM
OK, JanitorforChrist777, @50:
Here's what I'd like you to do. List the things which you might (*might*) consider to be evidence. Or at least some of them. Doesn't have to be comprehensive, doesn't have to be defensible, you don't even have to say *why* you're listing something, nor do you have to say how compelling a given item on the list would be. Just give us something to go by. I'd like to see what you might consider compelling evidence. This is exactly the question which is asked of atheists: "What might get you to change your mind?"
Posted by: PGPWNIT | August 3, 2009 3:07 PM
I thought they wailed...not weeped.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
August 3, 2009 3:09 PM
Wail's as good as a weep... nudge, nudge. Say no more.
Posted by: Josh | August 3, 2009 3:10 PM
Well, actually, it would take a rather long while to list all the evidence for you, and you probably wouldn't read it anyway. Briefly, though, just for starters, we haven't found dinosaur fossils and human fossils in the same deposits. There is a lot of evidence of human history; there is a lot of evidence of the Dinosauria. They are never in the same beds.
Unless of course you'd like to offer up an outcrop where we find both...
Posted by: DrD | August 3, 2009 3:10 PM
...and why does Adam look so much older than Eve? -and Eve looks like a boy? -could it be a sacred hint of things to come, millenia down the road, of old 'sacred' men cavorting with young boys to teach them about the Book & such?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 3:10 PM
Try the peer reviewed primary scientific literature. Found in college campuses across the world. And growing daily. Something idjits like yourself run from, since there is knowledge there that overwhelms the simple minds of godbots, and shows that there is no need for their imaginary deity in the world.Posted by: Father Nature | August 3, 2009 3:11 PM
"And take your body guards with you."
I second that. You're entering a mental-health-free zone (see example @ #50). Plan accordingly.
Posted by: John Harshman | August 3, 2009 3:13 PM
You people are not well versed in Bible Science(TM). Tyrannosaurs (and all other animals) weren't vegatarians only before the Fall. They were vegetarians before the Flood too. Only after the Flood was meat-eating allowed. Thus, since all fossils are relics of antediluvian life, all fossils are of vegetarian animals.
Posted by: Crazyharp81602 | August 3, 2009 3:14 PM
I did a rebuttal to that book in one of my classic essays at one time. You guys wanna see it?
http://stupiddinosaurlies.org/2009/02/19/what-really-happened-to-the-dinosaurs/
Posted by: JanitorforChrist777 | August 3, 2009 3:15 PM
Oh yes. I'll be listening to what a bunch of know-nothing atheists tell me about the Word real soon.
Matthew 8:12
"But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be ***weeping and gnashing of teeth***."
Matthew 22:13
"Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be ***weeping and gnashing of teeth***."
But hey. Nobody ever accused you people of knowing even the slightest thing about religion--or the world around you for that matter. We already know that atheists couldn't care less about facts--a harebrained "theory" is good enough for them.
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 3:16 PM
Posted by: Kevin B | August 3, 2009 3:16 PM
When I was a kid I read The Shy Stegosaurus of Cricket Creek but I knew it was fantasy (like the Chronicles of Narnia), so no harm done.
The book that traumatized me had a title like "Your Future in Outer Space", which described what my life would be like as an astro-citizen. Not only was I heartbroken when I realized years later that the 2001-style space station wasn't already up there for me to visit when I was ready, I'm still a bit pissed that it's not up there YET!.
Posted by: Mixter | August 3, 2009 3:18 PM
How much more dumbing down of America do the Christians want? If you won't buy that creationism is science, perhaps you'll buy that evolution is religion? Wackadoos...
Mixter
Posted by: Geds | August 3, 2009 3:18 PM
We don't have to wait for three posts from JanitorforChrist777, do we?
I think I'll jump the gun here: Shut. The. Fuck. Up.
Posted by: PGPWNIT | August 3, 2009 3:18 PM
Ah, I see. You're quoting the heathen King James Bible when we all know the ISV is the true inspired word of God.Posted by: MrFire | August 3, 2009 3:20 PM
Patricia @35:
Your predictive powers unnerve me. Check this out; go straight to about 9:11 or so.
Thunderf00t has the same clip in one of his entries, can't remember where though.
Posted by: JanitorforChrist777 | August 3, 2009 3:20 PM
I'll tell you what I'd consider to be evidence.
A transitional fossil.
Don't bother making stuff up. Thanks to the candidness of Gould and Patterson, we already know that there aren't any.
Oh well. Just push those facts out of the way if they're slowing you down on the road to perdition.
Posted by: Josh | August 3, 2009 3:22 PM
Well, that would explain it. Thanks.
Posted by: PGPWNIT | August 3, 2009 3:22 PM
All fossils are transitional.
We win.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 3:22 PM
Still spewing ignorant nonsense I see. A large number of atheists grew up in Xian families, and went to church. Then they made the mistake of reading the holy babble, and saw what an immoral asshole Yahweh is, and decided they could worship that sick of a god. So, we do know something about religion. And why it is populated with delusional, unthinking people like yourself. Keep showing us how foolish, unthingking and stupid Xians are. You are doing a great job at it.Posted by: Lynna | August 3, 2009 3:23 PM
Josh, seeing your comment reminded me that I recently used "varves" in a Scrabble game -- and was inordinately pleased with myself.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
August 3, 2009 3:25 PM
How's that hair-brained theory of gravity working out for you?
Posted by: Carlie | August 3, 2009 3:26 PM
Do you have any idea what a transitional fossil even is?
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
August 3, 2009 3:26 PM
Janitor, you're trolling for laughs, lying, or so self-satisfied in your pig-ignorance that you won't bother to take the few seconds it takes to find that creationists are simply lying about Gould (Eldredge too) and transitionals.
More shame for Christ. You must be so proud.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Steve in MI | August 3, 2009 3:29 PM
It gets better every day, doesn't it?
See you, my fellow heathens, on Friday!!
Posted by: Jennifurret | August 3, 2009 3:29 PM
@49
I've made the status of Unholy Woman? Awesome. I wonder what will happen when I draw more comments.
And I'm going to move myself to the center of the herd for the CM trip. My "body guards" consist of a Jew, a gay, and a girl gamer, which sounds more like a bad joke than real protection.
Posted by: DoxieVee
|
August 3, 2009 3:29 PM
Jesus, I feel like I've run into a cross between The Land Before Time and the Benny Hill Show.
Posted by: JanitorforChrist777 | August 3, 2009 3:32 PM
BAHAHAHA. So much for the concept of the literate atheist.
It's probably no coincidence that mantras like this started in other religions whose followers end up in hell.
Posted by: Quine | August 3, 2009 3:32 PM
I keep a bag of troll chow handy just because it is fun to watch them try to wolf it down. So, JfC777, did your deity put nipples on Adam (during that special creation separate from the animals), or are those something men found hanging on themselves sometime later?
Posted by: Jennifurret | August 3, 2009 3:32 PM
@82
Now I have an image of use running through the Creation Museum Benny Hill style, man in a bear suit and all. How I wish that would happen.
Posted by: Tulse | August 3, 2009 3:33 PM
I'm just tickled at PZ's formal citation of the book at the end of the posting. Shouldn't this count as a "blogging research" post?
And janitor777 is a Poe, no?
Posted by: Josh | August 3, 2009 3:33 PM
FAIL. You don't want a transitional fossil. A fossil can be a small fragment of bone or plant or shell that doesn't preserve anything diagnostic. That doesn't help our discussion. You are actually asking for a transitional form. A taxon "that is in transition."
But asking for a transitional form is also a FAIL. We don't search for transitional forms, we search for transitional features. This might seem a trivial distinction. It isn't. This is science, and details matter. We search for organisms that preserve transitional features.
But, as luck would have it, there are also organisms in the fossil record that preserve such an interesting suite of transitional features that we might actually get away with sloppy labeling and call them transitional forms. A great example of one of these would be Archaeopteryx. Another would be Tiktaalik.
So, there are two "transitional forms" off the top of my head. Don't like those examples? Fine, then demonstrate why the features they preserve aren't transitional. If you cannot, then any protest you make about them not being transitional is just blather.
So how about a counter challenge? Give me a named extinct species that doesn't preserve transitional features.
Posted by: MrFire | August 3, 2009 3:34 PM
JanitorforChrist777:
Nice username: does Christ leave floaters?
Posted by: DoxieVee
|
August 3, 2009 3:35 PM
@85
I'm sure that can be arranged.
Posted by: tsg | August 3, 2009 3:37 PM
Does it matter?
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
August 3, 2009 3:37 PM
I think Janitor777 is actually a plug-headed, mop-swinging, delusional gomer who gets quite a thrill out of lying for Jesus.
In other words: TROLL.
If he wasn't a troll, he'd have an argument.
Posted by: MarkMyWords | August 3, 2009 3:38 PM
I call POE on Janitor. Obviously he has the ethics and love for the truth of a used bible salesman.
Posted by: Iris | August 3, 2009 3:39 PM
Christ obviously needs a janitor to clean up the mountains of bullshit spewed by Christians. Good career choice! Serious job security.
Posted by: atomica | August 3, 2009 3:39 PM
@17: Best. Username. Ever.
Also... I take some comfort in the fact that T. Estes may just be struggling to prop up his own flagging faith with these arguments.
Posted by: Josh | August 3, 2009 3:39 PM
That's great. We could come up with a whole new game: sciscrabble.
Posted by: Tex | August 3, 2009 3:42 PM
You gotta be kidding! This is the greatest protection ever. The knuckledraggers will be so busy trying to straightening out your wayward friends, they won't even have time to get to you. And remember, you don't have to out run the bear ...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 3:42 PM
If the Janitor is Poe, it's time for him to stop. Comedians have a three joke rule for a reason. If the janitor is just a stupid godbot, we can ridicule him into submission.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
August 3, 2009 3:42 PM
I don't understand why a piece of Israeli yard art would even need a janitor in the first freakin' place.
Posted by: Loki | August 3, 2009 3:43 PM
Christ on a crapper, of course!
Jesus walked on water, remember? Nothing but floaters would ever come out of his anus!
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | August 3, 2009 3:43 PM
It's because of the children, Pastor Estes. Won't somebody think of the children?Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | August 3, 2009 3:43 PM
I had not checked in a while, but I am happy to say that when I just now googled "cuttlefish", AiG was no longer on the first page! Better, my own site was!
As for "What Really Happened..."
It has to be science; it's there in a book!
There's plenty to learn, if you'll just take a look!
It's chock-full of facts, cos we put our reliance
In hard-hitting, cutting-edge Biblical Science!
The Bible's the source in our fact-finding hunts;
We don't have to think twice (Heck, we rarely think once)
Why, at Answers In Genesis, all we need do
Is to make up a lie, and then tell it to you.
Posted by: Geds | August 3, 2009 3:44 PM
Nerd @75: A large number of atheists grew up in Xian families, and went to church. Then they made the mistake of reading the holy babble, and saw what an immoral asshole Yahweh is, and decided they could worship that sick of a god.
Wow. Are you writing my unauthorized biography or something?
Actually, that's one of the fun things I've discovered. There are many, many times when I read/hear someone's story and I respond, "Hey, no fair stealing my story of leaving the church!"
It does seem like there's a growing collection of people with variations on that exact story out there. The next few years should be extremely interesting for the literalist and fundamentalist branches of American Christianity...
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
August 3, 2009 3:45 PM
JFC777 is definitely a poe. He's too eagerly ignorant to be sincere.
Anyway.
I think I'll look for a copy of that book at garage sales and used book stores. That's just too funny. Anyone who trusts a book above their own observation has to be intentionally schizophrenic, or monumentally stupid. I'd not be surprised at monumentally stupid, of course. But I like the idea of someone intentionally misleading themselves simply to...
I have no idea. Why the fuck would anyone want to intentionally mislead themselves?
Posted by: JanitorforChrist777 | August 3, 2009 3:45 PM
I've already made my argument.
Darwin said it, and you've failed to show it after 150 years of searching. What we would expect if evolution were true are fossils of one species turning into another. We don't see that. We see species appearing suddenly in the fossil record.
To get around that, you just say "punctuated equilibrium". It's a pathetic last-ditch effort. It'd be like if Christians said "there are no bones in Jesus's tomb, therefore he must have been resurrected." But whereas we have corroborating testimony, you have nothing but two big words (designed to propagandize children) that were pulled one-by-one out of G&E's arses.
Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | August 3, 2009 3:45 PM
Suggested sig lines:
Nerd:
"Welcome to science."
Josh:
"This is science, and details matter."
Me (SC):
"Please visit my blog."
Posted by: eruvande | August 3, 2009 3:47 PM
Because I PITY you, you giant boob. I pity people who honestly believe that not only did dinosaurs and humans exist contemporaneously, but that something like this would have happily frolicked inside a fenced yard like a wee doggie. You have a perfectly good brain and this is what you use it for.
Posted by: Rick R | August 3, 2009 3:48 PM
SC-
"Suggested sig lines:
Nerd:
"Welcome to science."
Josh:
"This is science, and details matter."
Me (SC):
"Please visit my blog."
Me (RickR) :
Chris Meloni is god.
Posted by: Josh | August 3, 2009 3:48 PM
Do you HAVE to always do that when I have a mouthful of coffee?
DO YOU?
Posted by: buddy | August 3, 2009 3:48 PM
I know you mean dinosaur in the paraphyletic sense...but avian dinosaurs are still around :)!
Posted by: DominEditrix | August 3, 2009 3:50 PM
"Sacred science" is a typo. "Scared [of] science" is the correction.
Posted by: Father Nature | August 3, 2009 3:52 PM
Janitor
Why do you care? Especially when you consider that you have the truth? Why not leave us goofy Atheists alone on this one?
Posted by: JanitorforChrist777 | August 3, 2009 3:54 PM
It's fun to laugh at your nonsense.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 3, 2009 3:54 PM
uh-oh... the troll spewed out "Gould' and "no transitional fossils" pretty much right away.
Hold on... lemme get out my "I know fuck-all about evolution, fossils, geology, or science in general and my head is filled with bible quotes and tapioca" translation guide, so that I may communicate more efficiently...
OK... my translation guide indicates that the only correct response to you at this time is: "You no have reasoning skills. You no able think for self. You go get off computer and crawl into cave. Leave 2000 year old goat-herder mythology book in nightstand. Get science book at library. Take to cave. Remember bring flashlight if no can make fire."
Posted by: Mark M | August 3, 2009 3:54 PM
What I find unsettling, in a theological way, about creationism, particularly the young Earth variety, is that it requires a god who lies. The YEC flock have a trickster god. One of the important attributes of god, as I was taught in a couple of Christian traditions, is that he (he/she/it/祂-Chinese has a 3rd person pronoun for god) is truth. A god of truth would not falsify evidence, he would not lie. Yet, the YEC god is like a crooked cop who plants evidence to frame the innocent.
Moreover, these people are willing to submit to a god who plays tricks on his own faithful (Re Kara story). Very messed up.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 3, 2009 3:54 PM
Stellar Moose @ # 37 (channeling KHam): The Bible talks about dragons as real animals ...
Unicorns too! Nine times! Are there unicorns in Hamtopia? What color?!? (Be sure to bring a virgin along on Friday!)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 3:55 PM
Yawn, Janitor doesn't understand science, and definitely ignores the biochemical issues, like the genome similarities. Well, we can let him stay stuck in the 1900's while science keeps progressing. And Janitor, there is no other scientific theory to explain biology. Godbots have delusions their religious ideas are scientific, but they fail the first test of actually being scientific. You might be able to fool the dimwitted by claiming they are scientific, but not the smart scientists who see through the idiotic claims.
Posted by: slugboi | August 3, 2009 3:57 PM
God (on day 0): You, know, I'm gonna make the universe appear very old so man can enjoy light from the stars, and use oil to make their vehicles run and stuff.
Michael: You know this is gonna bite you in the ass, right?
God: No, no, it's cool. I'll just have very primitive and uneducated men write a book that will be passed on for thousands of years. It will contain the truth of creation, and some funny anecdotes about Jonah and Job.
Michael: You know this is gonna bite you in the ass, right?
God: ... LET THERE BE LIGHT!
Posted by: Postman | August 3, 2009 3:58 PM
"JanitorforChrist", eh? It's a good thing, too. That boy is always making messes. Just look at the Creation Museum.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 3, 2009 3:58 PM
I have doubts that JanitorforChrist777 is a real Christian. If he was, he would realize he would earn a place in hell for all his capering and his lack of emulating Christ.
Posted by: Josh | August 3, 2009 3:59 PM
Sure you have. And the Black Knight always triumphs.
We have transitional organisms. I just gave you two. Your not knowing enough biology to know what such a critter would look like isn't my problem.
You're like some punk freshman that walks up to a mathematician and says, "No, I can't solve that equation. Heck, I don't even know what those two little symbols over there are. But I damn sure know that the way you just solved it isn't the answer."
The time of your kind has passed.
Posted by: Moniker. | August 3, 2009 3:59 PM
I must agree with #65; all these atheist commenters on this blog should be ashamed that they shouldn't have carefully read one of hundreds of religious texts. For shame!
Posted by: Savior Breath | August 3, 2009 4:01 PM
Those pictures of dinosaures are *fake*. T-Rex didn't drag its tail.
I don't think they smiled either.
Posted by: JanitorforChrist777 | August 3, 2009 4:02 PM
Biochemical similarities? I thought we were talking fossils. I love when you change topics like that...
And about those biochemical similarities (and differences), there's nothing there that can't be explained by Design and Fall. Besides, what makes you think I'm looking for a "scientific" explanation? Science excludes the supernatural, so it only considers half the picture.
Posted by: Chad | August 3, 2009 4:03 PM
Dude! My grandma bought me that book when I was a kid!
Posted by: Josh | August 3, 2009 4:07 PM
Yo Janitor, got a list of those deposits that contain both human and dinosaur remains? AIG must have one of those right ready, right?
How about a named species that lacks transitional features?
Oh that's right. You've made your argument.
Hmmm... Looks like it's leaking a little...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 4:07 PM
Except there is no god. Your god doesn't exist, so no design and fall. If your imaginary deity does exist, time for you to pony up some real physical evidence that can be examined by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural, origin. We are awaiting your evidence, and if you just wave your hands and point at the universe (which does have a natural explanation), we will just point and laugh at you. I'm exercising my pointing finger now.Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | August 3, 2009 4:08 PM
@JFC777
And about those biochemical similarities (and differences), there's nothing there that can't be explained by Design and Fall. Besides, what makes you think I'm looking for a "scientific" explanation? Science excludes the supernatural, so it only considers half the picture.
Wrong. Science doesn't exclude the supernatural. It excludes the untestable.
How can we address your questions when you're so ignorant of science? You simply don't have the background to even understand our answers.
Posted by: Geds | August 3, 2009 4:09 PM
Postman @118: That boy is always making messes. Just look at the Creation Museum.
Ahh, a chance to post my favorite account of the Creation Museum. From good ol' Scalzi:
Honestly, no one will ever put it better...
Posted by: JanitorforChrist777 | August 3, 2009 4:10 PM
More advice on Christianity from atheists. I'll take it to heart, really I will.
And you dimwits can prattle on about my username all you want. I thought scientists (especially biologists) were supposed to be well read and familiar with Latin, but I guess not. To be honest, I should have expected poop jokes from you people. Your illiteracy is showing again.
I'll be back later to comment on any further threads about this topic.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 3, 2009 4:10 PM
You're not looking for an explanation, period. You've already had it told to you. Beaten into your head over and over again until you dared not question it.
But doesn't that feel hollow? You haven't actually done the work yourself... you were given answers to questions long before you were even old enough to ask them properly.
Look... it's clear from that statement that you are only here to stir up an argument. Who else comes to a science and proudly proclaims "what makes you think I'm looking for a scientific explanation"?
Posted by: Steve in MI | August 3, 2009 4:11 PM
Hey, fellow Friday visitors:
I was just roaming through the AiG/CM Web sites and I've come up with a conundrum. I'm hoping that one of my wise fellow Pharygulites can help clear this one up for me.
So here's what perplexes me. The CM and their AiG affiliates are supposed to be pushing a Young Earth Creationist, biblical Literalist point of view, right? Dino's playing happily alongside undigested human children and all that. Yet on the CM's Web Site, the "About the Museum" tab includes this teaser under "Theatre Excitement":
So can someone explain the underlying theology to me please? Does the Creation Museum portray a 6,000-year-old Earth in a 14-billion-year-old Universe? Did the light from distant galaxies get created with a really, really good head start?
Posted by: Brian Rapp | August 3, 2009 4:12 PM
Joseph Goebbels, sick fuck that he was, had it absolutely right: "The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed."
Posted by: daveau
|
August 3, 2009 4:12 PM
With multiple firefox tabs open, this one says "Answers in Genes". Nice.
Posted by: Geds | August 3, 2009 4:13 PM
I'll be back later to comment on any further threads about this topic.
Oh, joy! It's like that time the guy broke in to my apartment, tied me up, stole my laptop, and then left, saying, "I'll be back later for your TV."
I was so happy when he came back and took my TV. I begged him to steal my microwave, too.
Posted by: Victor
|
August 3, 2009 4:15 PM
Honestly, what other bronze age superstitions are given this much credence? The Creation "Museum" idol worshipers are one step away from dancing around a fire with bones through their noses. If there weren't animal cruelty laws in the US they would be sacrificing goats by the truckload.
Posted by: JanitorforChrist777 | August 3, 2009 4:15 PM
I have time for a brief response before I go.
Answer:
All of them. You've presupposed the answer by merely assuming on no evidence whatsoever that transitions have taken place.
As Patterson and Ridley have said, the fossil record IS NOT and CANNOT BE evidence for evolution.
(By the way, PZ, I'm still waiting for you to update this thread with some of that "evidence" of yours!)
Posted by: Loki | August 3, 2009 4:16 PM
Liar.
I'm glad you agree that the resurrection is a pathetic last-ditch effort!
You have nothing, in other words, but lies.
There's nothing that can't be explained by you making up lies, you mean.
I'm glad that you confess that you have no science. It follows that you only have lies.
Science considers the whole picture. The supernatural "half" doesn't exist.
Posted by: TGAP Dad | August 3, 2009 4:16 PM
Janitor:
Transitional fossil-> Tiktaalik
Now move along, pilgrim.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 3, 2009 4:16 PM
Wow... considering the bounty of insight you've offered on this topic so far, I can hardly wait.
Don't bother unless you plan to actually answer a few of the direct questions posited to you in this thread.
Really... I don't think you have much more than "bible says so" in your arsenal of evidence... so please, just don't waste our time or your own for that matter.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | August 3, 2009 4:19 PM
Ken Ham wrote a very similar book aimed at a slightly older audience called "Dinosaurs and the Bible", which I review in some detail here:
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/dinos_and_bible_suttkus.htm
Naturally, it lists copious amounts of evidence and devastating arguments that evolutionist atheists cannot possibly deal with... without giggling.
Posted by: Coryat | August 3, 2009 4:19 PM
I for one cannot wait for Raptor Jesus to return and judge the quick and the dead.
I also find it especially enlightening that Adam had a picket fence as seen in the 1950's America idolised by Ken Ham. Funny that.
Posted by: MrFire | August 3, 2009 4:20 PM
Thus spake the Janitor:
An example of Gould's candidness:
The real Gould appears to disagree with your version of Gould. While I'm at it, check out this thoroughly unreliable list of transitional fossils. Surely you've heard of Tiktaalik? That was a recent case study in predicting and finding a transitional fossil.
And you haven't answered my question: does Jesus flush?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 4:20 PM
Janitor is avoiding showing evidence for his imaginary deity. Acknowledging tacitly he is a liar and bullshitter. Yawn, these godbots (or Poes-time to quit)are sooooo stupid.
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 3, 2009 4:21 PM
Janitor for Christ 777 #123 wrote:
But I thought you believed that science supports a young earth. I thought Young Earth Creationism was scientific. Are you giving that up, now, and admitting that all you have is stories, and faith in your stories?
If the earth is 10,000 years old or less, then the mechanisms of evolution would not have had enough time to lead to all the complexity we see today. Thus, supernatural forces are likely to be involved -- or, at least, they must be considered as a scientific hypothesis.
So the methods of science don't exclude the supernatural, as a possibility. The results did.
Posted by: JBlilie | August 3, 2009 4:22 PM
Well, Tom, if you assure us, how can we possibly doubt it!
Ray Comfort makes similar "you can't beat me!" claims in his book of nonsense:
http://www.amazon.com/Lead-Atheist-Evidence-Cant-Think/dp/1935071068/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
"So, if you are an atheist, let me reason with you. You cannot win." (p. xvi)
Let me tell you (as if I needed to) that what follows in Ray's book is one gigantic mess of nonsense. RC fails to mount a single reasoned argument in the entire book. It's a dead certainty that the "museum" will be just as bad.
(I think that is Ray Comfort riding that dino ...)
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 4:24 PM
The concept you're looking for is scatalogical Ace.(You aren't even smart enough to understand that you're an idiot, are you?)
Posted by: jfc777 | August 3, 2009 4:25 PM
Wow MrFire. That was an excellent quote. Thanks for providing the quote that demonstrates exactly what I said. Want to read what I wrote again and see where I talked about how there's no evidence for transitions ~between species~? And how punctuated equilibria were being used to fill those gaps as a last ditch effort?
But hey. I won't criticize you to read Gould and understand him. His books are all just inconsistent hogwash anyway.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 3, 2009 4:25 PM
Punctuated Equilibrium isn't a last ditch. It merely predicts that fossils from those periods of accelerated change would be relatively rare. That didn't stop us from finding all the transitionals other commentators have mentioned.
Of course, the fossils aren't the only thing supporting evolution. We've found a lot of genetic evidence that Creationists love to dismiss as random coincidence or purposeless OCDs the creator allegedly has. Take all the ERV sequences, fused chromosomes with deactivated centromeres, and so on. They add up to a consistent pattern that is a bane to the Random Theory of Randomness known as Creationism.
Posted by: dinkum | August 3, 2009 4:28 PM
Pigfuck-ignorant troll is boring.
Posted by: DaveL | August 3, 2009 4:28 PM
I care about the Creation Museum the same way I care about dick jokes. Sure, they're childish, they're ignorant, but they make me laugh.
Lest anybody think I'm inconsistent, I also care about the larger creationist agenda the same way I would care about a concerted movement to replace biology, geology, physics, paleontology, and history education with dick jokes.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 3, 2009 4:29 PM
Janitor, eh? That sounds about right; after all, you worship (and are privy to) a two-faced Roman god--the god of the beginning and the end.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 3, 2009 4:29 PM
JanitorforChrist777 (can I call you Jan?) @ # 72 - you want a transitional fossil?
Take a look at the topmost illustration of our host's post. See the goofy-looking yellow-bellied green thing? The one that looks vaguely reptilian, but has a beak? And tennis shoes (otherwise worn only by mammals)?
Ask Morris, Ham, &/or Chong (yeah, prob'ly related to that Chong!) where that little booger is buried (they oughta know - they published a book about "What Happened to the Dinosaurs", didn't they?).
Dig it up, Jan, and there's your tranny fossil!
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 3, 2009 4:30 PM
MrFire @71 - Ha! By golly that's a good one, ol Ham could be best pals with my pastor.
Janitor - This is the wrong blog to challenge for religious knowledge, or bible science. We always win.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 3, 2009 4:30 PM
EEP! My irony meeter just exploded.
Boy, you truly are one of the dimmer bulbs we've had trolling these threads in a while. Your entire argument is based on a presupposed answer, you moron.
Oh... and you might want to consider that we might know more about the people you are quoting than you do. You didn't find the quote from Ridley yourself, you sucked it up from some other creo-tard and didn't bother to verify it, because that's what good little god-botters do. They never question anything. So let's take a look at the Ridley quote to which you are referring:
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven.
So just what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy."
This statement, of course, comes from the point of view of a zoologist that is not necessarily shared by evolutionary biologists... but it still doesn't mean nearly what you purported it to mean. You really should have the decency to at least look up creationist quotes in full context... they are generally cherry-picked and quote-mined lies.
Posted by: Coryat | August 3, 2009 4:31 PM
2 faced Roman God? That sounds like Janus to me.
A janitor that cares about a Janus. Hmm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus
Posted by: Loki | August 3, 2009 4:31 PM
Liar.
You still have nothing but lies (citing quote-mines is a form of lying).
Posted by: Alex | August 3, 2009 4:31 PM
My grandmother bought me that book when I was little!
http://asolis.net/2008/04/what-really-happened-to-the-dinosaurs/
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
August 3, 2009 4:31 PM
She flouseled into my office like a tart looking for an apple. "You the dick what investigates the supernatural half of reality?"
Her lips puckered up like a tart that found an apple, of the crab variety. A tart for a tart. "Yeah, kid," I said. "If you got the scratch. What's the job?"
"It's the supernatural half." Her hair tounced about, a sea aneneme wrapped around the clown-fish of her hairpin. "We can't find it."
A shock ran through me, like someone was giving me a cattle-prod enema. I jumped from my chair, spilling papers and cheap bourbon on the frayed and fading carpet. "What are you yammering about?" But I knew. They were on to me. The sharp pungent odor of the last of my whiskey made me light-headed. Or maybe that was the dieing cry of my conscience.
"It's gone," she said. "Ain't nobody ever seen any bit of it. Some folks think it's skipped town, after writing a bunch of bad checks."
I wasn't about to open my big mouth. Those were my bad checks. I forged 'em. I figured nobody would look too hard if I claimed to be supernatural. We look a lot alike, after all. Kind of squidgy, hard to pin down any real features, like a perpetually out-of-focus picture. Nobody can describe either of us.
I tried to slow my heart, which was attempting to rhumba out of my chest and out the window, suicide by saucy dance. I played it cool, real cool. "Sure, I can track it down. That's what I'm best at: the supernatural." I sat down real slow, calm-like and collected. "It's even in my title: supernatural dick."
She shook her head. "No, I think you misunderstand. I'm not one of those folks." She pouted in my direction. "I think it's all a big lie."
The man with the cattle prod shoved it all the way up my bowels and into my stomach. "Really? What about all the evidence? It is half of reality, you know."
Again, she shook her head, her tartish pout twitching up at the corners. She was amused! She knew she had me. "I've been looking around, Christian," she susured. "There aren't many folks who claim to have seen any evidence for supernatural. I think it's just you, writing checks your ass can't cash."
I knew I had to think fast. "But what about god? You know god exists, and he's supernatural." I started tallying up the total I'd written. Most of it went to cheap whiskey and cheaper women, with names like Bathsheba and Mary. All the little boys were expensive, too. And the crosses! Those don't come cheap.
She smiled at me, as if she had planned the gut-shocking words would hurt. "We only have your word for him, too. Where's the evidence?"
I was in a world of hurt. The cattle prod was just the beginning. "He's supernatural!" I shouted. "Of course there won't be any physical, natural evidence! Do I have to spell this out on a speak-'n'-spell for you?" I frantically rummaged through my desk. "Look at this! It explains everything. It's science!" I threw my copy of 'What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs?' at her. "Science, I tell you! That's evidence."
Her chuckle was like the staccato flashing of a tommy gun. "You are one stupid dick." Her smile widened, the tommy gun going faster and faster, 'til it was a Gatling. "I am science," she shot, and shot and shot and shot.
I knew the case of the missing supernatural half was going to be my last.
Posted by: DaveL | August 3, 2009 4:34 PM
What, you mean a fossil that's between two species, without having a species of its own?
Posted by: Coryat | August 3, 2009 4:34 PM
Sorry aratina Cage, I think i just repackaged what you said but a bit less subtly. My bad.
Posted by: Ragutis | August 3, 2009 4:36 PM
Ken Ham wouldn't know science if it bit his beard off.
ShitshovelerforChrist777, "know nothing atheists"? I think you'd be surprised at how many here are former christians, including many with strong fundamentalist and literalist backrounds. Been there. Done that. Woke up and faced reality.
Also, FFS, please learn the scientific meaning/use of the word "theory". You really look like an idiot when you confuse that with it's colloquial definition.
Now, would someone clear this up for me: When did dinos and other critters supposedly renounce their vows of veganism? If it was the Fall/expulsion from Eden, why does so much creationist pap frequently show friendly theropods in obviously post-Eden settings (clothes, children, agriculture, etc.)?
Posted by: room101 | August 3, 2009 4:37 PM
TPAP:
..and I'm willing to bet soon: Janitor777->Dungeon.
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 4:39 PM
HahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahCheck & mate.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 3, 2009 4:40 PM
Oh, and before you quote Patterson again, you might want to look at this.
You have clearly been fed creationist quote-mined propaganda... I would warn against it. You are going to find most of them are like this... quote-mined and taken way out of context. Which of course is fine if you want to be thought of as a liar.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | August 3, 2009 4:42 PM
What I find sad about the Janitor for Christ is his apparent inability to present an argument; something to actually discuss. Dull one-liners; a demonstrable ignorance both of science and writings about science; faulty logic; invalid premises... the list goes on.
They're all like that. Never yet have a seen a single, intelligent theist manage to make a coherent argument against any scientific position.
Anyone? Please?
Posted by: Watchman | August 3, 2009 4:44 PM
AnotherFoolforChrist777 has been heard from.
Hey, Fool, when was the last time you jackasses offered evidence for ANYTHING? You stupid, ignorant hypocrite!
Dang, but I'm ornery today. The endless parade of blind idiots must be getting to me.
Hey StupidFuckingJackassForChrist777, the fossil record is simply one part of a vast mosaic of interdisciplinary evidence for evolution and for an old earth that only a willfully ignorant fool such as yourself could possibly ignore.
Oh, you didn't know that?
Say it ain't so!
Go ahead, then - keep on lying and distorting the facts. It's all you have.
Posted by: Brian Rapp | August 3, 2009 4:46 PM
That's the beauty of the supernatural, isn't it? You can just make up any old shit you want and it instantly becomes reality. There's no rules that govern the supernatural because science can't measure it. Old story not working any more? No problem, just invent another one.
Posted by: Father Nature | August 3, 2009 4:49 PM
@161 "...why does so much creationist pap frequently show friendly theropods in obviously post-Eden settings (clothes, children, agriculture, etc.)? "
Oh. I know the answer. Because it's bullshit written by liars for the ignorant.
Posted by: CJO | August 3, 2009 4:49 PM
You've presupposed the answer by merely assuming on no evidence whatsoever that transitions have taken place.
No, you've presupposed the answer [re: the empty tomb and the resurrection] by merely assuming on no evidence whatsoever that 1st Century theological fictions should be considered "testimony".
Good evidence that the apparent transitions in the fossil record are indeed transitions through evolutionary time does in fact come from the molecular data you are so eager to blithely dismiss. The fact is, the relatedness of extant groups and the timing of their divergences from common ancestors derived from the molecular evidence match up perfectly with the evolutionary sequence we see in the fossil record. What reason can you give for this, other than that if god created the world, he took great pains to make it appear exactly as if evolution had occurred?
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | August 3, 2009 4:50 PM
I really hope JanitorforChrist777 is a Poe, because if he/she is serious, it's kind of depressing. Now, Christian means "little Christ," not "little five year old throwing a temper tantrum."
Most of Janitor's, ahem, "arguments" consist of grade school witticisms right up there with "I know, but I'm not telling you." He seems very pleased with himself, but apparently incapable of dealing with the rest of the human race in any mature, reasonable way.
So again, I dearly hope this is a Poe. As a member of the human race, it saddens me each time I discover a new idiot I share my species with.
Now, granted, it was unkind to call him/her an idiot, but I feel at this point that it is less of an insult and more of a statement of proven fact. Trying to hold any kind of rational conversation or discuss science with this person is a lost cause, as he/she understands neither science nor rationality.
Posted by: Sue Laris | August 3, 2009 4:52 PM
JanitorforChrist777? CustodianforAliG000 couldn't have been more obvious.
[applauds]
This line gets old fast, though. You'd deserve to be banned just for not coming up with a new angle after three days.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
August 3, 2009 4:53 PM
I think that's the reason for the recent spate of theists attempting to sunder science and secularism. (Hah! I love alliteration.) They can't really win against science. The best they can do is attempt to hold as much ground as possible.
But, if they can redefine the epistemology of "science," they can reframe the discussion in a context more suitable to their misrepresentation. Then, when rationalists attempt to defend the basis of science, they can point at us and call us pedants, while they discuss interesting things like irreducible complexity, and dinosaur saddles.
Posted by: MrFire | August 3, 2009 4:53 PM
Many of us are ex-Christians.
You should have called yourself IanitorChristiDCCVII then, shouldn't you?
Ianitor, iterum te scisco: Christus merdas magnas facit?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 4:55 PM
Science excludes the supernatural, so it only considers half the picture.
why only half?
surely the "super"-natural could take up to 99.9999% of the picture, right?
or even all of it, if you think that the world was created last Tuesday like I do, and it's all nothing but god-dreams anyway.
Posted by: Geds | August 3, 2009 4:56 PM
Granddaughter @165:They're all like that. Never yet have a seen a single, intelligent theist manage to make a coherent argument against any scientific position.
The problem is that the intelligent theists in their quest to make a coherent argument tend to learn things. Then they tend to either stop being creationists or drift off in to mind-destroying cognitive dissonance.
Some of the smartest fundamentalists I knew were also the ones who were trying the hardest to control the thoughts of everyone around them. I began to realize that it was because they had hit a point where they realized they couldn't afford to ask any more questions, so they made sure that there was no one to challenge their assumptions.
It was kind of sad. It was also kind of frightening. I realized that I had a choice: I could become like them or I could give up the religion I grew up with.
I chose the latter. I haven't regretted it.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 3, 2009 4:58 PM
Coryat, no worries. I'm not convinced the Janitor even knew what the hell s/he was talking about until you linked directly to it. Besides, shit happens (better call the Janitor)!
Posted by: Insightful Ape | August 3, 2009 5:03 PM
We've got a few trolls, but what about Reverend Tom himself? Where is he? Is he thinking it's more fun to hide behind janitors?
Posted by: John Pieret | August 3, 2009 5:03 PM
... dinosaurs died approximately 65 million years ago, and modern humans arose a few hundred thousand years ago. There was no overlap.
Wait a minute! Cladists tell us that humans and dinosaurs have lived together and some people have saddled them and ridden them!
... And I've got the bird poop on my car to prove it!
[Not Ken Hamhanded's claim, but let's be accurate.]
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 3, 2009 5:04 PM
My answers to the "supernatural half" have been said a long time ago. Our Janitor would do well to study up on my list of woo cliches if he wants to be taken seriously.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 5:04 PM
while they discuss interesting things like irreducible complexity, and dinosaur saddles.
...and slowly revert to what they want:
a return of Feudalism.
seriously, after having spoken with hundreds of them, the sense I get is that most of them would be quite happy living as serfs on some lords lands; their futures secure and all their needs provided for them without having to actually learn a damn thing.
cause thinkin' is HARD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWqtpqQjNug&feature=related
Posted by: Watchman | August 3, 2009 5:05 PM
MopBucketForJesus777:
Ummmm, no.
Read through these. There are only around 53,600 hits. It shouldn't take long for an erudite weasel such as yourself to wade through them. Go ahead, give it a go. Maybe you'll learn something.
Posted by: DaveH | August 3, 2009 5:05 PM
Nigel the bold @158 wins the internets in perpetuity.
*bows and removes stylish hat*
Posted by: James Sweet | August 3, 2009 5:06 PM
The picture is AWESOME.
"Yeah, I'm a dinosaur farmer."
"So, I was just down at the public market getting some free-range pasture-fed brontosaurus..."
"Support PETD! (People for Ethical Treatment of Dinosaurs) Stop factory farming of T-rex!"
Posted by: noodles | August 3, 2009 5:07 PM
There, I corrected you post for clarity.
Posted by: Josh
|
August 3, 2009 5:08 PM
*yawn*
Then, I assume that you can demonstrate how all of the transitional features of Archaeopteryx aren't transitional, right? If you cannot demonstrate that (not just say it), then you've got nothing.
Posted by: Samantha | August 3, 2009 5:09 PM
"Getting back to the hatred of Ham and the Creation Museum, why? Why do you all care? Especially when you consider that you have the truth? Why not leave us goofy Christians alone on this one?"
Somebody on another blog once asked "If atheists don't believe in Heaven or Hell, why does the mention of Hell upset you so?" The answer is the same for this as it was for that. We care about Hell and Ham and the Creation Museum because they are unbalanced propaganda tools. Because they are tools of fear and unsupported argumentation used to (attempt to) convert people who might well have been perfectly nice people before. Because they try to make people believe that things like homosexuality, stem cell research and evolution (or believing in it) are going to lead to negative long-term effects, either eternal punishment (Hell) or society's backslide into a complete lack of morality (Ham and the CM). Ignoring, of course, the complete lack of proof or support. Ignoring the fact that there are people who kill these supposed "sinners" out of fear that their existence is enough to consign even the "good Christian" to Hell.
While I don't have a problem with people having their own beliefs and I don't even have a problem with the museum existing, I do have a problem with the fact that it attempts to tout itself as scientific and truthful when in fact, the only scientific truths they present are presented so that it's almost impossible to determine what they originally said but entirely possible to easily twist them around some more to argue against YEC. Many scientific "facts" are easily disproved by someone with even a high-school science background and pretty much all of the arguments of proper scientists (i.e. NOT YEC) are poorly presented at best and blatantly misleading in more cases than not. Never mind the fact that this museum operates tax-free! Tax their earnings and you could quite likely fund a handful of science classes and give them the tools to teach the scientific methods that the CM so cheerfully violates.
P.S. Sorry if the quote to start doesn't work properly... I can't for the life of me figure out how I'm supposed to get the neat indented separation that most of you use.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 5:16 PM
Science VS God according to Ham (this, btw, is a VERY common theme you will see throughout the creation "museum"):
Science is HARD, what with all the curves and turns and such.
God is EASY! see? just a straight line from question to answer!
whee!
Posted by: Not a Real Historian | August 3, 2009 5:17 PM
@13
The bible says don't be a dumbass. Learn science.
Isn't that what kicked off the Islamic Golden Age? They basically said it was your religious duty to learn new and exiting things about the world.
Then the crazy theologists said that you have to listen to them without question and now you have to explode to get into heaven. A bit off topic, I know, but I couldn't help it.
Also, I'm waiting for any decent evidence to come from the trolls. We gave Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx, now give us evidence, don't just tell us that our arguments are defunct because you think that they are desperate last ditch attempts. It doesn't make you look smart.
Do also keep in mind that there are many people here, of varying tack and intelligence. Don't pick a couple of smug one liners and treat those like the entire community. It makes you look infantile.
But perhaps we are appealing to the wrong aspect of your personality.
Oh all wise and powerful sanitation engineer, please impart upon us ignoramuses the truth, with clear claims and factual, testable evidence and predictions, so we may live our lives to the same standard of excellence and carefree joy that you enjoy! Clearly, we lack the reason and knowledge to understand your current arguments, so please revise them in a way our lesser minds will easily grasp. We thank you for gracing us with your presence, and eagerly await a response.
Posted by: Qwerty | August 3, 2009 5:19 PM
Com'n guys... You all know the real reason dinosaurs became extinct. They smoked Luckies and Pall Malls. I know this as I saw it in a "Far Side" cartoon.
Posted by: Geds | August 3, 2009 5:19 PM
P.S. Sorry if the quote to start doesn't work properly... I can't for the life of me figure out how I'm supposed to get the neat indented separation that most of you use.
[blockquote]Here's my quote![/blockquote]
But use instead of [ and ].
Posted by: Father Nature | August 3, 2009 5:22 PM
Huh? Can you give an example of this, Samantha?
The blockquote tag is what you want.
Posted by: Geds | August 3, 2009 5:23 PM
But use instead of [ and ].
Should have seen THAT coming...
Use angle brackets instead of, um, bracket brackets. You know, the ones that are the shift option about the comma and period.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 3, 2009 5:24 PM
Ooh PZ watch out! You went and copied/pasted a whole block of text from Brother Tom's pack of unmitigated lies . . . err, 'blog' didn't you? You can't do that! He will get really, really miffed if you expose his two faced gitness . . . sorry, I mean reproduce his blog thereby stopping people reading it at the 'Hard Truth". I know, just yesterday on the 'A Book to Give Us All Nightmares' thread I strayed from the path of online rightousness due to the honeyed seductions of the whore of informed debate, and Brother Tom did smite me mightily! Now I am afraid to even contemplate looking upon the Ctrl, Alt, Insert keys lest the fiery sword of Brother Tom's retribution descend upon me from the arcane depths of my Home Hub!
Take this warning from a poor, broken fool and run. Run while you still can!
Posted by: Watchman | August 3, 2009 5:26 PM
JanitorForChrist777:
Oh yes! Your nym! Yeah yeah, gatekeeper, whatever; St. Peter, whatever; seventh son of a seventh son of a syphilitic whore and an opium-addicted child-fucker. You're so clever! We are, like, in, like, um, like, uh, awe!
And why not? The only thing you've done since you've arrived is crap all over the thread.
Stupid fuck.
Being an ignorant fool is one thing. Being an obnoxious jackass is another. Being a stupid fuck is yet a third. You're all three, with no end in sight. Congratulations!
By the way - how's that reading going? Get back to us when you've actually learned something about that which you so ineptly criticize. Come back in... oh.... 2012. That should give you enough time to get a handle on the basics. Until you do, your comments has less substance than geese farts on a muggy day.
Posted by: Rob Davidson | August 3, 2009 5:26 PM
That was very funny putting the book cover below the fold - brilliantly set up
Posted by: Tom Estes | August 3, 2009 5:26 PM
PZ, my reply is on my blog.
Posted by: Geds | August 3, 2009 5:28 PM
Ichthyic @187: God is EASY! see? just a straight line from question to answer!
That diagram doesn't even make any sense. The start point and finish point on both are on the vertical axis. The arrows point off to the right.
Where, exactly, did those lines start and where are they supposed to take us?
And since when does evolution result in human reason? I was under the impression that human reason tells us to look for evidence and the evidence points us to evolution.
Dammit. I'm not dumb enough to get the Creation Museum.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 5:29 PM
Huh? Can you give an example of this, Samantha?
I rather think she was trying to quote a creationist there, not say that herself.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 5:31 PM
That diagram doesn't even make any sense.
congratulations, you're NOT insane.
:)
Posted by: Salo | August 3, 2009 5:34 PM
I think I'm going to start referring to my research as sacred science. Surely some deity is interested in my research. Probably Isis.
Posted by: Policy Merchant | August 3, 2009 5:36 PM
Tom Estes @ 196
I see that you are still struggling with what science actually is and how it is really done.
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 5:36 PM
According to Samantha, High School learnin' trumps University learnin! She's what, people? TOO STUPID TO KNOW SHE'S STUPID!
Amen.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 3, 2009 5:38 PM
We've got a few trolls, but what about Reverend Tom himself?
Near as I can tell, Christ'sThunderBucket is crazier'n a shithouse rat, only not quite as bright. As for the Rev, in response to this blog's cold reception, T. Estes shriveled away over to his Hard Truth blog (Lying is Easy!) to try to lick his wounds. They're nuts, the pair of them.
Oh dear, since I've just been a mean atheist, it's now entirely my fault that they reject science. Curse you, Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs! Perhaps heddle can teach them physics.
Posted by: Geds | August 3, 2009 5:41 PM
congratulations, you're NOT insane.
:)
That's the nicest thing anybody has ever said to me.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 3, 2009 5:43 PM
Peter Karim @ 12;
""Some scientists think that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago"
SOME ?! Epic Winer of the understatement contest. Yeah Tyrannosauridae were herbovirus too before The Fall. With razor sharp teeth to kill the tenacious shrubberies!"
No, no, no. You don't understand. Before the fall carniverous dinosaurs had a Temperence League - just like the vampires of Terry Pratchet's Disk World! Rather than brutally dismembering and eating the Neolithic folk they wore black ribbons and drank huge quantities of coffee and quietly had nervous break downs. Until, of course, one of them fell off the wagon. The there was hell to pay. Blood and body parts everywhere and a crying T-Rex in the middle of it all saying;
"I try to be good, I really try! But its so hard with all these juicy humans about flaunting their soft, succulent flesh. The unfeeling bastards!"
Of course, it all works out all right in the end due to the support group Carnivores Anonymous.
"Hello, my name's Timmy the T-Rex, and I am a homosapien-aholic . . ."
Until, that is, they just couldn't take it any more and committed mass suicide. All the other dinos felt so bad they did the same and that, my friends is the REAL reason why dinosaurs became extinct. Apart from the ones who decided to give rehab clinics like Loch Ness one last chance, of course.
Posted by: Geds | August 3, 2009 5:45 PM
E.V. @202: According to Samantha, High School learnin' trumps University learnin!
I think she's actually saying -- in an awkwardly constructed sentence, yes -- that the YEC "facts" are so transparently stupid that anyone with a high school science education can disprove them.
This, whether or not it was actually Samantha's intention, is true enough. My Honors Bio class that I took back in 1995 gave me all the ammo I needed to find Ken Ham completely hilarious and refute his claims the first time I saw one of his arguments. And I saw that in, um, 2006.
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 5:47 PM
Oops, it seems I friendly fired at Samantha. My apologies. (wasted a perfectly good TSTKTS, grumble, grumble)
Posted by: daveau
|
August 3, 2009 5:47 PM
From Major Tom's blog rebuttal:
...In Ken Ham's delusional imagination, perhaps. In our universe, there is no such agreement.
Posted by: Lynna | August 3, 2009 5:48 PM
JanitorforChrist: I posted this on the "I Get Email" thread, but will cross-post it again here, just for you. This is a partial answer as to why we cannot just accept your God as a supernatural being, and then supposedly argue from there that the Bible is correct. The quote below is from Jason Rosenhouse:
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 5:51 PM
I think she's actually saying -- in an awkwardly constructed sentence, yes -- that the YEC "facts" are so transparently stupid that anyone with a high school science education can disprove them.
ah, I think you're right.
The second paragraph seemed so incongruous with the first, at quick glance I thought she might have been trying to include some creationist quote there.
Posted by: Joffan | August 3, 2009 5:53 PM
What are you sayin', Tristan? You think it's all bollocks? Heh, and our main man got suckered in.... unless PZ is faking the good Rev. Bobby Ollocks?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 3, 2009 5:54 PM
It gets funnier and funnier every time indoctrinated goofballs like Pastor Tom trot out the term "presupposition" (which he does in his quite comical reply on his blog).
I've already said this in this thread... but my good pastor... every argument, every "fact" you have, everything you think you know is built on a platform of unproven, unsupported, untestable presupposition. Atheists are not the ones with this problem. If presupposition annoys you, I cannot imagine how you have managed to get this far in your life's path.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | August 3, 2009 5:54 PM
T.Estes makes a pretty limp argument over on his blog.
He all but admits that he's a firm believer in "God says it, I believe it, that settles it" but then he claims "Oh, but even though I don't care much for that science-y stuff, the Creation Museum still proves the Bible true with it!
And how would a guy who admits that he uses a Bible as both history and science textbook know a thing about actual science? I guess he figures if it supports his biblical worldview, it must be REAL TRUE GOOD science.
Also, what's with that forced "HardTruth(TM)" stuff? Laughable. You don't have to make up your own goofy little catchphrase to have a blog, T.Estes.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 5:59 PM
Atheists are not the ones with this problem. If presupposition annoys you, I cannot imagine how you have managed to get this far in your life's path.
by employing the very same psychological mechanisms every creationist does:
projection (which you see here)
followed by denial
I have yet to see a creationist who does NOT follow this pattern.
It's like a psych 101 course:
the only way the brain can contain such a disparate from reality worldview as creationism is to compartmentalize.
severe compartmentalization creates cognitive dissonance.
cognitive dissonance creates pressure on the brain to formulate mechanisms to protect the compartmentalized structure (like trying to keep a house of cards from falling apart).
the mechanisms typically used as defenses?
projection and denial.
it's fucking classic.
Try getting the goddamned AMA or APA to officially recognize it as a psychological issue though.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 3, 2009 6:00 PM
I think the guy is a nut and a trouble maker.
Posted by: TTT | August 3, 2009 6:01 PM
As for Estes' question of "why do you atheists care about this 'museum'?".... well, because to care is HUMAN. The "museum" is a famous example of the distortion of science, and since we're, y'know, scientists who have devoted our lives to science and improving public awareness of science, it interests us.
I used to be a tour guide at a major natural history museum. Without exaggeration, at least once a month we'd get a group visit from some YEC church that just wanted to cause trouble and try to play 'Stump-the-Volunteer'. They tended to aim their questions at either the very oldest well-meaning, slightly out-of-depth retirees, or the very youngest, school-service-earning teens. Needless to say on the few occasions when they had the nerve to try their canned talking points on me, they got quite the earful. As a rule they were completely unprepared for hearing any new information at all.
Posted by: Carlie | August 3, 2009 6:08 PM
Janitor, I assume that you have only gotten one flu shot in your lifetime. That should be enough, since the flu virus never evolves. I also assume that you only use penicillin when you get an infection, since bacteria can't evolve penicillin resistance. Put your body where your mouth is with regard to evolution, or shut the hell up.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 3, 2009 6:12 PM
Mark M @ 114;
"What I find unsettling, in a theological way, about creationism, particularly the young Earth variety, is that it requires a god who lies. The YEC flock have a trickster god."
Trickster . . . god? You genius Mark! Its all so clear now! Yahweh is actualy just a pseudonym for Loki! One of many false I.Ds. Why didn't I see it before! Its obvious when you stop to think about it!
Hey, everyone! I've got a new revealed truth for you all!
Posted by: Josh
|
August 3, 2009 6:14 PM
At the risk of sounding like a skipping CD, I'll jump in here and add "and stop using products derived from oil*, you bloody hypocrite."
*We use what we know about evolution to help prospect, successfully, for oil.
Posted by: Lisa | August 3, 2009 6:14 PM
I so wish y'all could live blog this.
Posted by: Armand K. | August 3, 2009 6:18 PM
Oh, "that" question again, "Why do you care?"
Isaac Asimov answered well enough, in my opinion, when he wrote (in "The Threat of Creationism", New York Times Magazine, 14 June 1981):
(The whole article can be found on Stephen Jay Gould's website, at http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/azimov_creationism.html)He wrote it from an American perspective, true. But I think it goes very well for the whole world. In Europe, for instance, we do have our nutcases... while Romania, my native country, is in the top positions among the "most religious countries" (together with Iran and USA, incidentally).
My admiration for the Good Doctor might be playing me some tricks on me, but ---by the Almighty Spirit of the Galaxy!--- that paper seems to have been written yesterday, not some twenty-five years ago!
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 3, 2009 6:21 PM
Victor @ 135;
Thats not fair. They would also want to sacrifice people if it wasn't illegal. look out Jennifer!
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 3, 2009 6:22 PM
Show that supernatural explanations are as good, if not better, at predicting phenomena than current natural explanations and then you might have something. Hell, just show that the supernatural exists at all. Otherwise all you have is an assertion that the supernatural exists.Just saying it exists doesn't mean it does, you need to show evidence to support your position.
Posted by: Carlie | August 3, 2009 6:23 PM
You know what, Janitor and Tom and every other creationist who spews the same old shit around here? Every time you go to the doctor when you're sick you are reaping the benefits of evolutionary study. Every. Damned. Time. And no, you can't separate it out into "micro" and "macro" evolution. There is no separating line. It's imaginary. It's the exact same processes that make a bacteria dependent on a novel source of food, that make a new species of plant, that make a fish with fingers, that make your pets, that make new species of hominids. You cannot take one without taking the others. So, if you really don't believe in evolution, live like you actually have convictions and stop parasitizing its benefits. Otherwise, we know you're just lying to yourself along with lying to us about what you really believe deep down where your pastor can't see.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 6:23 PM
Ah, the delusional godbotting idjits. They think their opinion blogged is real evidence. Tom probably thinks him having a blog is evidence of dog, rather than the other way around. Tom, if your dog doesn't exist due to non-support of the physical evidence, it means your holy babble is just another work of fiction. Show us the equivalent of an eternally burning bush. After all, extraordinary claims (like deities) require extraordinary evidence. We are waiting...Posted by: Carlie | August 3, 2009 6:25 PM
I extended my previous comment, but it got held up in moderation for too many linky-dinkys. Just so you all know that it really doesn't take me a few hours to complete a thought. :)
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 3, 2009 6:27 PM
The speed of light is not different perspectives, when we see a galaxy 100,000 light years wide sitting 2.3 million light years from earth, it means that the universe is at least 2.3 million years old. At least...
The alternative is that God made it look old by creating the light en route to earth, but that would still mean that "evolutionists" are following the evidence while creationists are not.
A star goes supernova for us in 1987, according to the speed of light that event took place 168,000 years prior. Again, en route light to earth including the supernova itself? Again, not conforming to the evidence. Different perspectives? Bullshit it is! One follows the evidence an the other does not.
Posted by: Watchman | August 3, 2009 6:29 PM
Right, Ichthyic - it ain't pathological, cuz everyone does it. ;-)
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 3, 2009 6:32 PM
Just because the mood strikes me, I'll spell it out: I care because knowing the truth is a very powerful tool in helping people. Evolution is a very accurate explanation that gives us an impressive understanding of living things. Because of evolution, we can know about cancer and bacterial resistance to treatment.
Ken Ham and his ilk would have us return to things like necromancy: the casting of bones and entrails to tell us the future.
They would rather allow people to die from preventable and treatable diseases because their faith, which is the hubris allows them to believe gods are their fanfiction playthings that exist to grovel at their feet, is more important than something as fundamental as a person's life. Heck, I value a kid's ability to say, "Oh, that's cool, now that I understand it!" as more important than humoring the self-idolatry of men of "faith."
Posted by: Ethan Siegel | August 3, 2009 6:33 PM
So, how long do I have before the same group starts claiming a creationist cosmology?
Was the Universe created with the light from distant stars already en route?
It seems only inevitable...
Posted by: CJO | August 3, 2009 6:34 PM
LOL
On his blog, in the links, under "Useful Information" he has: Fox News, Glenn Beck, and The Onion.
Sense of humor? Seems unlikely, but, but... The Onion? Really, Tom? Poe's law, man. It's some deep shit.
Posted by: XD | August 3, 2009 6:46 PM
Are we sure that Pastor Bollocks isn't just a blog-whoring troll, looking for ad-hits from high-traffic sites?
I imagine Pharyngula is an attractive target for such people.
Posted by: Ragutis | August 3, 2009 6:47 PM
How could Ham's (and yours) hypotheses of a young earth and dinosaur domestication by humans be falsified? For that matter, what evidence is there that even justifies making those hypotheses in the first place? What happened over the last 6000 years to result in this? Using "Biblical Science", describe the formation of the Matterhorn. How could we apply "Biblical Science" to our search for fossil fuels? Petroleum companies would be extremely interested, since it appears we might be running low sooner than expected.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 6:47 PM
So, how long do I have before the same group starts claiming a creationist cosmology?
why, you have no time at all.
In fact, you missed it already.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html
scroll down to "a new creationist cosmology"
and shriek in horror and the gross ignorance and outright lies masquerading as "science" there.
Or laugh. That's what I do these days.
Posted by: Drew | August 3, 2009 6:48 PM
Well, I suppose you could argue that dinosaurs do live alongside mankind. We just call them "birds."
--Drew
Posted by: Brooks | August 3, 2009 6:49 PM
Sigh,
I grow so weary of the labels "the science community" and "evolutionists" and "Darwinists." We who allow the scientific method to determine our views of reality are not wedded to any result [as so many have said before]. We can accurately be called "scientists" but not "Darwinists." I currently work on the assumption that Darwin's theories, as modified by experience are a correct description of how species evolved only because they fit the available facts and no other currently proposed theory fits the facts as well or better.
If that makes me a "Darwinist" then tomorrow I might be a "insertnameist" when a new theory is proposed which supplants Darwin's in its accuracy and efficiency of prediction.
Just ranting. I'm just tired of the belief-oriented worldview followers trying to create a dichotomous relationship where none exists.
I'm not an "ist." I'm even willing to concede that if one of my Christian friends can actually get Jesus to appear and talk to me and perform a few supernatural miracles I can witness then I'll believe Jesus exists because the evidence I have will lead to that conclusion.
Rant
Posted by: Smoggy Batrubble | August 3, 2009 6:52 PM
Dear Reverend Tom Estes,
Praise your Biblical bravery my Christian brother. Don't allow the atheist jokes about your name (Pastor Testes etc.) to make you take your eye off the ball. God knows that if anyone has the stones for this mission into blog-hell, it is you. I know for a fact that Jesus is inordinately proud of the mighty fight our team is putting up here. We've got the atheists quaking in their boots (don't believe them when they say they're laughing at you...they're really scared!).
I think we Christians here are like the "A-Team' for Jesus. Err...uh..perhaps on this blog we'd better lose the "A" and call ourselves the "J-Team". You can be the Col. John "Hannibal" Smith character—we'll call you Colonel T. "Hangingball" Estes, and your role will be to cloak your prejudices and ignorance in the aura of a successful combat veteran. Our coprophiliac toilet cleaning friend, JanitorforChrist777,can be Lt. Templeton "Faceman" Peck; we'll call him "Fecesman", or "Feces" for short. I'll be Capt. Smoggy "Howling Mad" Batzrubble; and my felonious faith-filled friend Floyd Rubber will be Sgt. B.A. "Bad Attitude" Fudgepackas.
Just imagine the havoc our "J-Team" will be able to wreak amongst the heathens! In our first episode, you—God's mighty 'Hanginball' Estes—will trip them up with your silken salvationist prose; then Fecesman777 will shit scripture all over them; then I'll crush them to a pulp under the caterpillar tracks of God's Bible-powered tank; and finally Floyd Fudgepacka will deal to whatever sad atheist is left by shoving his "Sword of the Spirit" a whole cubit's length up their back passage.
Praise God, the J-Team cometh!
Yours in action against atheism
Smoggy Batzrubble
(PS Rev. Testes and Christ'sCoprophiliac777, we could make a whole video series and market it through Christian bookshops. I can see our slogan now: "Follow Jesus and believe stupid shit, or we'll fuck you up!")
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 6:52 PM
Well, I suppose you could argue that dinosaurs do live alongside mankind. We just call them "birds."
I have to say I'm beginning to really dislike that answer, as you could just as easily say various fossil fish species still live alongside us as, well, us!
I understand the point made by such a comment, but it really won't make an impact on creationists, and it's technically inaccurate as birds, to my knowledge, are still not classified as dinosaurs, much like amphibians are not classified as fish.
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 6:53 PM
I heartily agree with Brooks. I am happy to now be a Brooksist.:P
Posted by: Tony P | August 3, 2009 6:54 PM
Nice dissection of their arguments. BTW, I like your email warning. In my case I just post anything I want. You sent it to me, it is mine to do with what I please.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 3, 2009 6:56 PM
Tom Estes:
Do you have any idea how happy I would be to leave you alone? I have always passionately supported your right to believe whatever you want to believe.
Stop knocking on my door to tell me I'm going to hell, and I will leave you alone.
Stop libeling atheists as amoral scoundrels to be feared in all walks of life, and I will leave you alone.
Stop making laws that say I cannot love or marry the partner of my choice, and I will leave you alone.
Stop seeking preferential legal treatment for people of your faith, and I will leave you alone.
Live and let live is quid pro quo.
But you see, it is not we who have the problem with it.
Posted by: Josh
|
August 3, 2009 7:06 PM
Stop trying to get lies taught as science in public school science classes and I will leave you alone.
Posted by: Dmitry | August 3, 2009 7:10 PM
In case nobody's taken care of this yet...
Janitor sez: "I'll tell you what I'd consider to be evidence.
A transitional fossil."
Well today's your lucky day, friend, because we've got a ton of 'em.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils"
This is a greatly reduced and simplified list. Follow the sources for more in-depth lists and explanations.
But something tells me you're not actually interested in learning...
Posted by: Tom Estes | August 3, 2009 7:10 PM
Click my name to see how Elaine Morgan just all of you! I love this!
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 3, 2009 7:11 PM
Tom Estes writes;
"Why do you all care? Especially when you consider that you have the truth? Why not leave us goofy Christians alone on this one?"
One of the reasons why we care is that not all theists say;
"I believe God created the Universe and everything in it. If you do not believe as I believe, that's OK."
Too many theists, like the Janitor above (apologies if the Janitor transpires to be a Poe), are more likely to say;
"God created the Universe and everything in it and if you don't believe that you will burn in hell forever!"
While personally I am not exactly terrified of threats of suffering to commence after the cognitive centres of my brain and the pain receptors of my nervous system have ceased to function, such threats may sway the vulnerable. Particularly children. I will not speculate on what kind of person would issue such a threat to an impressionable child.
We also care because the stock in trade of such things as the Creation Museum is to sully the good name of actual science by parading abominable, evidence-free pseudo-science in its place to prop up a theology that makes manifestly inaccurate claims about the quantifiable physical universe. Claims such as the Earth being only 6,000 years old when radiological decay of isotopes, among other sources of evidence, demonstrably proves an Earth age of roughly 4.5 billion years old.
In order for literalist religious doctrines, such as creationism, to survive it is necessary to corrupt some aspects of science in a bid to find not so much evidence as a form of argument superficially compelling enough to take in the gullable and reinforce the faith of pre-existing believers. Those elements of scientific knowledge that are too umambiguously opposed to such a religious interpretation of reality must be discredited if their threat to creationist doctrine is to be removed.
As such the Creationist Museum, and all other attempts to hijack science for unscientific theological purposes, constitute an assault on the integrity of the scientific method itself.
Furthermore, creationist expos like the Creation Museum often try to establish parity between science and religion. This concerns atheists because whereas religion makes claims based on the authority of a deity whose existence has never been proven, and due to the attributes ascribed to this alleged entity, is unlikely ever will be proven; the claims made by science are backed up by experimentation and copius hard evidence. Just look at any of the day to day items of technology that can be found in any modern home. Each and every one is a vaidation of the scientific understanding of the universe. If the scientific method of garnering knowledge did not work, none of these items would function. Religion has no equivalent proof of the functionality of its claims about reality. Seeking to establish parity between religion and science corrupts the faculty for reason of children, and this is cause enough for concern.
The above issues are things that concern all rationalists and should concern anyone who is cognisant of the public good. That is why we care.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 3, 2009 7:16 PM
"Click my name"? Is that like "pull my finger"?
Posted by: JanitorforChrist777 | August 3, 2009 7:16 PM
#217
I am putting my body where my mouth is, if that's what it means.
I haven't had a vaccination for anything since I was a child when my parents didn't know any better. I will not allow my wife to get them for our children. I've never used antibiotics nor have my children.
But this has nothing to do with evolution or religion. (It's just microevolution anyway.) It's about me not wanting to fork over any more of my money to the conscience-free "big science" that wants to pump our children full of aluminum (and who knows what else) against our wills.
Posted by: Dmitry | August 3, 2009 7:17 PM
Testes sez: "Just don't think people like me will ever stop being the steady voice of reasoned opposition, and that's the HardTruth"
I'm not sure whether to laugh 'til my spleen rockets out through the top of my head or facepalm myself to death.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 7:18 PM
Why should we click on your blog, you blog whore? You have nothing of interest to say. Anything other than your presenting the physical evidence for your imaginary deity here is a big yawn. Just like your logic.Posted by: Shalamar | August 3, 2009 7:18 PM
Mr Tom Estes, your blog link is.. interesting.
Elaine Morgan did not disprove evolution. She has a different hypothesis on how and from where Humans Evolved. At the moment, she does not have a great deal of evidence, but there is some to back her claim. Though not enough to really make it a certainty (Or as certain as Science gets).
Science changes. Science learns. Science is happy to rewrite and even discard theories when new evidence is presented.
Stop lying please.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 7:20 PM
I am putting my body where my mouth is, if that's what it means.
I'm rather picturing something more along these lines...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 7:22 PM
Janitor, still no evidence for your imaginary deity. You are now a full fledged liar for Jebus™. You and your logic fail any test of intelligence. Yawn. Boring troll.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 3, 2009 7:22 PM
Look, Estes, knock it off with the teasing "click on my name" posts. It's unseemly.
***
Please visit my blog.
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Dmitry | August 3, 2009 7:23 PM
Janitor sez: "I haven't had a vaccination for anything since I was a child when my parents didn't know any better. I will not allow my wife to get them for our children. I've never used antibiotics nor have my children."
Then you're profoundly stupid.
"But this has nothing to do with evolution or religion. (It's just microevolution anyway."
Ding ding ding! We have a level-four stupid alarm. Micro- and macroevolution is a meaningless division invented by creationists to try and explain away observations of evolution in action. Sort-of a "well, OK, maybe evolution happens, but only to really small things!" Too bad it has no basis in fact.
"It's about me not wanting to fork over any more of my money to the conscience-free "big science" that wants to pump our children full of aluminum (and who knows what else) against our wills."
Tut tut, they're only after your precious bodily fluids via fluoridated water.
Posted by: Smoggy Batrubble | August 3, 2009 7:25 PM
Dear Brother Jackoff777 @ 246,
Bless you for putting your body where your mouth is, that degree of flexibility is withheld from most of us mere mortals. It certainly explains your posts, which do sound most unfortunately like the words of a man gagging on his own penis. Perhaps when you remove it to take a breath, and some oxygen starts getting back to your brain, you may want to re-read your words on this blog and notice how fucking ignorant you appear.
Yours with a meaty mouthful
Smoggy
PS My friend Floyd Rubber is very interested in the things you can do with your body. He wonders whether you'd like to get together. Preferably before some preventable epidemic wipes you out.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 7:28 PM
wants to pump our children full of aluminum
aluminum??
ROFLMAO
it's sad you have kids.
really.
ever seen the movie "Idiocracy?"
you're livin' it.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | August 3, 2009 7:28 PM
Any aluminum poisoning you're getting comes from the tinfoil hat you wear. Surprise! What we call tinfoil is actually aluminum foil.
I cannot for the life of me figure out what else this guy was talking about. Is he really confusing aluminum with the mercury that once was used medicinally, but now is not?
Can even a creationist fail to understand the difference between these elements?
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 3, 2009 7:28 PM
*headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*
He just had to be an anti-vaxxer, too.
1. Define the line between "micro" and "macro" evolution. Last I checked, there is none.
2. Aluminum is the third most common element on the Earth's surface. Seriously, you might as well start whining about the water in vaccines. Which you will probably get around to, eventually, since anti-vaxxers change their stories every two weeks.
3. How can there be a "big science"? Science is built on adversarial confrontation between different ideas. It's practiced by countless individuals who each have competing interests and uses mechanisms to remove those biases. Such a conspiracy is absurdly unlikely. About all conspiracy theorists like you can do is to claim that a bunch of people all just randomly decided, at the same time, for no reason, to pick on you. Of course, that's not a problem for Men of Faith, who each believe they are more central to the universe than any gods man has ever dreamed up.
Posted by: JanitorforChrist777 | August 3, 2009 7:29 PM
#242
None of those are transitional fossils.
Yes, some of them have some features that are similar to group A and others that are similar to group B, but you can't call them "transitional" until you can show them transitioning from one thing into another. (Unless you're willing to admit that you just take it on faith. That's almost certainly the case, but atheists never admit it.)
Besides, I have said this again and again. What I'm looking for are the supposed transitions BETWEEN SPECIES. Not things that share a few features of higher groups. If 99.9% of all species are extinct as evolutionists claim, there have been perhaps a billion species on this planet. Why can't we find evidence of one species unequivocally changing into another in the fossil record?
I've read enough evolution nonsense to know that they've already given up on looking for the species to species transitions that I'm asking for. They can't find them. They don't exist. That's why in classification every newly discovered species is placed on the tip of a new branch and the internal points are empty or "hypothetical".
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 3, 2009 7:30 PM
This guy here says two plus two is four, but that guy over there says two times two is four. Which is it, Mr. Smarty Pants College Mathematician? Obviously, Mathematics is a theory in crisis. Don't you think it's time you all started teaching the controversy?
Posted by: Dmitry | August 3, 2009 7:33 PM
Bronze Dog, your post reminds me of a chapter in Stephen Colbert's "I am America," 'Science: Thanks for the Nukes, now Go Away!"
The problem with douches like Janitor is that they are all too willing when the products of arduous scientific inquiry quietly sit in the background and make their lives easier, but when it contradicts some tightly-gripped ideology, suddenly the whole profession is a big conspiracy to kill God... or something.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
August 3, 2009 7:35 PM
JFC777,
What do you mean by "species?" Please define, so I can determine if there are "transitional" forms available.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 7:35 PM
Obviously, Mathematics is a theory in crisis. Don't you think it's time you all started teaching the controversy?
Mooney sez:
There must be some accommodating middle ground between the two!
surely we can mix multiplication and addition and exclude such polarizing black and white thinking!
/mooney
Posted by: JanitorforChrist777 | August 3, 2009 7:35 PM
#255, #256, #257
I don't expect you to know about things like macrophagic myofasciitis. You've already demonstrated yourselves to be profoundly ignorant.
Posted by: Phrogge | August 3, 2009 7:36 PM
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 3, 2009 7:36 PM
Janitor says;
"I haven't had a vaccination for anything since I was a child when my parents didn't know any better. I will not allow my wife to get them for our children. I've never used antibiotics nor have my children."
and;
"It's about me not wanting to fork over any more of my money to the conscience-free "big science" that wants to pump our children full of aluminum (and who knows what else) against our wills."
Are you serious? Aren't you worried about the consequences of such an extreme anti-science position? Before antibiotics a simple cut could easily lead to fatal blood poisoning. Without vaccinations you and your children are vulnerable to everything from polio to tetanus. This is the lives of your own children you are talking about and you seem more concerned about the expenditure of mere money.
I honestly hope with every fibre of my being that neither yourself nor any member of your family is ever exposed to pathogenic bacteria or viral infection or suffers any serious injury because if you ever do your likelihood of survival will be seriously reduced by your attitude toward medical science. In your place, I could not live with myself knowing that a family member died because of my negative outlook on modern medicine.
I just really hope that your posts are part of an elaborate Poe. If not, I genuinely fear for you and your family. Please reconsider what you are doing for your children's sake.
Posted by: Josh
|
August 3, 2009 7:38 PM
Janitor, define species.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 7:38 PM
I don't expect you to know about things like macrophagic myofasciitis.
but what about the ALUMINUM!
surely it's all a conspiracy to keep you from making your new foil hat to keep out the evil radio waves!
Posted by: Armand K. | August 3, 2009 7:39 PM
This macro/micro distinction always sounded odd to me. It's like saying when you burn a piece of paper it's microfire, while a building on flames is macrofire. My point is, quantity makes no _essential_ difference.
Posted by: Dmitry | August 3, 2009 7:40 PM
Janitor sez: "#242, None of those are transitional fossils."
Yes they are. You saying they aren't doesn't make it so. Transitional fossils are the remains of intermediary life forms that illustrate an evolutionary transition. All of the examples on that Wikipedia page fit the bill. Explain why even one of them isn't.
"Besides, I have said this again and again. What I'm looking for are the supposed transitions BETWEEN SPECIES. Not things that share a few features of higher groups. If 99.9% of all species are extinct as evolutionists claim, there have been perhaps a billion species on this planet. Why can't we find evidence of one species unequivocally changing into another in the fossil record?"
This whole paragraph shows that you have no clue what you're actually looking for. You're making up definitions for words (transitional fossils, species, etc.) and then balking at how nobody can prove a pseudoscientific controversy that exists purely in your head.
"I've read enough evolution nonsense to know that they've already given up on looking for the species to species transitions that I'm asking for. They can't find them. They don't exist. That's why in classification every newly discovered species is placed on the tip of a new branch and the internal points are empty or "hypothetical"."
Sounds to me like you need to start right at the very beginning, as you're obviously lost. You really should read some sort of layperson's guide to evolution. You'd find that your misconceptions are wholly ridiculous.
However, given the fact that you're an anti-vaxxer as well, I highly doubt you're swayed by scientific evidence at all. Go put your tinfoil hat back on.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 3, 2009 7:40 PM
"macrophagic myofasciitis", isn't that the pathogen that causes brain distortions that lead to creationist beliefs?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 7:41 PM
Without vaccinations you and your children are vulnerable to everything from polio to tetanus. This is the lives of your own children you are talking about and you seem more concerned about the expenditure of mere money.
frankly, I could give a fuck about his own kids, since he seems happy to risk them to disease and an early death.
the problem is, in not inoculating his own kids, he puts OTHERS at risk, and that's just fucking unacceptable.
I do hope he lives miles away from any city, and homeschools his children.
Posted by: Quixotic | August 3, 2009 7:41 PM
Those poor poor children. Your parents vaccinated you, but you will not do the same for your children? How lucky I am to have been born into the family that I was. How lucky I am to have had intelligent parents. Ima call my mom now.
Posted by: Iris | August 3, 2009 7:42 PM
Apparently Christ's personal Janitor wants to see crocoduck fossils. LMAO.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 3, 2009 7:44 PM
JanitorforChrist wrote:
Irony meter...groaning...creaking...warning lights flashing...
Nope, it's holding. It's a good thing I had it set on 'Ray Comfort' level.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 7:44 PM
"macrophagic myofasciitis", isn't that the pathogen that causes brain distortions that lead to creationist beliefs?
No, I think you're thinking of the Brain Eating Amoebas:
http://pokeitwithastick-ichthyic.blogspot.com/2009/04/horror-horror.html
Posted by: Dmitry | August 3, 2009 7:44 PM
@ #268
Precisely. It's a meaningless and flat-out wrong division designed to save face for creationists struggling against reams of evidence.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 7:45 PM
The longer the janitor goes on, the more Poeish he sounds.
Posted by: Savior Breath | August 3, 2009 7:46 PM
New bumper sticker for the Janitor:
WJPTSD?
(Would Jeebus Put The Seat Down?)
Posted by: Tom Estes | August 3, 2009 7:46 PM
JanitorForChrist,
Don't waste you're time on these people. Start your own blog and crush them everyday from there. These sheep become very meek and mild when they have to leave the fold.
Posted by: Dmitry | August 3, 2009 7:48 PM
Testes sez: "JanitorForChrist,
Don't waste you're time on these people. Start your own blog and crush them everyday from there. These sheep become very meek and mild when they have to leave the fold."
Oh yeah, crush us like YOUR pitiful blog is crushing us? You remind me of Ken "Conservative" Demyer, endlessly chanting "Teh evolooshuns is racizt and dead on teh intern3t sooperhighwayz!"
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 7:49 PM
You really should read some sort of layperson's guide to evolution.
Just for the lurkers, there are many online, including the two most commonly referenced here:
talk origins
and
Understanding Evolution
I fucking guarantee you though, that numbnuts here (yes, that's you Janitorboy) has not, nor ever will, bother to actually explore the issue he seems so concerned about beyond what he reads on sites like AIG.
Posted by: JanitorforChrist777 | August 3, 2009 7:50 PM
Josh, Nigel,
The question is to you.
Evolutionary biology is in such a crisis that they _still_ cannot even define "species". They just shift it around and move the goalposts to make whatever point is at hand.
Sometimes it's actual breeding patterns. Sometimes it's potential breeding patterns. Sometimes both. Sometimes it's gross morphology. Sometimes it's supposed evolutionary history. Etc.
If you like, we'll go with "actually or potentially interbreeding" because that's a common definition.
Show me a stepwise fossil gradation between two forms that we know to have been of different biological species, keeping in mind that chihuahuas and Great Danes are considered to be the same species, thus belying the usefulness of morphology in making that distinction. (If you can shift the goalposts, so can I.)
To others: Creationists did not develop the micro-/macro- distinction, and we are not the only ones who think that "macro- is merely accumulated micro-". See Gould.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 7:50 PM
No, the only sheep around here believe in imaginary deities, and works of fiction as holy books without any physical evidence to substantiate the claims. Why TE, that describes you and your followers...Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 3, 2009 7:50 PM
Ichthyic @ 271;
Its not his children's fault that they were born into such an environment but I take your point. Endangering society in general by refusing vaccination on a point of principal is extremely irresponsible.
Quixotic @ 272;
"Those poor poor children. Your parents vaccinated you, but you will not do the same for your children? How lucky I am to have been born into the family that I was. How lucky I am to have had intelligent parents. Ima call my mom now."
I think pretty much everyone born into a modern, rationalist household shares your sentiment.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 7:51 PM
These sheep become very meek and mild when they have to leave the fold.
did you notice me calling you an ignorant fuckwit on your blog yet?
denial, much?
Posted by: Dmitry | August 3, 2009 7:52 PM
"I fucking guarantee you though, that numbnuts here (yes, that's you Janitorboy) has not, nor ever will, bother to actually explore the issue he seems so concerned about beyond what he reads on sites like AIG."
Of course they won't/haven't. They get their fill from Creationist mouthpieces, then come stomping over to those dirty atheist blogs, and when they get both thoroughly spanked and firmly pointed in the direction of an intellectual rebuttal, they leave and talk about how gosh-durn RUDE those mean'ol atheists are.
Posted by: Josh
|
August 3, 2009 7:52 PM
Of course. We wouldn't want to have a creationist actually come in here and discuss their position. We wouldn't want a creationist to actually respond to questions. Nahhh...
Crush us? And insults? What's this--some more of that famous Christian love?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 7:54 PM
Evolutionary biology is in such a crisis that they _still_ cannot even define "species". They just shift it around and move the goalposts to make whatever point is at hand.
um, you must have missed it, since it happened so long ago...
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Biological_species_concept.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_W._Mayr
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 3, 2009 7:55 PM
Pastor Testes is no doubt spent after having vanquished science by virtue of the superior motility of his aquatic swimmers, but ThunderbucketforJayzus shouldn't treat such advice like just another protein spill--blogging for science-denial needs him. He's stupid enough, he's illiterate enough, and gosh darn it, people loath him.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 3, 2009 7:55 PM
Janitor is past ordinary, common or garden idiocy. He's even past industrial strength, Ray Comfort idiocy. He's approaching weapons grade, Time Cube idiocy.
Posted by: Smoggy Batrubble | August 3, 2009 7:55 PM
Dear Janitor,
Jesus asked me to ask you, urgently, to limit the amount of 'stupid' you put into your posts to a few key points, because you're harming the cause worse than ever. What say you pick just TWO of the following and stay on message:
1. I believe in a bronze age God I've never seen;
2. I believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary;
3. I believe I can speak knowledgeably about science just by surfing the net and listening to people as stupid as I am;
4. I believe I can ignore all medical advances and place my family and others at great risk just to save a few dollars;
5. I believe in "Big Science" even though most scientific advances are made by individuals operating on a small scale;
6. I believe my god is the one true god in defiance of demographic and historical evidence that religion is a cultural construct.
Pick your battles, brother toilet cleaner. Perhaps also post your address, so social services can check you aren't endangering your children in other ways as well.
Smoggy
Posted by: Dmitry | August 3, 2009 7:56 PM
Janitor sez: "Evolutionary biology is in such a crisis that they _still_ cannot even define "species". They just shift it around and move the goalposts to make whatever point is at hand."
No no no, stop projecting. We know exaclty what a species is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species It's YOU who's terribly confused, and you're blaming your lack of initiative for learning on other people.
"Show me a stepwise fossil gradation between two forms that we know to have been of different biological species, keeping in mind that chihuahuas and Great Danes are considered to be the same species, thus belying the usefulness of morphology in making that distinction. (If you can shift the goalposts, so can I.)"
Archaeopteryx. And yes, it is real.
Posted by: dinkum | August 3, 2009 7:57 PM
Presumably, this explains the facewipe you're currently receiving on your blog, some of it from local talent.
Posted by: Iris | August 3, 2009 7:58 PM
Janitor, you should heed the advice of your comrade-in-delusions, Tom Estes. He is correct about one thing: Your time is most certainly being wasted here, since you are incapable of learning anything. You already have all the answers to everything, and no amount of contrary evidence or reason will penetrate your smug, willful ignorance.
Another fine Dunning-Kruger specimen.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 3, 2009 7:59 PM
Tom Estes squealed:
Oh yeah, we feel terribly crushed by your blog, Tom. Particularly when the majority of comments are from people pointing out exactly how dishonest (in both the regular and intellectual sense) you are.
But lying is okay as long as it's Lying for Jesus™, right? It's what we've come to expect.
Posted by: Diablo | August 3, 2009 8:00 PM
Here is what I really dislike about Mr. Ham. He obviously believes that one cannot have a faith and still support evolution. He is very effective in not only spreading that view, but also giving the impression that Christianity and evolution does not mix. Which comes to a huge surprise to me as a Roman Catholic, especially since we are the largest denomination in the world and we have supported evolution since 1950. I doubt Gregory Mendel had a crisis of faith over his bean plants.
Now I have no doubt that I am in the very small minority on this site, believing in both the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church and ....well, basic biology, but I am sure as heck not in the minority when it comes to representing the average Christian in the world(Side not, I have lived in Texas, where Roman Catholics are viewed as positively as Free Masons or any other boogie men). Mr Ham is a crackpot. The sad thing is that he is a loud crackpot who gets noticed and gives the rest of us Christians a terrible public image to overcome...check that...the cycle of child abuse and cover up...that was worse. But I think the likes of people like Mr Ham come in second. No wait...the Inquisition, our treatment of women, tactile support to the Nazis regime, the church's unwillingness to rationally address human nature and the AIDS crisis, okay...we've done some pretty bad stuff over the years...But at least we don't try to impede science....unless it involves stem cells...
Posted by: MikeM | August 3, 2009 8:00 PM
ToiletCleanerForChrist, I've always wondered how creationists explain two things:
1) How, in your view, does carbon-dating work?
2) Why did God sit in heaven, alone, for eternity, and then, 10,000 years ago, snap his heavenly fingers and say, "Hey, I have an idea! I'll create a universe!"?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 8:00 PM
Show me a stepwise fossil gradation between two forms that we know to have been of different biological species
horse evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
whale evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2C-3PjNGok
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/whale.ev.html
Posted by: extatyzoma | August 3, 2009 8:02 PM
I'm not sure what janitor is looking for when he wants transitions between species, perhaps hes looking for the transitions between extant organisms, eg a chimp and a gibbon, perhaps hes referring to the last common ancestor, or maybe hes looking for that perfect line of ancestors leading from the LCA to both chimps and gibbons for eg, thats a tall order condisering that most of the individuals in the direct lines probably left no fossils anyway. if there were a complete and perfect fossilisation one would have two lines leading back to the LCA.
janitor, if you are wondering where the perfect line of fossils are for say the asian elephant back to its ancestors 10mya or 150 mya you might just have to go out and actually start digging, you know actually doing something instead of just bitching about a subject you know nothing about. What you are asking to see would be rare indeed, simply because most organisms are not fossilised, an asian elephant like animal from 3mya would likely be a cousin, not a direct ancestor but thats the point, its whats predicted by evolution, and what youd expect given a naturally very patchy fossil record, BTW its why the theory IS. however microfossils are your best bet, billions of individuals are often fossilised in sequence, transitions are well documented. start reading.
perfect lines of fossils just dont exist, they occupy the nightmares of creationists or the dreams of palaentologists.
Posted by: Dmitry | August 3, 2009 8:02 PM
@#298
Ah snap! And with pictures and everything; should be right up Janitor's alley. (Provided he has a 10-minute attention span)
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 8:02 PM
...and of course:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
which was created in 2001. since then, we've found even more fossils to make an even finer picture of many evolutionary sequences.
to say these don't exist is just the height of self deception.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 3, 2009 8:04 PM
"Don't waste you're time on these people. Start your own blog and crush them everyday from there. These sheep become very meek and mild when they have to leave the fold"
I am curious as to how you plan to 'crush' anyone or why you think we would become meek and mild away from Pharyngula. Afterall, I apprehend no personal danger from posting here, on your blog or anywhere else in the great online realm. The worst that can be done to me is that people say nasty things about me, or laugh at me or ban me from a given site for speaking my mind. I can live with all these things quite easily thank you.
As of yet at least there is no law against being an atheist or posting about it so I need not fear legal sanction of anykind. On the off chance that any real wackoloos would actually wish to cause me physical harm then they have a problem in that they do not know hwere I live. They do not know whether Gregory Greenwood is my real name. They do not know whether or not I am really British. They don't even know if I am a man or a woman. So I think I am safe on that front too.
Whats that old school yard doggeral again?
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
Posted by: The MadPanda | August 3, 2009 8:04 PM
Wow.
We're into Black Knight territory, here.
If he were worth any less than the average XP total, there wouldn't be any point to engaging him at all.
Oh. Wait. He's not a proper Troll. He's a D'Orc. They're only worth, what? 14.5 XP divided by the attacking party?
(shrug)
Nevermind.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 3, 2009 8:05 PM
JC777@104:
I'm wondering what about Archaeopteryx disqualifies it as a fossil of one species (some species of lizard, informally) turning into another (some species of bird, obviously)?
Posted by: Phrogge | August 3, 2009 8:05 PM
Now the privy doorkeeper boasts of raising a small crop of threats to society at large... the more I.Anus posts, the more he demonstrates how well he chose his nom de troll.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 3, 2009 8:05 PM
"The Bible tells us that God made the dinosaurs on day six of Creation week, only thousands of years ago."
Where does it say "thousands of years ago" in the Bible?
Posted by: JanitorforChrist777 | August 3, 2009 8:06 PM
I have not said anything about the "crocoduck".
I'll give you an example of exactly what I'm looking for when I say "transitional species", since you people haven't read what I said and are clearly fond of misquoting people.
You say that whales evolved from something like a deer or a hippo. Take two of the closest related species in the supposed evolutionary history of whales (e.g. some parent and daughter species or two sister species). Connect those species with intermediate fossil forms such that I can clearly see one species turning into the next along the proper path on the evolutionary tree as you've defined it--in other words, a series of actual intermediates that show transition between those species.
I'm waiting.
By the way, I like the summary conviction that my description of cladistics was wrong without even the briefest explanation of how. When you find a new species, you put it on the tip of the tree, not at an internal node. The reason for this is that you do NOT think that it is ancestral.
Posted by: jfc777 | August 3, 2009 8:09 PM
Sorry, I shouldn't have said "transitional species" in #307. I should have said "transitional fossils".
Posted by: Dmitry | August 3, 2009 8:11 PM
"You say that whales evolved from something like a deer or a hippo. Take two of the closest related species in the supposed evolutionary history of whales (e.g. some parent and daughter species or two sister species). Connect those species with intermediate fossil forms such that I can clearly see one species turning into the next along the proper path on the evolutionary tree as you've defined it--in other words, a series of actual intermediates that show transition between those species."
We have, you turd. Watch Ichthyis' vids at #298. Now stop whining and learn something new for once.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 8:12 PM
Connect those species with intermediate fossil forms such that I can clearly see one species turning into the next along the proper path on the evolutionary tree as you've defined it
which one of the fossils that have been discovered that I linked to doesn't actually do exactly as you requested?
If you say "All", then you're deliberately lying.
so, pick out which EXACT fossils in that sequence don't fit.
Or haven't you even looked yet?
gees, and I even included a nice video for you to watch so you don't even have to pretend you can read.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 8:12 PM
Yawn, Poes don't know when to quit. Time to just point and laugh at the janitor. He doesn't know which end of the plunger is which...
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 3, 2009 8:12 PM
Ichthyic the brain amoeba sounds almost as bad as the toothpick catfish (cadiru) of the Amazon.
I enjoyed your foray into blogging and look forward to seeing more.
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 3, 2009 8:12 PM
Tom Estes #279 wrote:
This is a very odd thing to write. I assume you're popping in here hoping that some of us will come over to your blog for discussions -- and then you say something to Janitor which seems designed to encourage visitors to be anything but "meek and mild." Apparently, you think that, if we're polite, that means we're being crushed, and have no courage when we're not on our own turf, etc. Or, at least, you want us to think that you think that. It's almost as though you're poking with a stick to make sure that atheists are properly wild.
On the "Book to give us nightmares" thread I gave you what I think is some good advice for next time(#288). But I assumed you were really interested in having discussions here. Might have been wrong on that, given this odd little taunt.
Posted by: Smoggy Batrubble | August 3, 2009 8:13 PM
Dear Brother Janitor,
Brother Testes is absolutely correct--go off and start your own blog for God's greater Glory. Like PZ Myers you will find thousands flocking to read you and engage with the truth you tell...
[oops, hang on, message from Jesus coming in]
JESUS: Smoggy, this is incorrect, the Janitor will get almost no one visiting his blog, just like Pastor Testes. To use a school yard analogy, they will be like the unpopular kids in the corner of the playground playing on their own.
[message ends]
Oh dear... Sorry about the brothers. Looks like you are both on your own. Still, judging from your posts thus far you're each very practiced at playing with yourselves. Perhaps you could give each other a hand? You could link to each other and call yourselves "the masturbators for Christ network".
Good godly luck
Smoggy
Posted by: Samantha | August 3, 2009 8:13 PM
Whoops... apparently taking a nap after posting on PZ's page is never a good idea.
Father Nature @191, Ichythic @198 and EV @202.
Yes, my sentence was poorly constructed. Apologies... I will have to blame it on a lack of sleep.
What I was trying to say is that many of the Creation Museum's "scientific facts" are so obviously faulty that even a high school science education refutes them. The worst examples is the use of the Grand Canyon to prove the "Great Flood". I wasn't trying to say that high school education is better than University as I'm well aware it's not. However, I only have up to grade 10 in general sciences and 12 in Chemistry and Biology so that's really all I can comment on in terms of the strength of their "proof".
Will have to resist from posting unless properly rested in the future. Also might have to hand in my English student badge.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 3, 2009 8:14 PM
JanitorJizzmopperforChrist,I'll give you an example of exactly the goalposts
whatthat I'mlooking forerecting when I say "transitional species", and will then move them once you've presented the evidence.Fixed it for you. No thanks necessary.
Posted by: dinkum | August 3, 2009 8:14 PM
Well, shit, no wonder you think there are no transitional fossils. Pity nobody else is that headfucked.Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 8:15 PM
I shouldn't have said "transitional species" in #307. I should have said "transitional fossils".
Can you yourself even explain why you think there was a need to make the distinction?
frankly, you're just spouting gibberish at this point.
Posted by: Pteryxx | August 3, 2009 8:15 PM
"You say that whales evolved from something like a deer or a hippo. Take two of the closest related species in the supposed evolutionary history of whales (e.g. some parent and daughter species or two sister species). Connect those species with intermediate fossil forms such that I can clearly see one species turning into the next..."
The game is fixed, gentlebeings. He'd have to open his eyes first.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 8:17 PM
perfect example of gibberish:
When you find a new species, you put it on the tip of the tree, not at an internal node. The reason for this is that you do NOT think that it is ancestral.
wtf?
this is in "not even wrong" territory.
I doubt it will help, but since I'm spewing useful links today...
http://tolweb.org/tree/
oooh, and obligatory ceph link!
http://tolweb.org/Tremoctopodidae/20202
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 3, 2009 8:18 PM
You act like you understand cladistics, but then you fail to realize (or are you pretending not to realize?) that you get a bush, not a straight line, when you place real world fossils on a cladistic tree. You're saying that because fossils are found randomly, and we see exactly what we expect to see (both in that random record and in the characteristics of its randomness) if evolution were the correct theory, therefore evolution isn't true?
What is wrong with you? Seriously. The whale, the horse, dozens of other examples of the transitions you are asking for have been demonstrated, and many for decades. But you're going to discount them because they are a random stochastic representation of the transition and not a straight line geneological record?
SERIOUSLY. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?
Posted by: JanitorforChrist777 | August 3, 2009 8:19 PM
#298, you still don't get it.
I'm not looking for individual species. I'm looking for members of species that bridge the supposed species divide.
Just like every son can understand his father, but no one can understand his great*100 grandfather, there should be a series of slightly different **intermediate** forms that connect those two species.
If evolution is true the fossil record should look more continuous, with ancestral species changing over time and blending into their descendants. We don't see that.
The fossils I'm looking for are the exact same missing ones that led G&E to put forward the idea of punctuated equilibrium. Supposed transitions between individual species.
At any rate, you people aren't even reading what I've written. (Another indicator of the atheist illiteracy I've been mentioning?) If you want to try to make a case for evolution, try considering your opponents arguments instead of just regurgitating "horse evolution".
Done with you people for today.
Posted by: Dmitry | August 3, 2009 8:22 PM
"At any rate, you people aren't even reading what I've written. (Another indicator of the atheist illiteracy I've been mentioning?) If you want to try to make a case for evolution, try considering your opponents arguments instead of just regurgitating "horse evolution".
Done with you people for today."
Ah, the Eric Cartman parting: "Screw you guys, I'm going home." I like the one last dig he took at atheists before he took his ball and bat and went home.
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 8:23 PM
But...but...but... he's read Stephen Jay Gould! (What will you bet Vomit Sweeper for Jeebus fancies himself to be an autodidact intellectual.)Posted by: Rey Fox | August 3, 2009 8:24 PM
"These sheep become very meek and mild when they have to leave the fold."
Oh that's a laugh. I took a look at the top two posts on your blog, and the folks from here are reaming you good there too.
Posted by: locke | August 3, 2009 8:24 PM
PZ what is it w/ you and dinosaurs? If humans and dinosaurs didn't coexist, then why does the triceratops have a neck that is perfectly sized for a human to sit on, with legs hanging to either side, along with kind of a stone-age steering wheel/stabilization device for the rider to grasp? Didn't they teach you in History class that Henry Ford got the idea of a steering wheel from ancient manuscripts detailing how humans rode triceratops?
Posted by: extatyzoma | August 3, 2009 8:25 PM
janitor says 'Sometimes it's actual breeding patterns. Sometimes it's potential breeding patterns. Sometimes both. Sometimes it's gross morphology. Sometimes it's supposed evolutionary history. Etc.'
thats odd, i though it was creationists who were sure what species were, afterall each was created by god right?
janitor is so poorly informed in biology that hes using the rather difficult concept of species (ignoring the fact that its really a term of convenience for ourselves, those multiple branches on the evolutinary tree dont really care about secies definitions, they just shag what they can)to suggest that biologists dont know what they are talking about, of course that comes with the territory, creationists love to have things neatly packaged to make things easier to understand, those little duos of elephants, zebras and penguins on those noahs ark models at home school were oh so easy to comprehend.
janitor, instead of just whining that theres no set definition of species (and its obviously too difficult for you) why not actually study some groups yourself so you can spread your wisdom around. what you are doing now is the equivalent of going to a football match, not understanding the rules yourself and then running on the pitch and start yelling at the players with 'stop the game, you lot are crap, you just dont know how to play football' and then have you start throwing the ball around with your hands and then wonder why they start booting you in the head instead.
the TOE fits the fragmented fossil record, thats why the TOE is there, the fossils came first along with all the other evidence. the TOE fits around the evidence, the fossils etc dont fit around the theory, as happens with creationsm (swap theory for belief)
Posted by: MikeM | August 3, 2009 8:25 PM
"Done with you people for today."
Yay!
One more request, though:
"The only sounds in hell louder than the atheists' collective lies are the weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Prove it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 8:26 PM
I'm not looking for individual species. I'm looking for members of species that bridge the supposed species divide.
*sigh*
you want a cat-dog?
then you want us to argue a fictional version of how evolution works.
traits evolve within populations of animals, that, when one population is isolated from another long enough (remember when I gave you the link to the BSC?) will eventually result in those two populations of organisms no longer being able to interbreed.
Do that long enough, and with enough small changes, and not only do you get different species, but organisms so different from what their parent populations were like they are classified as different genera, or even families. Even longer? Well, if you don't get the idea by now, you never will.
you're currently at the level of Elephantine Error
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 3, 2009 8:27 PM
Ahh, another post-and-run like Tom Estes. I particularly like the way he takes an entire, massively hetrogenous group like atheists and tars us all as illiterate despite the staggering breadth of reading and erudition demonstrated on this blog.
Whatever the Janitor may say, I applaud your collective depth of understanding and the cogency of your arguments. I am proud to call you my fellow atheists.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
August 3, 2009 8:28 PM
Testes is of the Ray Comfort type. He just wants traffic on his blog, the fact that people argue with him leads him to believe he's making good points. It's about being part of the discussion, doesn't matter if he has to be a dumbass to get there.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | August 3, 2009 8:28 PM
Oh....
T. Estes posted a "poem" ( http://hardtruth.squarespace.com/home/2009/7/31/poetry-passion-for-pagans.html )
It's like that scene in the second Jurassic Park movie, where the momma T. rex presents her babies with a wounded person to practice on...
My response is #13.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 3, 2009 8:29 PM
Like playing chess with a seagull.
"The only sounds in hell louder than the atheists' collective lies are the weeping and gnashing of teeth."
How can we be gnashing our teeth if we're all disembodied souls after death?
(To everyone else, yes, I know the famous answer to that question, I want to hear it from the janitor)
Posted by: jfc777 | August 3, 2009 8:29 PM
#320
Thank you for providing an example proving me correct. If you click on that tree, you'll see that on the Eukaryotes page and all others, all species are on the TIPS of the tree. Sometimes clade names are placed at internal nodes, but not actual species. Species are ALWAYS at the tips.
That means that common ancestral ~species~ are always hypothetical.
Last post, for real.
Posted by: Smoggy Batrubble | August 3, 2009 8:30 PM
Itchy,
You're the king of links, every time you turn up I learn something. I'm sorry that you'll burn in hell, but perhaps we'll get that beer before judgment day and maybe I'll get to convert you. Would you like to join my new Church of the Eternal Blow Job?
Smatzrubble
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 8:31 PM
The fossils I'm looking for are the exact same missing ones that led G&E to put forward the idea of punctuated equilibrium.
which of course is a mischaracterization of what Punc Eq is all about.
It's also directly related to your confusion over what the terms micro and macroevolution mean, since they aren't actually used by Gould.
Instead, if you look closely, Gould and Eldredge utilize the term "macroevolutionary". Why? because they are refering to scales of long-term evolutionary processes observable within the fossil record. That's exactly, btw, what punc eq refers to. Moreoever, even Gould himself would have to dump the idea of punc eq these days when faced with the mountains of new fossil evidence that has been obtained since he and Eldredge originally developed the concept what, almost 40 years ago now?
you haven't a clue what cladistics is, you haven't a clue what the theory of evolution is, and you haven't a clue what Gould and Eldredge's concept of punc eq is or is based on.
A rebel without a clue.
that's you.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 3, 2009 8:31 PM
I am proud of the fact that I've been banned from three separate creationist and/or fundamentalist Christian blogs for not being meek and mild. One blog banned me for saying I was an atheist. One post, without foul language, and I got banned. This my personal best. It took three posts for me to get banned from the FREEP.
Posted by: Armand K. | August 3, 2009 8:33 PM
Whatever on earth you mean by "understanding", are you sure there's any connection between you (or anyone else's) and your "great*100 grandfather"? Have you seen all the ancestors and the transitional between every one ancestor and the next one (whithout, of course, being one of your ancestors)?Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 8:35 PM
I'm sorry that you'll burn in hell
I'm not. As i get older, I find I like warm places.
Besides, I've been running the neverending campy sci-fi and fantasy film festival there for decades now.
I even hired Joel Hodgson to host.
...
yes, don't ask me to explain how I'm here and there at the same time. You of all people should know about how permeable the time continuum is.
Posted by: Johnny | August 3, 2009 8:37 PM
I have got to get a copy of this book* - it will make the perfect companion for
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1038/1038_01.asp
in my library.
/snark
As far as gaps in the fossil record, the problem seems to be that every time a discovery is made the fits the gap, two more gaps are created.
*Used, of course, I wouldn't want to help increased sales, or have my money go to these idiots.
Posted by: Smoggy Batrubble | August 3, 2009 8:37 PM
Dear Tis Himself,
I'm sorry my Christian brethren have been so unwelcoming. I must say that I've been surprised at the amount of acceptance I have encountered on this blog as a Christian. I can see I am going to have to work harder to get myself banned.
God loves all of you atheists and he wants to impregnate your virgin daughters!
Amen
Smoggy
Posted by: Sandra Kay | August 3, 2009 8:40 PM
#115
The bible talks about unicorns? Really huh, wow! I have NEVER heard of that. What dose it say about them?
Posted by: Joffan | August 3, 2009 8:42 PM
Hey, this transitional lark is easy. I can prove that my son isn't related to me, look: there are no transitional generations between him and me!! Amazing!
And I'm sure it proves ... something, too!
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 3, 2009 8:43 PM
JC: When you only have a random assortment of maybe one in one billion creatures turn into fossils, that's what you get. It is exactly what we'd expect. If the fossil record showed what you claim to be looking for (and, no, it is NOT the same as SJG's evidence for PE), it would falsify practically all of science. As well as my sanity.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
August 3, 2009 8:43 PM
Janitor #307:
Eh, it's a trick. If you take the two closest known examples, then by definition you don't have an intermediate to show. If you show an intermediate, then what you've really shown is a closer example and you still need to show an intermediate.
I know we joke here sometimes about how finding an intermediate just leaves 'two new gaps in the fossil record', but Janitor is really operating on that level.
Posted by: extatyzoma | August 3, 2009 8:44 PM
i think i know what janitor is after now.
imagine the evolution of a given line is like the growth of a tree, size increase here equivalent to modification through generations.
Hes in his grandpas orchard and his grandpa says 'janny boy, see this here apple tree, well its 75 years old, almost as old as your grandpappy, i planted that seed when i was just 5 and i watched it grow big and strong'.
janitor says 'i dont beleive that it grew from a seed, thats not possible, its just too big, prove it, prove it evil lying grandpappy'
grandad shows janitor a photo of the 2 year old seedling, it sure is an old photo but its a little apple tree and you can even see the church in the background, the one thats behind the big tree today, grandad then shows him 3 more photos, one where the tree was 32 , one where it was 42 and one from a few years ago when it was 64.
janitor gets really mad 'your a lying grandpappy, i dont believe you, i need to see a photo from every year, in fact i need to see a video, you havent got a webcam of that thing since you planted it? I hate you grandpappy.'
grandpappy tries to reason with him, he shows him the main branches on the tree and how they were even there on the earlier photos, the position in the ground, even the scars on the trunk side.
grandpa was sad, he felt sad because he realise his grandson wanted absolute perfection, and because he was afraid on not having perfection he just refused to believe the evidence.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 3, 2009 8:46 PM
Can you prove he isn't related to the mailman? Mail carriers transit all over the place.
Posted by: jfc777 | August 3, 2009 8:46 PM
I'm considering taking the Lord's name in vain here, when I submit my comment and the page reloads and see you people failing to understand a damn thing I'm saying.
#329
I know that. What I am asking is for you to provide a set of intermediate fossils that conclusively link a parent species and its direct daughter species. As Darwin said, these ARE TO BE EXPECTED if evolution occurs in this manner. The traits of the parent population change over time into the traits of the daughter population and change further as it eventually becomes a daughter species.
If evolution is true, daughter species arise from their parents through evolution. I am asking for fossil evidence that links parent and daughter species.
I am NOT, I repeat, NOT suggesting that evolution is an individual as opposed to a population process.
I am NOT, I repeat, NOT asking for a cat-dog or any other such thing that is impossible under the supposed tree of life.
I am NOT, I repeat, NOT asking about how higher taxa supposedly arise in evolutionary theory.
What I am asking for, quite literally, are the fossils that Gould admitted WERE NOT THERE--those that show gradual variation in a species over time and that directly link a parent species with its daughters through a gradation of forms.
This forum's consistent failure to provide even a single such example of parent-daughter gradation should tell you something.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
August 3, 2009 8:48 PM
#348:
I thought jfc stood for Jesus-Fucking-Christ?
At least that's what I think when I read your comments...
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 8:48 PM
The bible talks about unicorns? Really huh, wow! I have NEVER heard of that. What dose it say about them?
let's find out...
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=unicorn&qs_version=9
note that you will not find unicorns even mentioned in the New International Version...
someone else might want to see if they are only mentioned in the KJV.
Posted by: Quixotic | August 3, 2009 8:49 PM
Mr Greenwood @330
I was just thinking the same thing. I am nowhere near as knowlegable as most of the posters on this blog, and i do not contribute much to these conversations; but i feel fortunate to have found this little oasis. I have learned a lot in the past four months that i have been lurking here. All of you posters, from the Christian Godbots, to the Bloodthirsty Anti-Theists; I am in your debt. Thank you. Cheers!
Posted by: E.V. | August 3, 2009 8:51 PM
JeebusJanitor: So a lioness is supposed to give birth to a tabby allycat? That's what you're expecting for proof or do you require an intermediary ocelot? No wonder you want to take the Lord's name in vane - Jesus Fucking Christ you're a willfully ignorant ass.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 3, 2009 8:51 PM
JizzmopperforChrist wrote, in post #334: Last post, for real....but posted again in #348.
Typical Liar for Jesus™.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 3, 2009 8:53 PM
Here's thought: Learn how to write something other than uncomprehending shit, and lies.
Poe or not, you're one pathetic jerk.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 3, 2009 8:53 PM
Janitor, you're a fucking LIAR. You've been shown what you pretend you're asking for. Either get your fucking head out of your fucking ass and look at the links at post #298 or admit that you're just another Liar for Jebus trying to get one over on the evilutionists.
We've seen your type of troll all the time and, quite frankly, you're not even a good one. So, what's it like to be a mediocre asshole?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 8:56 PM
How many of us said that scores of posts ago...Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 8:56 PM
What I am asking is for you to provide a set of intermediate fossils that conclusively link a parent species and its direct daughter species.
I'll go you one better.
How bout I give you a modern example of one species evolving from another?
If you can admit that there is a current example documenting the exact evolution of one species from another, right down to being able to reproduce the exact mutations that were involved, would you admit that since it happens now, there is nothing preventing it from happening in the past, thus no reason there should not be fossils of such things?
I won't give you the link(s) until you agree.
that said, given the definition of species (the BCS) I gave you earlier, how would you be able to tell, from a fossil, whether or not one actually had a distinct species?
well?
Posted by: chancelikely | August 3, 2009 8:57 PM
Aren't there a number of observed instances of speciation? Wouldn't those meet the goalposts of JfC in their current (shifted) position?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 9:03 PM
What I am asking for, quite literally, are the fossils that Gould admitted WERE NOT THERE
then you're lying to yourself, since that's not ever what Gould or Eldredge said.
In fact, the only person who was an evolutionary biologist to have ever said anything remotely like that was Darwin himself.
If you look at the dates the fossils in the links provided you were discovered, you might be able to deduce why Darwin was puzzled they "weren't there".
However, even he would have readily added (and did) the word:
yet.
Gould and Eldredge, in observing the patterns in a specific outcropping that was fairly complete, made general observations about the patterns they saw there.
NEITHER of them EVER said there were no transitional fossils.
EVER.
Instead, they were speaking in terms of trying to explain the patterns they saw (rapid transitions in that single outcrop) via accumulated mutations vs tiny transitions.
There were of course, other explanations for the pattern at the time that fit the observations just as well. Moreover, since that time (and even at that time) we had samples of other outcrops and other series that did NOT show the same pattern Gould and Eldgredge observed, but were in fact very complete series of tiny changes. These are commonly supported with series of micofaunal fossils like forams, of which you are of course blissfully unaware.
so stop fucking lying already, eh?
Posted by: Freidenker | August 3, 2009 9:03 PM
Janitor is actually asking for something almost impossible - transitional fossils will almost certainly not be shown to show a stepwise evolution of a SPECIES (QUOTE MINING ALERT!) -
however: no one, it's not necessary, and as far as this biology undergrad is aware of, no one is actually predicting we'd find transitional fossils of the exact same *species*. I'm not just an undergrad, I've been reading and writing about evolution for years - the very nature of paleontology makes it impossible to pinpoint the various stages of the evolution of a certain species. Janitor isn't even wrong.
People like JFC think that scientists and science-literate people need the same degree of certainty (read *absolute*) as they. Wrong. I am not 100% sure of evolution.
So - for all you guys who said that Archeopteryx is the kind of transitional fossil JFC is looking for - you're wrong. He's asking scientists to somehow present fossils of two species right after one species speciated into another.
Frankly, that's stupid - since we've managed to induce speciation in lab/natural experiments. That's got to be better than a fossil, no?
Posted by: Josh
|
August 3, 2009 9:06 PM
Well, a lot of people beat me to the replies. It seems like what he wants it to be presented with the phylogenetic equivalent of a picture taken of a girl at 15 and then another one taken of her at 16, so we can then study the differences between those and one taken of her at 15.5.
Well that's great, but if so I have to ask: in the absence of 365 daily photographs taken from above the Earth-Sun system at a distance of about a dozen AU, why do you accept heliocentrism? You're making essentially the same demand of evolution.
Posted by: MrFire | August 3, 2009 9:08 PM
Jesus, Janitor!
I come back after several hours in the real world, and your scattered troll limbs are still twitching in pointless defiance. WAIT! I know who you remind me of!
This guy!
And this guy!!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 9:11 PM
Janitor has shown no evidence for his imaginary deity. So, whatever he asks for is irrelevant. The burden of proof is upon him to provide evidence for a deity. FAILURE. Which means he has nothing but delusions...Posted by: Rey Fox | August 3, 2009 9:13 PM
Aw come on, JFC, what about the teeth? What about the gnashing of our non-existent soul teeth?
Posted by: Carlie | August 3, 2009 9:15 PM
That means that's the way we decided to draw the trees, you imbecile.
You seem to be frustrated that you don't think we understand what you're asking. We understand full well - every time someone provide documentation of a transition, you'll just say it creates two more gaps on either side. That's a sham argument. The intermediates are there, in many cases in as much beautiful resolution as one could ever hope for in the fossil record, but you refuse to see it. And it's not just limited to the fossil record. You want generation by generation intermediates? Go look up ring species. Here, let me Google that for you. Refuse to believe random websites? Good for you, try using Google Scholar for it. Then READ.
Posted by: extatyzoma | August 3, 2009 9:15 PM
mopperforjesus says 'I am asking for fossil evidence that links parent and daughter species'
you still dont get it do you.
as a lineage changes forwards in time only in hingsight in looking back (by finding fossils, most likely of cousins, not direct ancestors)can you say one sp becomes another, you need a long string of missing descendents to show the difference between the fossil and the descendant, so the so called daughter species isnt suddenly 'budded' off at some particular point on the line, thats what you just dont get, you miss the notion of gradual change.
the second problem is that you are asking for a daughter sp, lest imagine that it takes say 100,000 (100,000 generations) years for a species of grasshopper to evolve into a form (in hindsight) that it couldnt mate with if it went back in time, at this point you could consider that a daughter sp BUT the timescales are so small that the chances of finding the ancestor fossilised and available to comapre to its surviving relative are very low indeed. you might find a few fossilised grasshoppers in amber from 50 mya but they are going to be distant cousins indeed. the smaller the timescale between organisms on a lineage (unless they are alive together of course and the same sp so pointless) the less chace you will find one sp 'becoming' another.
that doesnt show evo to be false, there will be evidence of such things, esp microfossils, but within the frame work of the theory its what youd expect to find, just because it doesnt correlate with your idiotically fastidious requirements doesnt mean its not viable.
you are setting up ideal evidence, its as fantastical as the silly stories in the bible. its like you not believing a tree grew from seed as you didnt see it or not believing a crowd of people went from one room to another because you didnt see every single person actually go in, the fossil record provides SNAPSHOTS anjd not a single snapshot so far falsifies the thoey of evolution, no matter how hard you wish it werent so.
face facts, you are an ape and if that leads to the logical conclusion that when you die theres no light in some tunnel then its tough peas, but please, learn some biology so people dont have to keep repeating stuff over and over.
Posted by: Chemgirl
|
August 3, 2009 9:15 PM
What always astounds me about people like JFC is their fear of uncertainty and the unknown. Just because we can't supply him with these "transitional fossils" (who know's what he really means when he uses that phrase), in his mind, they cannot possibly exist. The thought that maybe they're out there, but humanity just hasn't found any yet, never crosses his mind. He just writes it off as "supernatural".
JFC, have you no curiosity? When you use God as the answer to every question whose answer you don't already know, you miss out on the awesome process which is discovery. Perhaps this is just me being young and idealistic, but by devoting my life to science, I hope someday I can answer some of those questions--accurately!
Posted by: Josh
|
August 3, 2009 9:18 PM
No, we were hoping to bait him into spilling his hand that Archaeopteryx wasn't good enough, so that we could then get into the meat of getting him to say why it wasn't good enough, because we predicted where he would ultimately go. But he basically jumped around Archaeopteryx and just went there in one leap.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 9:23 PM
so that we could then get into the meat of getting him to say why it wasn't good enough, because we predicted where he would ultimately go. But he basically jumped around Archaeopteryx and just went there in one leap.
ayup.
at this point though, the game is up.
We're into the territory of him asking us to show him modern transitionals (me jumping ahead to where this always ends up), which he will of course claim just prove "microevolution" via his own or some other creationist's definition...
wheels on the bus go round and round...
*yawn*
It's why I asked if he would accept a modern example of species->species evolution before I even bothered with the links.
It's obviously pointless, and I've just about run out of time to play whack a mole today.
*tags Josh*
you're it!
Posted by: Last Hussar | August 3, 2009 9:25 PM
Obviously this site is PZ joke on all you atheists. He knows the truth- in the side bar was
http://www.anointed-one.net/atheism.html
OK, just because it was an Google automatically generated link over which PZ has no control doesn't mean he didn't mean it. Read the link, you will be astounded at what the truth is when you are one with THE LORD.
Posted by: Last Hussar | August 3, 2009 9:25 PM
Obviously this site is PZ joke on all you atheists. He knows the truth- in the side bar was
http://www.anointed-one.net/atheism.html
OK, just because it was an Google automatically generated link over which PZ has no control doesn't mean he didn't mean it. Read the link, you will be astounded at what the truth is when you are one with THE LORD.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 3, 2009 9:25 PM
Good catch, Jason. Heh.
It looks like simply an argument from [archeological] incredulousness. "I can't imagine that species evolve into diverse forms, so unless you can make it so obvious I don't have to imagine it, it can't be true."
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 9:26 PM
Poor mole...Posted by: Josh
|
August 3, 2009 9:29 PM
*nods*
Fair enough. I'll pull security for while. I stepped out and let you guys do the heavy lifting for a bit.
I know. We just haven't had a live one around for long enough that I thought some flexing might be fun.
*bows head*
Posted by: Freidenker | August 3, 2009 9:31 PM
NOROM (:-P) said:
"Janitor has shown no evidence for his imaginary deity. So, whatever he asks for is irrelevant. The burden of proof is upon him to provide evidence for a deity. FAILURE. Which means he has nothing but delusions..."
Um, well, yeah, but he WAS talking about something real, not imaginary, i.e, the origin of species. I really don't care if his god exists or not. If he does, it's obviously not in the same way I would consider my father or the sun to exist.
Josh -
even I wasn't aware that you were trying to bait the poor feller into doing that. As someone who knows nothing about evolution (as JFC appears to be) - I would have no idea what you're talking about, and if I defined transitional fossils at the species level, I would be right in claiming that Archeopteryx isn't one. I was under the impression that JFC isn't looking for transitional fossils above the species level (which are abundant in the fossil record)
Why give the guy something he ain't asking for? Just so he'd repeat that he didn't ask for it? I think calling on him that he asked for something that's impossible (and no one is interested in or needs) is way better.
Oh, one last thing: the existence of transitional fossils is a lot more confusing and scary once you read about how many of them exist. It's almost impossible to pin down anything specific with so many fossils around.
Posted by: rtdeadeye | August 3, 2009 9:36 PM
I can see Ham and his buddies sitting in the back room laughing there asses off at how they suckered you into this visit. You are going to give them a mountain of free exposure and the perfect excuse to ask their poor ignorant followers for more cash to combat the evil athiest lies. I hate to say it PZ but Ken Ham is playing you like a fiddle.
Posted by: raven | August 3, 2009 9:37 PM
Cthulhu that one is stupid. We don't give one rat's ass what you believe. It is a free country. Anymore than another looney pushing a shopping cart around the park, clutching a bottle shaped brown paper bag, and ranting and raving.
The fact is, fundie death cultists want to impose their Dark Age on us. They say so often. Xian Dominionists want to overthrow the US government, which they hate, set up a theocracy, and head on back to the Dark Ages.
Really, when the mythological Rapture comes, the majority of the US population will stand up and cheer loudly and wave bye bye to the fundies. This could be the best thing that happened to xianity since jesus was crucified. Polls show the majority of the US population, mostly other xians are sick and tired of the fundies. And that Dark Age Iran or Afghanistan class theocracy is going to be a hard sell. Average life span in Afghanistan is 44 and going down.
We could work out a deal. The fundies stay under their rocks and leave everyone alone. We leave them alone as if anyone normal wants to get near them anyway. They can even practice their human child sacrifice rituals.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 9:38 PM
If the janitor is talking about something real, he should be able to offer conclusive evidence for the existence of that being. So far, nada, bubkis, zero, zilch. How can one determine a liar and bullshitter from a truthteller without evidence? Janitor fails big time.Evolution? see the peer reviewed scientific literature. End of story.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 3, 2009 9:39 PM
You are going to give them a mountain of free exposure and the perfect excuse to ask their poor ignorant followers for more cash to combat the evil athiest lies. I hate to say it PZ but Ken Ham is playing you like a fiddle.
If you think that, you might want to read why PZ went to try and see Expelled, or bothered to spend time reviewing it.
in short, you're wrong.
Posted by: Josh
|
August 3, 2009 9:43 PM
I was just trying to approach the topic from a different angle. While I was trying to draw him to talking about Archaeopteryx, I wasn't going to jump on him. I was just going to try an approach that I haven't tried before. I've been dealing with these types for months straight now and had an idea for a new angle.
*shrug*
Posted by: Coleoptera | August 3, 2009 9:48 PM
Janitor, Tom Estes, JFC -
Evolution occurs when there is a change in gene frequency in a population over time. So, we don't need to go to the fossil record to show species in transition. We can look right here and now at extant species that are diverging from each other. A very good example for which we have extensive documented evidence is HIV. In many cases the identity of the person in which certain mutations arose is known. The exact changes in the genetic code of the virus as there were transitions between forms of the virus are known and documented.
We also have very good evidence from the meticulous work in Dr Richard Lenski's group of the evolution of a complex trait in the laboratory over 44,000 generations. They preserved bacteria every 500 generations. Thus they were able to genotype the populations of bacteria and document exactly which mutations were required to transition between bacteria that did not have to complex trait to bacteria that did have the trait. What's more they could go back to their preserved samples and 'replay' the evolution of the trait.
To preempt the argument that I know is coming i.e. the tired old 'but that's just microevolution not macroevolution' argument. Firstly, microevolution is evolution as should be entirely obvious from the breakdown of the word. Thus, acknowledging that it occurs also necessarily acknowledges that evolution occurs. Secondly, macroevolution is a series of microevolutionary changes. To agree that microevolution can occur, but to disagree that macroevolution occurs is exactly the same as arguing that blowing across water in a cup can form ripples, but the wind blowing across the ocean can't form waves. When wind blows across a greater distance of water you get waves, when microevolutionary changes accumulate over time you have macroevolution. They are both different scales of the exact same phenomenon.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 3, 2009 9:49 PM
Are you insane, or just crazy?
If reproduction is true, children arise from their parents through reproduction. I am asking for evidence that links parents and children.
Seriously, what exactly are you looking for?
Posted by: SC, OM | August 3, 2009 9:54 PM
Archaeopteryx isn't a transitional fossil. It's a fossil of evolutionary transition.
- Norly Traitz
***
Please visit my blog:
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 3, 2009 9:54 PM
He may be gone, but as has been pointed out, this is a learning process.
1) YOU ARE MISTAKEN. The "these" that you talk about here are NOT (as in NOT IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER) related to the transitional forms that Darwin predicted. Those include archeopteryx, and hundreds if not thousands of other examples.
2) We have those transitional fossils you're asking for, too; we just don't know which ones they are. You can't tell by looking at a fossil if a feature is because of the basic genome (the parent species) or because of a mutation that only this individual, but not the rest of the population (which wasn't, unfortunately, fossilized simultaneously for our convenience) possessed.
3) Species assignment of fossils is entirely theoretical. We know forms, and we make presumptions based on those forms, but we can't know which populations could breed with which, because, alas, they're all dead now.
Just to review, in order to admit that you believe in evolution you want the fossilized corpse of every mutant in the direct genetic line between two other arbitrary fossils that scientists have categorized as a parent and child species.
Maybe you should switch your [lack of] consideration to genetics, rather than archeology. They both independently prove evolution, you know.
Posted by: extatyzoma | August 3, 2009 9:54 PM
funny how jesustoiletcleaner wont accept evidence for evolution but he wants us to be afraid of gnashing teeth although one of those cenobites in hellraiser had gnashing teeth.....
Posted by: raven | August 3, 2009 10:00 PM
Most fundies say it was god to fool us. If god is all powerful like they claim, satan can't do anything without god's permission. If he could, why call god god then. He isn't all powerful.
The malevolent, inept, deceiving monser of a fundie god looks like satan anyway. I've come to the conclusion that fundies are really satanic cults. There is no evidence in several decades that satanic cults exist much less practice child sacrifice. There is a psychological term called inversion of belief.
There is huge amounts of evidence that fundies practice child sacrifice. They even get convicted of it. Estimates range from 10 to 100 sacrificed kids a year.
So lets see.
1. Monster supernatural being check
2. Human child sacrifice..............check
3. Endless lies about everything check
4. Occasional outburts of homicidal violence. Check
I can't see anything different between a satanic cult and a fundie one. They have inverted the xian religion.
Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 3, 2009 10:02 PM
Well I'm not sure but as I see it you have a *group* of one species clinging to irrational thought and you have another *group* of the same species embracing evolving thought, these two groups apparently belong to the same species but their thought patterns seem to have evolved differently, where the first group can not comprehend evolving knowledge and the second group can comprehend evolving knowledge ...No wonder religion is fighting for survival, it doesn't want to be left behind and does not know how to evolve.
Posted by: Freidenker | August 3, 2009 10:02 PM
Josh - where do you hang out? :-P
Well, now I see what you were doing. I've been a webolutionist (that is, an evolutionist who argues on the web with creationists, among others) for some 4 years now... I ran out of angles a long time ago.
Nowadays, I just state beforehand that anything that I may say about evolution doesn't prove that god cannot exist and I'm not in anyway interested in proving he doesn't. None of this evolution stuff has any bearing on religious faith unless you also choose to be an idiot (read "biblical literalist", something that most Israeli Jews find ridiculous, though not Hasidim/ultra orthodox Jews)
Why bother with the blind? If you're gonna keep up with it, let me tell you that in my experience, you won't change anyone's mind, but watching people dance around their preconceived beliefs is extremely amusing. I still enjoy it today, though I don't think I'll ever change someone's mind.
Have fun :->
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 3, 2009 10:06 PM
Sastra writes:
There have been a lot of reports (with photos) available online since the museum opened. Some of them are very detailed, with word-for-word descriptions of all the 'scientific' evidence.
There are also the awesome LOLcreationist versions. I like those better because they have an appropriate level of science.
Posted by: Daniel | August 3, 2009 10:08 PM
I never thought of The Flintstones as Gospel...
Posted by: Josh
|
August 3, 2009 10:11 PM
In the deep dark of that hotbed of creationists, DC...
Nahhh...with guys like Janitor, it's just for amusement, and occasionally I'll try something new just to see what happens. I've long since stopped thinking that guys as deluded as him will care to ever really learn anything.
Now, when it comes to delusionists, that's a different story entirely...
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 3, 2009 10:12 PM
@#237:
Embrace your inner sarcopterygian, dude.
No, birds are dinosaurs. The BANDits are reduced to arguing much like creationists -- including using a reconstruction of T. rex from 1916.
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/07/birds_cannot_be_dinosaurs.php
"Fish" is not monophyletic. Amphibia are embedded within Sarcopterygii, though.
(Let the taxonomic wars rage on!)
Posted by: AnneH
|
August 3, 2009 10:14 PM
The 'ring species' phenomenon-
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html
- is an example of the transition between species that JFC seems to be looking for.
Posted by: aesy | August 3, 2009 10:15 PM
And Joshua said unto Ianus, "Assume the position, for I have a Pineapple of Knowledge to impart unto thee." And Ianus, upon noticing the Finer Points, bravely declined for another day...
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | August 3, 2009 10:18 PM
Is it me or does the guy riding the dinosaur look like Ray Comfort
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 3, 2009 10:26 PM
Here's a really simple question for you to ponder, JFC... and I'd like a sincere answer.
As completely uninformed as you are about evolution, and as clearly obvious as it is that your breadth of knowledge on the subject comes from the extremely narrow viewpoint of creationist propaganda (you are reading right out of the Creation Science Foundation Revised Quote List, almost point for point in order), you can't honestly believe that you know more about this subject than the people here, many of whom dedicate their lives to this very subject... yet I am nonetheless struck by your commitment to your skepticism of evolution.
It's interesting to me because there are many other scientific theories that have far less supporting evidence than does evolution (some that are even taught in our schools!... yet that is the subject that just doesn't seem right to you, hmm?
So answer me this question: Do you apply the same level of skepticism to what is in the bible? Do you question scripture with the same level of quote-mining, nit-picking detail? Do you?
Just ponder that one honestly... if you are truly capable of real, intellectual honesty.
If you do... well... frankly, there's no way that you do because doing so would lead you to the same place it's lead most of us... and if you don't... why don't you?
If "it's in the bible" is good enough for you, why should we ever, EVER accept any challenge from you on an intellectual basis? Why should your requirement of acceptance be so specifically stringent in this case, and not in the case of your religion?
Just think about it... that goes for you too, pastor tom.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 3, 2009 10:27 PM
Janitor:
Definition of Macrophagic myofasciitis.
Emphasis mine.
Did you have a point you were trying to make there, Janitor?
You're one to talk. Did you read ANYTHING that anyone put out there for you? Did you read any of the links that came up in Watchman's "difficult to classify" google search? Obviously not.
Are you aware of how species branch from one another? Are you aware that the size of the branching sub-population is necessarily small, and that it takes some time for significant morphological changes to propagate throughout the larger population (if there is one)? How do you think that might impact the availability of fossils for the "transitional" population? Besides, fossil availability is a crap-shoot anyway. Creationists put EVERYTHING on the fossil record, which is necessarily incompletely. Surprise - that's a dishonest tactic! How convenient that you ignore, for example, the molecular evidence.
Nonetheless, plenty of transitional forms - fossils that exhibit transitional features - exist. There are many fossils that are difficult to classify - can you figure out why?
I'll quote Carlie's recent post, for emphasis:
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 3, 2009 10:28 PM
Re #214, projection 'n denial:
Speaking of, it struck me once that in a sense, creationism itself is really projection writ large...
In this sense, actually: there's this weird, conspiracy-theory level paranoia about creationism, viewed from the POV of the working scientist or anyone who follows the journals. That's just one of the many things about it that stand out as being completely cracked: this notion that somehow the whole of the scientific community are in on this crazy plot to somehow concoct an entirely fictional notion about common descent and descent with modification and natural selection out of whole cloth--to cook up this huge 'lie', as they view evolutionary biology, and stick to it...
On the face of it, sure, it seems completely insane to anyone who knows the field even from the periphery. How many tens or hundreds of thousands of people are directly involved in the research, how many more work at those journals, how many hands does all this material pass through, and somehow everyone's agreeing to promote it? Presumably because they're just evil or sumpin'? And what, did we just plant all those fossils (I mean, assuming Satan didn't), too, and we're just making the nucleotide sequences up to make 'em agree with the previously-derived descendance trees as well? Howinhell could that work? Sounds like quite the thing to keep it all together. Reminds me of a now-famous comment from someone from NASA about the moon-landing conspiracy theories. To wit: given the difficulty of keeping that secret, it really is easier to go to the moon than to fake it, anyway...
But then, remember these folk are members of a religion. A religion where, in fact an utter absurdity and rather transparent delusion a lot of them probably pretty much know is a delusion has been held up as a transcendant truth for thousands of years, and they all agree, generally, to keep maintaining this front they all really believe it. Sure, it's a whole complicated construction of socialization how they manage to do that, and it's hardly a united front, and people do keep slipping through the cracks, calling it what it is and walking away. But in the world they may occupy for several hours a week, they can ignore that, immerse themselves in it, pretend all that just ain't so...
So, keeping that in mind, suddenly, I get to thinking: okay, I guess I can see where they might get this weird idea of theirs about global conspiracies, anyway...
(/So like I said: projection writ large.)
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 3, 2009 10:29 PM
Weird Al's take on creationist drivel is a more positive and honest contribution to modern culture than that liar Ken Ham's museum could ever hope to make, while being no less accurate and scientific than the grift that con-man Ham is running on all those creationist marks lining up to be duped.
Posted by: MaryLynne | August 3, 2009 10:33 PM
"Biochemical similarities? I thought we were talking fossils. I love when you change topics like that..."
I can't believe it - I REALLY laughed out loud! He can't be for real, can he? Please someone tell me he's just messin' with us!
Blueprints? I thought we were talking architecture. I love when you change topics like that...
Ingredients? I thought we were talking cooking.
Curriculum? I thought we were talking teaching.
The alphabet? I thought we were talking reading.
MRI scan? I thought we were talking medicine.
"Besides, what makes you think I'm looking for a "scientific" explanation? Science excludes the supernatural, so it only considers half the picture."
So you are saying you consider the supernatural, so you get the whole picture? Really? Unicorns, fairies, psychics, mediums, channeling, spells, astrology,Zeus, astral projection, magic, are all supernatural - do you take them into consideration so you get the whole picture?
Actually, what I'm really concerned about is that you are going against the will of God. You are supposed to believe because of faith, right? Thomas got in trouble because he needed to see proof, but he should have believed in the resurrection without seeing Jesus and putting his hand in His side. So here you are, Janitor, trying to use evidence to prove the Bible is true. Shame on you! God is disappointed in your lack of faith. And if you or Ken convince us with your evidence, you have taken away our opportunity to truly have faith.
The most honest thing you can say and what God wants is for you to say, "It doesn't make any sense at all - but I believe it anyway!"
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 3, 2009 10:34 PM
Tom Estes writes:
"Why do you all care? Especially when you consider that you have the truth?
I don't think I have the truth about anything, except a few very minor things. Why do I care? Because, when I was about 14 I outgrew pulling the wings off flies and wanted to sharpen my claws on something a bit more challenging.
Posted by: Brg | August 3, 2009 10:43 PM
"If evolution is true, daughter species arise from their parents through evolution. I am asking for fossil evidence that links parent and daughter species."
Wow! Finally I understand what these people expect when referring to "fossil evidence" proving evolution, and why they don't accept Tiktaalik or Archaeopteryx as such. They want the fossil of mommy-fish found TOGETHER with the fossil of baby-amphibian, side by side, in something akin to a fossilized family portrait. Better yet, one of mommy-ape side by side with that of baby-sapiens. And even better yet: to put forward evidence such as that mommy-ape-fossil is giving birth to baby-sapiens-fossil.
Gee! Next they will ask for the moon.
Brg
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | August 3, 2009 10:48 PM
What Estes did with his editing isn't a far cry from all the quote-mining creationists are known for doing. He's just another creationist who hates honesty.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 3, 2009 10:49 PM
I'm curious, PZ... you have to come across kids like this Janitor wank from time to time in one of your classes..
You can see how frustratingly thick he is... how do you deal with kids like this?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 10:54 PM
*From PZ's previous posts*PZ makes it clear he doesn't care if they believe in evolution, but they do need to learn enough evolution to pass his tests.
Posted by: Anonym | August 3, 2009 10:55 PM
@400-MaryLynne -
Credo quia absurdum est. (I believe because it is absurd.) - Tertullian
Posted by: raven | August 3, 2009 10:56 PM
C'mon people, The janitor troll is just an antisocial fruitbat.
He isn't bright enough to be a janitor. He isn't sane enough to join a church.
All he is doing is filling up his empty hours between doses of medication by wasting yours.
If your hours are as empty as his, spend it fixing your life instead.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
August 3, 2009 10:56 PM
Can I say that I hate the word "species?" I know it's a handy convenience term, but it confuses the easily-befuddled like JFC777. They seem to get all caught up in it, like a species is a distinct thing, as if life were units of distinct packages, like milk at the supermarket.
"Species" is a word that denotes something static, when most of us here realize that every fusion of two zygotes represents something unique. Reproduction turns any extant population into a dynamic thing in and of itself, which contributes to a larger ever-changing ecosphere, which contributes to the biosphere, and so on.
JFC777's main problem seems to be his fixation on the constancy of "species." He expects quantum changes, packetized morphology, all tidy and neat. What we offer him is the stochastic unbridled chaos of life. What he wants is a roadmap of nice interstates; what we show him is a broad, open plain.
For this, I blame the word "species." It's as if the homo sapiens that are alive today are genetically identical to those of 10,000 years ago, when in fact we know we are not.
Actually, I don't hate the word "species." It's an easy shorthand for many worthwhile discussions that might otherwise become bogged down. Rather, I hate that morons can't seem to grasp the distinction between "species" (as a shorthand) and "population" (as a specific set of reproducing genetic traits).
Or maybe I've just had too much to drink.
Posted by: catnjags | August 3, 2009 10:59 PM
I'm so pissed that I can't make it Friday.
I will be even MORE pissed if somebody in the group doesn't get autographs from Fred, Wilma, Barney, Betty, BamBam, Pebbles AND ESPECIALLY DINO!!
Give the 'graphs to PZ and he can drop 'em off to me in LA in October at the AAI convention!!
(if you can get Mr. Slate to scribble his down too, I'll take it!!)
Posted by: Brian Rapp | August 3, 2009 10:59 PM
If the bible is "true" (whatever that means since everyone has their own idea of the "true" meaning of the bible), then what would it contain if us atheists are right and it is just a bunch of made up stories? How would you tell the difference? One of you Christians please humor me. How would someone write a religious text and have people NOT believe it? What could possibly be written in it that would make someone of faith say, "you know, that's just totally unbelievable. Someone had to make all this stuff up"?
Posted by: Arnold T Pants | August 3, 2009 11:04 PM
Janitor-
You should read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
If this link has been given to you several times (I have not read all 400+ posts in the thread) and you haven't read it, then you should. Then consider how at the very beginning of the bible that you take literally you have two incompatible creation stories.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
August 3, 2009 11:04 PM
Brian Rapp # 410,
I believe you are referring to the L. Ron Hubbard effect. He openly declared that writing science fiction didn't pay enough (mostly because he sucked), so he was going to start a religion.
Yeah. Loony, yet successful.
I wonder if I can start a religion based around rationalism? I'm thinking of calling it, "The Great Big Church of the Oxymoron."
Posted by: catsnjags | August 3, 2009 11:05 PM
JUST HAD A GREAT IDEA HIT ME!!
If someone could get a pair of small ipod speakers into the House of Horrors on Friday and "softly" play The Flintstone's Themesong, it would be WONDERFUL. Not loud enough to really be noticed; just subliminal.
Posted by: raven | August 3, 2009 11:06 PM
It is almost impossible to turn a crackpot. If you could, then they weren't crackpots.
Tom E., Ken Ham, and the trolls are crackpots.
They aren't important in the big picture. Just sand in the gears of progress and the world.
Science created a 21st century a lot different from the 11th century. Our lifespans increased 30 years in a century and half our kids no longer die. It is the most successful and important human acheivement ever and the basis of modern civilization. What in the hell have the fundies ever done for society and civilizations? Other than try to destroy it, nothing at all.
And they know it. Ken Ham is a cargo cult scientist.. Using the appearance of science to prop up his delusional nonsense.
Posted by: Brg | August 3, 2009 11:06 PM
About the unicorns in the bible(s), and listed from modern to olden times:
- The modern versions of the bible have bulls and oxes.
- The Vulgata, an early bible written in Latin, has unicorns and rhinoceros.
- The Codex Sinaiticus, one of the earliest Christian bibles, which was written in Greek, has unicorns.
- The LXX, the earliest Jewish translation to Greek of the Torah, has unicorns.
- The Torah, in Hebrew, has Re'em, which seems to relate to an undefined mythical animal.
Note about other biblical beats: I haven't checked thoroughly for dragons or satyrs in the Torah. A quick look returned none, so maybe there were no dragons in the original OT texts, and that these were added to the Christian Greek and/or Latin translations later. But more on that in a future post.
Brg
Posted by: Brg | August 3, 2009 11:14 PM
One more thought about them dragons. Note that the Torah does not have unicorns, but Re'em, which is an undefined critter. I checked in the Torah some time ago one verse from the Christian Bible where a dragon is mentioned, and the same verse in the original Hebrew has no mention of it.
If this is the same for all the other dragon-ridden verses, and the Torah does not have them in, then Ken's whole argument about dinosaurs coexisting with people is dismantled.
Has anyone looked into this?
Brg
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 3, 2009 11:14 PM
Tom Estes, I want to thank you for showing one of the clearest examples of Duckspeak I have ever seen. Briefly stated, a term that is a compliment when used for a friend and is an insult when used for an enemy is Duckspeak. Under christian thought, being a sheep who's shepherd is Jesus is the best thing a person can be. Yet you mean it as an insult when you call atheists 'sheep'.
Thank you for doing your part to make words meaningless.
Also, Tom Estes, this is the only way you will be able to crush anyone.
Posted by: Insightful Ape | August 3, 2009 11:14 PM
I don't particularly care if jfc is a real moron or a Poe-in the bigger picture, it doesn't really matter.
What does matter is that there are millions upon millions of morons of this sort in the world. Transitional fossils do exist-we have known about them for over a hundred years. Evolution of horses from three toed herbivores was documented in great detail-in the 19th century. Or you can look at my beloved Tiktaalik-and my hat is off to Neil Shubin, for his methodical work and discovering such a wonderful artifact.
The bottom line is, no matter how much evidence is collected, Liar for Jesus and others like him will always remain deniers. Birds with teeth, fish with fingers, whales with arms and legs, or apes walking on their back legs will mean nothing to them. Because obviously, they already know what the evidence must show-it must corroborate their doctrine. Or else, there is something wrong with the evidence.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 3, 2009 11:15 PM
T.Estes is a classic troll. He's been trolling all over the intertubes for atheists. It looks like it's his shtick to feign niceties only to end up condemning atheism as any bigoted Baptist would.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 3, 2009 11:19 PM
nerd @ 405
No... I get that... but in the course of discussion during a lecture, I just have a hard time imagining a dialog with someone like this...
jfc: "What are some transitional fossils?"
pz: "Here are some... there are many others"
jcf: "No, no... I want to see transitional fossils"
pz: "Umm... ok... how about these"
jfc: "No, you aren't getting what I'm asking for... I want to see transitional fossils".
I'm not sure I'd have the patience for it.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 3, 2009 11:20 PM
The funny thing about all the Creationist talk about "species" falls into their pagan Platonist beliefs: They think words are more real than the things they describe. Mr. Ed is a mere shadow of a magical god-horse eidolon, which is the horsiest horse who ever horsed. If Mr. Ed Jr. has a mutation that defies the nature of this ethereal stallion, Jesus and Plato, or rather the idea of Jesus and Plato hop onto the transcendental beast, ride it down into the offending foal's DNA and nibble off the offending parts.
Posted by: Hank Roberts
|
August 3, 2009 11:21 PM
One thought, PZ and friends, when you go:
Watch your backs.
Seriously, have some of your group always back-to-back with you watching behind you.
You all are in a position that's going to be very attractive to anyone who wants to provoke a problem -- the "let's you and them fight" types.
I'm thinking of standing in antiwar demonstrations in the 1960s, with the Quakers and the Catholics, doing exactly this -- facing the back of the crowd. That's how you stop the kind of people who want to come up behind you and throw something over your group into the group you're facing -- to provoke a fight.
You've got people on all sides who want this to be peaceful.
Watch out for the odd one or two who may think otherwise.
Crowd control is public health -- when it's done right, nothing happens.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 3, 2009 11:21 PM
Well, we'll just have to use the golden rule to do unto him. Condemn him for being an stupid, delusional, illogical, nonthinking godbot. Not hard to do, given his posts. Only in our case, we are telling the truth, while he tells lies. Situation normal.Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 3, 2009 11:21 PM
JesusFuckingChrist777 said:
But earlier he said:
So which is it, JesterForChrist777? Are you looking for transitional fossils of individual members of species that bridge the species divide, or are you admitting that evolution is a process at the species level?
Also, I assume you've never heard of the cichlid fishes? Or Podarcis?
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 3, 2009 11:29 PM
... Leave it to me to link to an ID site. Here's a not-so-idiotic source:
http://hcgs.unh.edu/BAC/Kocher2004.pdf
Posted by: BlueMonday | August 3, 2009 11:34 PM
nigelTheBold @158, you have my vote for captain of the internet. Thank you.
Posted by: Ray S. | August 3, 2009 11:36 PM
I'll admit that one of the things that make me wish there were a god is the concept of eventual justice. We've all had the feeling of being wronged while being powerless to change that. Christians love to point to their belief in a judgement day.
It's so much fun when it does come down almost in real time. When I checked just a few minutes ago, three of the top five links on Google for 'tom estes' pointed to webpages describing him as a dishonest liar.
Despite his claims to the contrary, he's been clubbed on his own site. All you have to do is notice that he never answers any actual questions.
Initially I thought he was one of those godbots that just thought that atheists had never been exposed to the obvious truth of the gospel; Once we'd been given the tour, we'd be converted. It reminds me of the radio bit with Hitchens where the host was trying to lead Hitchens down the rosy path to god belief, yet Hitchens answered every question differently from the way the host was expecting.
Now I just think Estes is a dishonest twerp. I suppose there is some small chance he will follow in Barker's footsteps, but I doubt it.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 3, 2009 11:38 PM
Catsnjags, I would suggest playing I Wanna Be A Flintstone by The Screaming Blue Messiahs. What can I say, I loved that band twenty years ago and I think they still sound great.
Posted by: BenW
|
August 3, 2009 11:40 PM
Be prepared for the four questions.
1. Where did the universe’s original matter come from?
2. How did life begin?
3. Where are all the supposed transitional fossils between the Precambrian and Cambrian periods?
4. Where did the dinosaurs come from?
Those are the "zingers" that AiG suggests using so they should come out.
This is also from AiG.
With the arguments presented in this new book, I demonstrate that biblical creation absolutely must be true because it is a prerequisite for knowledge and science. That is, if creation were not true, science (or knowledge about anything whatsoever) would be impossible. For example:
* Orderly, mathematical laws of nature that describe the consistent clockwork operation of the universe are exactly what we would expect given that Christ upholds all things by the Word of His power (Hebrews 1:3). If the universe were really the chance product of a big bang, then why would it obey laws?
* The fact that the human mind is capable of rational thought and that our senses can reliably probe the universe makes sense given that God created the human mind and sensory organs (Genesis 1:27; Proverbs 20:12).
* An absolute, universal moral code by which we have knowledge of right and wrong only makes sense if there is a sovereign God who has created rules for us, and to whom we are accountable.
You kids have fun.
Posted by: Lynna | August 3, 2009 11:44 PM
@186
Oh, holy crap. I hadn't thought of that.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | August 3, 2009 11:47 PM
"Credo quia absurdus sum: I believe because I am absurd."
--Nietzsche
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 3, 2009 11:50 PM
"I believe that I am absurd."
-Janine
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 3, 2009 11:56 PM
Tom Estes bombshell:
You can dislike celebrities all you want, but it is clear that T. Estes has a problem with gay people. The man is a bigot all around - an atheist bigot as we see in his responses to atheists and especially an antigay bigot.
Posted by: heliobates | August 3, 2009 11:56 PM
Aw fuck. AIG is reaching for presuppositionalism?
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | August 3, 2009 11:59 PM
This is the one Old Testament dragon reference that I'm aware of:
Isaiah 51:9-10
Awake, awake, clothe yourself with splendor. O arm of the LORD! Awake as in days of old, As in former ages! It was you that hacked Rahab in pieces, That pierced the Dragon. It was you that dried up the Sea, The waters of the great deep; that made the abysses of the Sea A road the redeemed might walk.
I don't read Hebrew, so I don't what word "dragon" renders here.
Posted by: Jennifurret | August 4, 2009 12:02 AM
Wow, now Pastor Tom left an idle threat about suing me for defamation of character on my blog because I expressed my concerns about him wanting to meet me. Wow.
I assume I have nothing to worry about...yes? Anyone with legal expertise?
Posted by: Aaron Baker | August 4, 2009 12:03 AM
But I'm pretty sure the word isn't "theropod."
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 4, 2009 12:04 AM
Aratina, thank you for that delightful little hairball. In response, I can truly say that Tom Estes has not made my life any better or easier. In fact, speaking as a queer person, I will say that Tom Estes is doing his part to make the lives of people like me even more difficult and dangerous. And this comes from someone who tries not to think of any of the celebrities that Tom Estes condemns.
I have better things to do with my Tuesdays.
Posted by: Dan W | August 4, 2009 12:07 AM
Wow, that Tom Estes guy doesn't know what he's talking about, does he? It always amuses me when people like him are so easily shown to be full of bullshit.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 4, 2009 12:09 AM
Sorry, #433 should have been "The man is a bigot all around - an anti-atheist bigot as..." Just look what he is doing to Jennifer! He doesn't appear to recognize personal boundaries at all and acts as if he controls the world.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | August 4, 2009 12:13 AM
Re # 436:
Well, you'd have to disseminate a false statement about him that would tend to harm his reputation. "His strangely worded responses creeped me out," which seems to be the gist of what you said, wouldn't qualify, I think. You're certainly not defaming him by describing your reaction to him.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 4, 2009 12:17 AM
I'm with you all the way, Janine. It sickened my stomach to see him casually calling gay people degenerates. That article is in the google memory hole probably because it is so disgusting that he was ashamed of writing it. Gay bullying may have got him in hot water, so he might have had to trade gay bashing for atheist bashing. I hope Nerd and the rest of the horde tear him a new one.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 4, 2009 12:18 AM
Jennifurret, I just read the post you linked to. I have to disagree with you on one point; Pastor Tom Estes is a bad guy. His expressed homophobia and support of bad ideas is enough to convince me.
As for the prospect of meeting the man, you have said you will have friends with you. Make sure they are with you when you meet the great man. You need all the support you can get and eye witnesses if he and his friends try anything with you.
I wish you luck and I and I also wish you well. It looks like you were not out for such a confrontation but you might have one. Be strong and do not back down. Who knows, you just might be stronger then you give yourself credit for.
Posted by: Jennifurret | August 4, 2009 12:23 AM
Well, when I said nice guy, I meant "not going to actually harm me." Of course, now that he's gotten cranky my paranoia is returning.
I'll have 6 friends with me, 3 of which are over 6 feet tall, so I really don't have that much fear of anything serious happen. I just don't want to deal with this crap, you know? I want to meet PZ and Hemant and take a photo riding a dinosaur, that's all!
Posted by: Sebastian | August 4, 2009 12:23 AM
To PZ and the folks of the Secular Student Alliance:
It would be very nice if you turned your casual "let's get to the Creation Museum and have a laugh together" trip into an organized "let's go to the Creation Museum and expose the lies it promotes to the whole world" trip.
In other words, go to the Creation Museum and meticulously document everything you see. Use pens, notepads, digital still and video cameras, etc. to record the complete show. Post your findings on the internet, preferably organized by display. Let the aggregated scientific wisdom of the Internet comment on these findings and point out every scientific inaccuracy. Edit the comments into fact-checked organized lists.
Then the by-product and legacy of your visit would then be a "Creation Museum Exposed" or "Creation Museum Debunked" styled web site, which would then very probably be widely linked to on the web, and would probably sit very high up on the Google result page when searching the web for "Creation Museum". Let the world see what the Creation Museum is really about.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 4, 2009 12:32 AM
Jennifurret, even though you were not seeking a confrontation, sometimes it cannot be helped. When you have ideals and try to be open and honest about it, these things will happen. It is a great sign that you are not going to allow this creep to give you an excuse not to go.
Posted by: Lynna | August 4, 2009 12:38 AM
I don't think our FlushmanforJesus777 will like the horse evolution because it's not a straight line. Creationists like straight lines, as in that display from the Ham-It-Up Museum that was posted earlier. All God's chillin' prefer the straight and narrow arrow.
Posted by: Ubi Dubium | August 4, 2009 12:40 AM
I just wanted to say that the generous reader who set PZ the book was my own teenager! We spotted it at a library used book sale, and she insisted on buying it herself so that no innocent dinosaur-loving small child would buy it. I'm so proud of her! Of course, once we had it, the question of what to do with it was easily resolved with sending it to PZ. I'm so pleased that it has been able to get the treatment here that it so richly deserves.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 4, 2009 12:44 AM
Ubi, it sounds like you did a good job of guiding your offspring. And cheers for you child for inspiring a great thread.
Posted by: raven | August 4, 2009 12:48 AM
You betcha you have something to worry about. A mentally disturbed fundie male pastor stalking a 21 year old woman. Hey sister, are you stupid or what?
Get a Cthulhu damned Restraining Order ASAP and let him know it. Keep records of all correspondance. Turn them over to the police and FBI, this is interstate.. Tell him not to contact you, this is an important point in court.. Carry mace and your cell phone with 911 on speed dial.
Chances are he will try to get you alone on some pretext or another. Don't fall for BS lines like that.
Be smart, don't be a victim. We all know how male fundies are. Look at George Bush, Mark Sanford, Ensign, Pickering, and the usual fleet.
This is typical Death Cultist behavior. Threats. Hey Tom Estes, what a loser. We don't even notice until you xian kooks start threatening to kill everyone. Which they do often. Start with me, I'm used to death threats from crazies.
And about the legal threat. It is meaningless, just a scare tactic. Feel free to post this comment with attribution on your web site. Spell the name right. It is Raven.
Posted by: Jennifurret | August 4, 2009 12:51 AM
...Raven, if your goal was to make me even more freaked out, you have succeeded. Congratulations. o_o
Posted by: PeterKarim | August 4, 2009 12:53 AM
Off topic, or maybe not. The American Humanist Association, needs your help (Texas... again)
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/318/t/9133/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=2048
Posted by: raven | August 4, 2009 1:02 AM
Jennifer, this guy Tom Estes is clearly seriously warped and probably dangerous.
Fundies often have sick attitudes about sex and women. Where I went undergrad, some creep randomly attacked girls at night and then stabbed one of them to death. He turned out to be a homeschooled kid from some weird xian cult.
Tell Tom Estes that you don't want any contact with him whatsoever and everything will be turned over to the police and FBI. After that, if he does try to contact you, you can get a restraining order for the asking.
Keep records of all correspondence including your own. Right now, it isn't correspondence, it is evidence. Usually creeps like Tom Estes come off looking pretty bad in court.
Posted by: Revyloution | August 4, 2009 1:04 AM
"Do you know who God also made on day six to care for the world? Adam and Eve, the first two humans, our great, great, great, great…grandparents. Do you know what this means?"
Uh, does it mean that I'm going to be screwing my cousin tonight?
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 4, 2009 1:09 AM
I have to second Raven about keeping records of your correspondence with Tom Estes. In case anything does happen, it helps to have a paper trail that shows that there was forethought to his actions.
Posted by: Holydust | August 4, 2009 1:11 AM
Tom Estes:
As I just said in a comment on your blog, you are truly leading by example.
Your analogy of "crushing" us and calling us names really makes you look like a fantastic role model.
Seriously, do you even care what a jerk you look like? And you're a PASTOR? I feel for your congregation.
You could learn a little from the "meek and mild"; seems you know nothing of the concept.
Posted by: raven | August 4, 2009 1:15 AM
Jennifer, you might be 21 but you are acting like a 10 year old. Get smart before it is too late.
Right now you have a sign on you in neon glow in the dark letters saying VICTIM.
I'm far away from 21 and a survivor. A stalker whose saving feature was killing themselves from out of control alcohol drinking. Death threats that ended up with 2 guys being picked up by the FBI and charged with felonies.
Life isn't a joke or something you can sleep walk through. Wake up.
Posted by: Jennifurret | August 4, 2009 1:23 AM
Wait, me being afraid is somehow taking this as a joke? I don't find any of this too hilarious. Is it hard to believe you talking about stalking and physical harm and murder scared the crap out of me?
I'm the president of a club for atheists at a Big 10 University. I get my share of verbal and physical threats, and that's why I have such a healthy amount of paranoia.
I'll save the correspondence, but here's to hoping they'll be unnecessary.
Posted by: Katkinkate | August 4, 2009 1:24 AM
Posted by: PGPWNIT "All fossils are transitional. We win."
Not only all fossils transitional, but most of the species alive today, that don't eventually go extinct, are transitional between the species before and the species coming after.
What many people, who are ignorant of how evolution works, thinks a transitional fossil is, is actually impossible. A chimera of two types of unrelated animals is a thing of myth, fantasy and science fiction.
Posted by: davidhasselhoff | August 4, 2009 1:26 AM
whoo, am i late to this party. however, i know now what this jfc777 guy is looking for:
he would like to make a flip-book animation of fossil pictures that demonstrate a dinosaur turning into a bird so that he can watch an evolution cartoon. thus, through the use of a learning medium he is more comfortable with, he would come to accept modern science. hey, textbooks are heavy and expensive anyways.
the problem is, fossils are really rare. so, the framerate of his cartoon isn't as quite good as he'd like.
as more and more fossils are unearthed, the framerate gets better and better... but we know jfc777 will never be satisfied.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 4, 2009 1:30 AM
Raven, you can tone it down just a bit. This is hardly a case of having Robert Mitchum chasing after children. Jennifurret is not slipping about by herself in the middle of the night. Most likely, this is the case of an Internet Tough Guy talking smacking.
She will be surrounded by other people. Most likely, there will be cameras recording everything. It hardly sounds like she has any desire to meet Tom Estes alone. Given all of this, she should be fine. Just keep a record of the correspondence with the creep.
Posted by: raven | August 4, 2009 1:39 AM
Good idea. Also tell Tom Estes once that you want no contact with him by any means. After that he is stalking and will be in big trouble. There are laws against cyberstalking.
The cops and courts don't look too favorably on weird Death Cultist males stalking young women. They see it all the time. You might have something to worry about. So does Tom Estes now.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 4, 2009 1:52 AM
No dinosaurs today? What planet are you from? 'Course we got dinosaurs today, every now and then one or two land on my balcony railing and bill and coo and each other. Why just about an hour ago I had some fried dinosaur from the local supermarket's service deli. No dinosaurs today? Why, if it weren't for dinosaurs some of us couldn't afford meat.
Let's not forget all the dinosaurs serving as national symbols. The American Bald Dinosaur for example. No modern day dinosaurs. Yesh, what a notion.
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | August 4, 2009 2:02 AM
@Estes
Oh, yes, lawd, we do! Is that a corn cob up your ass, or are you just stunned and uncomfortable to see me breaking in on your private time ?
Posted by: raven | August 4, 2009 2:09 AM
Well no I can't. Seriously though, if you had seen and been through 10% of what I've seen and been through, you wouldn't say that.
The trick is to protect yourself. Most of the creeps and crazies are either incoherent or losers. A lot of them are cowards. If they think you can take care of yourself, they aren't going to mess with you.
And if they do, it isn't a good idea. You have to remember, the police, the FBI, the law, and the courts are on our side. They know that too.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 4, 2009 2:17 AM
Jen, I seriously doubt you have much to worry about, but it's good advice to guard the gaps and save the records, just in case. Did Mr. E. specifically say that he wanted to meet you alone, or somewhere outside of the confines of the Creation Museum? He seems very into the whole "I can't wait to meet you all at the museum, and I'm going to be very polite when I do!" thing. Maybe that's all he meant.
Posted by: natural cynic | August 4, 2009 2:21 AM
Of course humans have ridden dinosaurs. In fact, THEY ARE STILL AT IT
Posted by: Katkinkate | August 4, 2009 2:24 AM
Posted by: nigelTheBold @ 158 "She flouseled into my office like a tart looking for an apple. "You the dick what investigates the supernatural half of reality?" ..."
:() Excellent!!
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 4, 2009 2:24 AM
Seriously though, if you had seen and been through 10% of what I've seen and been through, you wouldn't say that.
Please, do not assume what I have been through. I do not doubt what you have been through, I have witnessed too much to know otherwise.
But I gave my reasons why you do not need to set off the alarms; Jennifurret is not putting herself in danger, she is going to be with a crowd in the daytime. She is not making light of the creep, she asked for advise. And your advise about keeping records is great. But there is not need to generate more alarm over the situation.
Posted by: Holydust | August 4, 2009 2:47 AM
Jennifer will be fine. Some people just like to raise alarm as an excuse to wave around the "no really, look what I'VE been through!" flag.
I sympathize, but Jennifer would be more alarmed if her instincts told her to be. She isn't. There's good reason for that. :)
I suggest reading "the Gift of Fear" by Gavin deBecker.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
August 4, 2009 3:20 AM
BenW #429 (quoting AIG):
They play some really weird word games sometimes. As if physical laws are laws in the sense that someone has to force the universe to obey by threat of punishment.
Posted by: Aquaria | August 4, 2009 3:28 AM
PZ: Would you check to see if AsswipeofJism is our old friend Stupid Fuck in disguise. Some comments someone has made as Stupid Fuck on other sites are matching rather closely.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 4, 2009 4:26 AM
It's possible, but I don't think it's SF. We haven't seen the dead giveaway expressions 'other ways of knowing' and 'epistemic knowledge' as concepts that should be given equal consideration for validity.
Basically, our old friend the Argent Vulpine isn't clever enough - nor possessed of a breadth of knowledge enough - to stop using this tired, vacuous and roundly debunked line of drivel.
He's basically a one-trick pony. With the sort of brain damage only a Jesus-shaped blunt instrument can inflict.
Posted by: maxamillion | August 4, 2009 4:47 AM
What is interesting is the way that xians use the bandy about the word "hate" , I venture to say that this cacophemism is their favourite word when referring to Atheists.
Posted by: Aquaria | August 4, 2009 5:05 AM
I dunno, Wowbagger. I've seen SF making these "half the picture" statements.
But again, SF did have some typical rhetorical devices, so I'm probably all wrong. Must be the OD on marinara...
Posted by: Shadowjack | August 4, 2009 5:17 AM
Posted by ClownboyforJebus777 (you sure you ain't Winston Woo AKA wwu777?:
"I haven't had a vaccination for anything since I was a child when my parents didn't know any better. I will not allow my wife to get them for our children. I've never used antibiotics nor have my children."
You sir are a liar! You have no children. You are too much of a drooling idiot to be able to even glance in the direction of a woman. You probably only have sex with your pet pig, whose name is Jeebus.
By the way I can destroy your creationism with two words "vagus nerve". Go google it, moron, and find out why your so called creator is such a bad designer he makes it look as if we are descended from fishes.
Your entire argument is "Goddidit!" and when evidence against your childish proposition is forwarded you then say " There is no evidence!".
A perfect illustration of how Jebusphiles ignore reality, because their fragile minds can't take the real world without an imaginary sky daddy.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 4, 2009 5:27 AM
Not so nice after all, the nice pastor....Read his first comments here and was thinking for a moment he was for real, turns out to be just another blind lying creep for his dog, ah well...
Janine, I didnt think raven overdid it, seems to draw a pretty fair picture of the guy, from what I've read of him now.
Ken Cope @ 399,
that vid was hilarious !
Posted by: Rorschach | August 4, 2009 5:31 AM
@ 476,
Please elaborate, I havent heard of that argument before.
Posted by: Drosera | August 4, 2009 5:48 AM
In the thread about The Family I called Tom Estes a religiopath.
He has since gone out of his way to prove me correct. Thanks, preacher Tom. It warms a scientist's heart to see a hypothesis come true.
Posted by: Ken Sham | August 4, 2009 5:58 AM
I think, for a lot of these people, it should be "Answers in Genesis 19:36"
Posted by: idiots_for_erudition | August 4, 2009 6:04 AM
This dipwad insistence on "transitional fossils" is the same as Zeno's Achilles and the Tortoise. We can keep running, but we can't ever get there! (except for the whole "summable infinite sequence" and "we're already there" part.)
Posted by: Peter Ashby | August 4, 2009 6:21 AM
@JFC777
You want a transitional taxon? how about the onychophora or velvet worms?
http://www.freewebs.com/invertebratezoology/Peripatus.jpg
They are intermediates between the annelid worms, segmented worms like the common earthworm and arthropods, animals with jointed legs like insects and crustaceans. They show features of both and genetic sequence comparisons place them firmly in between. Are they worms that walk or wormlike caterpillars?
I grew up in West Auckland, New Zealand and these beasties lived secretive lives in the leaf litter deep in the bush there. There is a walking track out in the Waitakere ranges called the Peripatus track in their honour.
Posted by: El Guerrero del Interfaz | August 4, 2009 6:25 AM
Typepad still not working...
It looks like US atheists are going to have to organize something like the voluntary biker brigade that protects and shields from the Phelps hate creeps. I would join if I did not live so far away :-)
Posted by: Peter Ashby | August 4, 2009 6:27 AM
Oh and not only are the onychophora extant but we have good fossil records showing they are ancient too. There are fossils of marine onychophora in the Burgess Shale. They would have been an ancient lineage even back in the Cambrian.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 4, 2009 6:39 AM
Ouch.
No, the annelids are actually very far away. Better look at nematodes, nematomorphs, cephalorhynchs, and the Cambrian palaeoscolecidans. "Segmented" is a strong oversimplification.
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | August 4, 2009 7:10 AM
Patricia OM @ 215
What an understatement. You not feeling well?
Posted by: Carlie | August 4, 2009 7:19 AM
Jen, think of it as calling his bluff. If he's going to say weird creepy things, he needs to understand they're going to be taken at face value. If you yell "I ought to blow you guys up!" at airport security, you'll find your ass against the wall before you can even take a breath to say "just kidding". What he's said so far is just vaguely creepy, but he ought to understand that vaguely creepy is a no-no. I'm sure all he wants to do is say hi and tell you about Jesus, but that's just not acceptable behavior, and he needs to know to quit it.
Back to the janitor:
I'm not looking for individual species. I'm looking for members of species that bridge the supposed species divide.
It just hit me how fascinating this is, after a few people already pounded it into the ground. If there's this big divide, Janitor, what is it? Are you going with the reproductive isolation species concept, or the morphospecies concept, or the phylogenetic species concept, or any of the other dozen or so species concepts out there? Which is it? Each places a different "divide" between species, and if you don't know what I'm talking about, then you really have no idea what you're talking about either.
Posted by: DaveH | August 4, 2009 7:19 AM
Is jfc77 wanting chronospecies? Or does that come under "But it's still just a trilobite" or whatever, even though this one's smooth and that one's spiny and we've got a continuous range of increasing spinyness inbetween?
Posted by: Dancaban | August 4, 2009 7:22 AM
Question for Mr Ham: why have I never, ever seen a dinosaur in a prehistoric cave painting?
Posted by: BenW
|
August 4, 2009 7:34 AM
Jennifurret | August 4, 2009 1:23 AM
I'm the president of a club for atheists at a Big 10 University. I get my share of verbal and physical threats, and that's why I have such a healthy amount of paranoia.
~~~~~~~~~
Try being an atheist in the SEC. I am back getting my PhD and the stuff I see shows that here it is basically a theocracy.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 4, 2009 7:39 AM
The creationist evangelizing Christians have no interest in learning about evolution or sciences, to do so would remove foundations for their belief systems. Let's face it, if they spent as much time and effort actually studying the sciences as they do mining outdated and rejected theories from the sciences, they would be experts that we could learn from.
Posted by: JeffreyD | August 4, 2009 7:42 AM
Off topic, but last night I watched the great Spencer Tracy/Claude Rains film Inherit the Wind, a broad retelling of the Scopes trial. While I enjoyed the film, the speeches, the acting, it was appalling to realize that fundamentalist types portrayed (caricatured?) in the movie are still very much real and alive and active. The pastor in the movie, played by Claude Aiken, reminds me a bit of pastor Tom. Anyway, if you have a chance to catch the movie on TV, do so.
Ciao y'all
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 4, 2009 7:50 AM
Of the three recent letters to the editor (Charleston Post and Courier) I've sent criticizing religion or creationism, I've received 1 or 2 post cards (no return addresses of course). I haven't felt threatened but I do find it funny that they refuse to put their return address and that they had to take the time to tell me I was going to hell and that god loves me. You'd think they'd want to talk face to face or at least on the phone about it. I guess their need to condemn outweighs their need to discuss.
The content of the post cards is pretty damn funny and mostly illiterate. And coming from me that's saying a lot.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 4, 2009 7:51 AM
Really, they use this argument? Someone ought to inform Mr. Ham about just how unreliable our senses are.
Posted by: Didac | August 4, 2009 8:51 AM
Linda (#13). Not only they prefer the Bible account of Creation to all other religious accounts. They also prefer chapter 1 from chapter 2 of the same book of Genesis. So, Answers in Genesis should read more Answers in Genesis 1. One of the things to ask about the Creation Museum if the Tower of Bable account of origin of languages is also promoted. English classes can be very funny if a Babel linguistic movement arises.
Posted by: Ken | August 4, 2009 8:51 AM
Debating with these people is like trying to teach a pig to sing...it never works (and it annoys the pig). Knowing this I still found myself in such a discussion involving a particular nettlesome contradiction in which the Apostles clearly didn't obey a very simple directive straight from Jesus, God incarnate, before he (Jesus) departed planet Earth. The response was typical, lengthy, rambling, and completly ineffectual at addressing a fundamental contradiction...at which point this person responded with the following gem:
QOUTE: "Don't take "my" word for it, read the bible it's all in there. ….. God has painted a wonderfully beautiful picture of "what's it all about" in Christ.
"Jesus …came to serve people. How? By being an example and speaking words that explain to all men how to get to heaven.
"There are many contradiction in the bible. To call just one of those out or all of them out and base a conclusion upon just that, is not correct. It is ludicrous to think that God can create the universe and everything in it, including man, but not be able to put a book together is just plain...... call it what you will."
END QUOTE.
So there you have it, a clear case of "don't confuse me with the facts--I already know them--but prefer to be happy in my delusion." The attraction is the promise of eternal glory in Heaven--despite acknowledging the fact of contradictions in the Bible AND that an Almighty God ought not be such a fumbling ineffectual when it comes to getting his word written down, but clearly he was. Or, HE isn't.
A denial of reality, especially while acknowledging that same reality, is a characteristic of mental illness. That's a shame.
Posted by: Didac | August 4, 2009 8:57 AM
Me again (#495). It seems that the Creationist Museum is also a Babel Linguistic Museum.
Posted by: crs | August 4, 2009 9:07 AM
The publisher is based in NW Arkansas? Color me not-so-surprised. I had the misfortune of growing up in nearby Harrison. (Population 10,000 and an urban center compared to Green Forest.) I can tell you from experience that the entire area is eaten up by creotard insanity.
If you ever pass that way, be sure to stop in Eureka Springs and see the hideous Art Deco Jebus, aka, The Chalk Monster.
Posted by: raven | August 4, 2009 9:14 AM
No holydust. Did you read what Tom said at the end of the Wisconsin thread?
Paraphrasing, "99.9% of all xians are not genuine xians."
All science with the possible exception of technology is pseudo."
"Pentecostals do not have access to god"
Read it yourself, it is was bizarre even by internet troll standards before you make any judgments.. Tom is IMO, seriously mentally deranged. He believes all science is Fake. He believes 99.9% of all xians are Fake with no access to god. This is a true xian Death Cultist.
If you think a deranged xian cultist can't be dangerous, ask George Tiller. Scott Roeder was described by his family and ex wife as having pschological problems mixed with cult xianity. Ask Rev. Jim Jones followers. Around 1000 committed suicide in one day in Guiana, Their graves speak for themselves. Ask Kara Neumann, look at the FLDS, look at the other toxic little cults like the Branch Davidians or that one in Arkansas whose head was arrested for something to do with sex abuse of children. Look at the Mall shooters some of whom are hard core xian Death Cultists. Seung Cho, the creationist in Michigan who stalked and killed some girl he was infatuated with. Look what religious cultists have done at 9/11, Iraq, Nigeria, Uganda, Afghanistan.
Just the public record. Deranged power hungry people with the conviction that they are god's chosen one with a huge load of hate have been very dangerous to people around them.
It is entirely possible that the Tom creature is simply crazy and not likely to be dangerous. But do you know that or just hope for that? Why take chances? He has already made contact with a 21 year woman and threatened her.
So lets see. Deranged cultist, thinks he is god's favored among xians, hates every other group catholics, gays, Obama, atheists, scientists, etc.,, and likes to threaten people.
Cthulhu, how many warning signs do you need before your survival instincts kick in? A hand holding a bloody knife? Bullets flying like Cho Seung was just reincarnated? When the shooters go off, there were always warning signs, lasting for years and decades.
Whatever, I said my piece and gave my reasons. I wouldn't let that guy get within half of continent of me without filing a report with the FBI.
PS As I posted a while ago, back in prehistoric times, people on a forum used to use their real names. One guy was having personal and mental problems. He seemed sane compared to Tom. Disappeared. The news article said he died in a shootout with the cops during a very inept robbery of a store. The lesson: People who appear to be crazy on the internet, are crazy.
Posted by: crs | August 4, 2009 9:14 AM
Sorry about the broken link to Art Deco Jebus Hope that works.
Posted by: Geoff | August 4, 2009 9:30 AM
Jennifer et al, I think he's fooled us all and is really an elaborate Poe.
I'd been gullible enough to reply to his blog before I realized his own responses were getting past the point of believability, then I rechecked the name: (T)Estes, indeed!
I've congratulated him on his very clever deception. How do people find the time to play this sort of joke?
Posted by: Ubidubikid #1 | August 4, 2009 9:31 AM
Unholy crud! That's the book I sent! He used it! Awesome!
Posted by: DingoJack | August 4, 2009 9:32 AM
Ers - *ahem* totemistic and tribal, not Art Deco.
Art Deco statuary is characterised by lush, opulent, figures (usually female), often created as if in motion, with flowing, streamlined, organic lines. - DJ
"I don't no nuttin' about art; but i know what I like."
Posted by: Joe | August 4, 2009 10:10 AM
HAAA!!! Again, I say HAAA! http://www.pnj.com/article/20090801/NEWS01/908010317
Posted by: Karl Withakay | August 4, 2009 10:12 AM
Forgive me if this has already been stated, I don't have time to read all 500 comments.
Interestingly, you don't need science to disprove the bible, you can use the bible itself. That's right, the sacred bible. There's enough internal contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible to conclude it can not be literally true.
Posted by: Josh | August 4, 2009 10:47 AM
Aren't all species alive today transitional? Whether or not they're staring extinction in the face? All taxa will eventually go extinct. But they will all also continue to evolve until they die (the taxa, not the individuals). Extinction ends evolution, but evolution doesn't "pay attention" to extinction(1). The mechanisms of evolution continue to operate on the taxon until it's gone. That particular taxon never develops further--never evolves into anything else, but I don't think that the mechanisms of evolution "care," since neither the mechanisms, nor the taxon itself, know that it's about to be gone(2). The process simply stops with that species as the last surviving population winks out. But "during the winking," depending on how fast it happens, it isn't as though mutations aren't still popping up in that last population; and it isn't as though selection isn't still acting on that last population(3).
Every species we have from the fossil record is extinct (except, of course, for those extant species that have some fossil lineage). But it is, in part, these data (these extinct fossil species) that have led us to our current understanding of evolution. So the fact that they are extinct or extant shouldn't have anything to do with how evolution acts on them. Otherwise using extinct taxa to study evolution would be problematic.
And it isn't problematic. That Archaeopteryx is extinct doesn't prevent us from listening to what it has to say about early birds. We have no problem seeing the transitional features preserved in Archaeopteryx and puzzling out how it fits within the overall pattern of theropod evolution. While we're doing this, however, we have no idea how close or how far the genus Archaeopteryx was to the edge of oblivion when the individual Archaeopteryx on the table died(4). That's a different issue.
If you and four of your friends (= a species) get flattened by a bus (= go extinct) while crossing a street (= evolving), you were still in the process of crossing at the point where the bus ended you. You were a "crossitional species" (= were evolving) before the bus, but you were also a "crossitional species" at the very moment of impact(5). That you never actually made it across the street (none do...) doesn't matter to the photographer (the environment) who captured one of you on film (fossilization) as you left the curb. The picture of your friend is still a "fossil" of a "crossitional species." Now, this analogy is problematic in that the street has a far side that can be reached, you intended to cross, and the only real change you exhibited during the journey was ontogenetic. However, the point is that the "picture" is that of a species in crossition. And the picture allows us to learn about the journey.
There is one road. Every group is crossing it, continuously, until it gets whacked by a bus--and there's a bus in every group's future. Some groups never get captured on film at all, and most of the photos that our photographer does take are so poor that we can't see from them that the group is walking. But that's our problem, not evolution's.
1Until after one...
2Yes, humans might well be an exception to this.
3Although this is past the point where actual modifications are being made. At some point the curves have to meet, but the mechanisms should still operate until that last generation (and indeed individuals could still be selected out of the population (in ways unrelated to whatever was causing the winking) during that last generation).
4Lots of extinct species are known from only a single individual. However, we have no idea how close to extinction any of these species were when that individual died. It's unlikely that any given fossil individual is the last individual of the species that lived before the taxon winked out, but it's not impossible. In terms of puzzling out their evolutionary "situation," it doesn't matter.
5It doesn't have to be a bus. It could be a flu or an allergic reaction to a bunch of hornets that start buzzing you and your pals. The constraint on the analogy is that you and your four friends must keep walking across the street until you die.
Posted by: Ray S. | August 4, 2009 11:48 AM
After a little Google work, I find it is safe to say that Pastor Tom Estes can probably be taken at face value. By that I mean he has an extreme Baptist view based in Calvinism and probably believes what he posts. Extreme in that even mainstream Baptists would find him on the fringe. Somehow he has been able to call himself a pastor at more than one church, though none of the ones I've researched seem to be much more than one room.
Of course it is hard to tell exactly what he believes since he is an unremitting liar. His recent post on his HT site about the aquatic ape conjecture (the one titled 'ATHEIST SCIENTIST DISPROVES EVOLUTION!') where he refers to Elaine Morgan as 'a scientist, a really smart scientist with lots of peer-reviewed papers and tests and retests'. He has not changed that despite being shown from Morgan's own site that it is false. Further, his more recent post contains this; 'I couldn't care less what Elaine Morgan thinks. Clearly she didn't prove or disprove anything, she just talked with a notebook in her hand.'
Two disturbing things I've learned are that he has a post up on his site [Hard Truth] titled 'Bring Down the Atheists'. In one of the comments on that post he refers to a Christian call to arms. He probably doesn't mean that in the literal sense, but one cannot be sure. the other thing that disturbs me is that he seems affected by this news story about a pastor in Illinois who was killed during a service.
I'd recommend that the SSA planners alert the security forces at the CM just to make sure they know the backstory.
Posted by: raven | August 4, 2009 12:17 PM
Don't bet on that call to arms not being literal. The xian extremists call for armed action quite often. Many of them stockpile weapons for The End Times. They occasionally kill people.
One of Pastor Jerry Gibson's listeners took him seriously. He is now on the run from the FBI with a warrant out on him after threatening to massacre a biology department. He claims to have fled the USA.
Posted by: CT | August 4, 2009 12:23 PM
Did you know that Biblical literalism is a "relatively" (in relation to time) new phenomena probably dating back to the reformation (perhaps a little before).
The early church fathers didn't necessarily believe in a literal 6 "solar day" creation.
Origen on creation:
On First Principles 4.3.1 (trans. Henri DeLubec [Harper & Row, 1966], p. 288) as follows:
4.3.1 Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed without the sun and moon and stars? . . . I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history and not through actual events.
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 4, 2009 1:13 PM
raven #499 wrote:
Small point here: Tom Estes and Tom-from-the- Wisconsin thread are probably two different people. We started arguing over that at around #360 -- it seemed very unlikely to me that a Baptist preacher would claim that 99.9% of people who say they are Christian, are no such thing.
John Scanlon FCD at #394 eventually found the smoking gun -- a blog link. The "Tom" who seems a bit more disturbing than the other Tom appears to belong to the Worldwide Church of God. There may be good reason for some paranoia with this one, then, but he's probably not the smiling pastor who wants to greet the atheists at the museum, and calm poor Jennifurrets fears.
Posted by: Agathodemon | August 4, 2009 1:23 PM
Not a fossil, but wouldn't a ring-species meet the Janitor's criteria. A gradual transition from one species to another. How would we be able to tell they were different species if we only had the fossils? I apologise if someone else mentioned this, I only managed to read through abount 350 of the postings.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 4, 2009 1:27 PM
Agathodemon, you can try, but personally, the janitor will not accept any evidence since it might conflict with his religion. It is an old creobot gambit.
Posted by: rufus | August 4, 2009 1:35 PM
using the argument from authority: The Vatican have declared that Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution has enough supporting evidence.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5705331.ece
pass the memo to Ken Ham and pastror Tom if you please.
rufus
Posted by: Anri | August 4, 2009 1:42 PM
Speaking for myself, it sounded like 777 wanted proof of evolution.
Which we don't have.
Don't get me wrong, we have massively overwhelming evidence for it, and have watched it in process, on a small scale. But we don't a single, end-of-discussion, all-things-answered-by type PROOF of evolution.
Because that's just not the way science works. Non-ignorant people know this.
Ol' 777 either doesn't know this, or chooses to ignore it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 4, 2009 1:43 PM
Rufus, Pastor Tom and Ken Ham are more than likely a part of the group that thinks that Catholics aren't Real Christians™
Posted by: PettyD | August 4, 2009 1:44 PM
Creation science is not all bad, by the time I graduated from elementary school creationist science proved to me that my fundamentalist parents were full of crap.
Posted by: Awesome McCool | August 4, 2009 2:02 PM
Jackass apparently thinks that Cthulhu is named Cthulhu fhtagn, which roughly comparable to thinking that the christian god's proper name is God Amen. And he seems to believe that Cthulhu is just a giant squid. Christ that pisses me off.
Posted by: Joe | August 4, 2009 2:38 PM
Posted by: Dancaban | August 4, 2009 7:22 AM
Question for Mr Ham: why have I never, ever seen a dinosaur in a prehistoric cave painting?
http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 4, 2009 2:48 PM
Ah, really. Do we.
Punctuated equilibrium is not supposed to explain the imagined lack – imagined by cdesign proponentsists and nobody else – of transitional fossils between Eusthenopteron, Ichthyostega and Dendrerpeton. (We've got tons of those. Do you want a list?) It's supposed to explain the current lack of transitional fossils between Ichthyostega eigili and Ichthyostega stensioei. It's supposed to work at the species level. Most of the fossil record has too coarse resolution to distinguish between gradualism and punk eek.
Most of those few cases where it is good enough show punk eek, but not all do. I just gave a link to a counterexample. Importantly, it occurs exactly where punk eek theory predicts it would: in a case where speciation did not happen in a small area, but in the entire equatorial Pacific at once.
You have a lot to learn...
Only in writing, and even that only because some wisecracker 100 years ago noticed that Western languages distinguish "he" and "she" and went on to make up a couple of characters (female, things, spiritual) that hadn't existed before. The actual Chinese languages, however, lack any trace of such a distinction; in Mandarin, for example, all 3rd-person singular pronouns are pronounced tā.
What can I say? Patterson and Ridley were wrong, and obviously so.
They are.
We are, in fact, classified as "bony fish" (Osteichthyes).
It's true that there are 146 definitions of "species" out there. Depending on the definition, there are between 101 and 249 endemic bird species in Mexico. The reason is that these definitions simply have nothing in common except the word "species", which IMNSHO should be abandoned. (See comments 408 and 421.)
The reason for this fuzziness is evolution. Species intergrade. Have you really never heard of series and ring species? Of allospecies like the European carrion crow(s), which range from two completely separate populations to one completely homogeneous population depending on which gene you're looking at?
Hang on a second. He studied heredity, and that not long enough to discover evolution.
Some even think nowadays that he wanted to disprove evolution by showing the constancy of species. Indeed, his numbers seem to be very slightly fudged: they're almost ideally close to the predictions by his famous laws, which all assume that mutations never happen. Looks like he interpreted mutations as errors of observation or something and didn't count them.
True. What you haven't understood is why we think that it is, in all likelihood, not ancestral.
That reason is composed of 1) the huge, huge, huge diversity of life and 2) the coarse-grained-ness of the fossil record. It's statistics, nothing more.
Of course, some organisms are so common as fossils that we can expect to find the occasional direct ancestor. A link to the description of such a case is near the top of this comment.
That's wrong. Don't you even know that most fossil species of big and/or terrestrial organisms are known from one incomplete skeleton? Often, "incomplete skeleton" means "the tooth, the whole tooth, and nothing but the tooth".
Frankly, it doesn't even make sense to talk about "species" in the simple absence of a known population.
They don't, BTW. "Macroevolution" is nothing but the sum of "microevolution" over time. That's the case even under punk eek if you (can) look closely enough.
Yeah. It tells you the limit of my reading speed, that's what.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 4, 2009 3:21 PM
Do you mean the recurrent laryngeal nerve?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 4, 2009 3:32 PM
As you know, the recurrent laryngeal is a branch of the vagus nerve. But my guess is that the quoted commenter was referring to the more basically weird fact that so much thoracic and abdominal innervation is supplied by a cranial nerve.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 4, 2009 3:42 PM
(I think Shubin talks about this.)
Posted by: E.V. | August 4, 2009 4:35 PM
David Marjanović, OM is made of WIN.
Posted by: RM | August 4, 2009 4:36 PM
Please give me a heads up the next time you write one so I can be sure to buy a copy.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 4, 2009 4:46 PM
We are, in fact, classified as "bony fish" (Osteichthyes).
oh give me a break. You fucking know what I mean.
the way you're phrasing it will only confuse him further.
you might as well have said we're classified as a an organic chemical.
When you say shit like this, you really need to add the "tree of life has branches" stuff.
philosophical arguments against classification be damned.
cladistics is still useful and you know it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 4, 2009 4:53 PM
I don't think our FlushmanforJesus777 will like the horse evolution because it's not a straight line. Creationists like straight lines, as in that display from the Ham-It-Up Museum that was posted earlier.
ah, you're absolutely right. And, I'd find examples that have smoother fits, if, I actually really cared about what plungerman wanted.
:)
Posted by: Jason Failes | August 4, 2009 4:53 PM
Now I know why Christian groups love to put "family" in their names:
-Lying to children.
-Encouraging grandparents to give up their money (and estates).
-Suppressing the rights of wives and daughters.
-Warping the minds of fathers and sons to take abusive authoritarian dominion over their families.
Yep, something for the whole family.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
August 4, 2009 5:01 PM
Of course creationists like straight lines--that's how their family trees grow--no branches, no broadening. They just think that having your sister for a mother just keeps things simpler.
Posted by: Jadehawk | August 4, 2009 5:05 PM
no, that's Art Nouveau, which came just before Art Deco and is for some hideous reason constantly conflated with it.
Art Deco, Art Nouveau
Posted by: FRANK FERRELL | August 4, 2009 5:05 PM
The Bible says "The fool hath said in his heart, no GOD" And you dumbies say it out loud,. I think it is insitfull that alot of you have to exspress yourselves in cursing Christians.Here is your condition : Above all, we know that the Most High is with us, and when He dresses Himself in arms, where are His enemies? If He cometh forth from His place, the potsherds of the earth will not long contend with their Maker. His rod of iron shall dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel, and their very remembrance shall perish from the earth. Away, then, all fears, the kingdom is safe in the King's hands. Let us shout for joy, for the Lord reigneth, and His foes shall be as straw for the dunghill. THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE. Also it takes more Faith to believe in million of years of evalution than a Great Designer, GOD ! REMEMBER He who laughs last laughts best. When you come to deaths doors lets see you puff out your chest and mock then. I actually am sorry for you, have a happy eternity.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
August 4, 2009 5:12 PM
AND HOW WOULD YOU KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, YOU ILLITERATE MORON?
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 4, 2009 5:14 PM
FRANK FERELL #530 wrote:
But, I thought God was LOVE, and that all spiritual paths are valid. I do wish you True Christians would get your stories straight.
(Seriously, though, that was cute)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 4, 2009 5:15 PM
Frank Ferrell, show me physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin. Failure to show said evidence means you are a delusional fool, a liar and bullshitter, and believe in a book of fiction as your holy book.
Evidence, what separates the sane from the mentally ill. Ignored by godbots everywhere.
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 4, 2009 5:17 PM
"JESUS SAVES! REPENT YOUR SINS! COME IN FOR TEA, BISCUITS AND QUIET CONTEMPLATION! THE INFIDELS WILL BE CRUSHED BENEATH HOOVES OF STEEL!"
Posted by: Geds | August 4, 2009 5:20 PM
Y'know, all the fun and games with CrapmopperforJebus777 yesterday reminded me of something.
Many, many, many years ago I dated a girl whose internet handle was Livin4[for?]Him777. She was also completely nuts and still occasionally stalks me on the intertoobs (which is just friggin' awesome). I knew a few other people who used the "RandomChristianSoundingThing777" construct and I think they were usually insane.
I didn't understand it then. I don't understand it now. In general, though, I avoid people who put "777" on the end of their nyms...
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
August 4, 2009 5:23 PM
For FRANK FERRELL, who doesn't know his bible from his ass:
The following is from the Sermon on the Mount, a very important sermon given by Jesus and reported in the Gospel according to Matthew. You should read it sometime, asshole.
Given the smug and self-satisfied nature you've shown here, it is doubtless that you have and continue to sin enough in your life to spend your eternity boiling, but you've certainly guaranteed your spot in Satan's fire by Christ's own words.
So I guess we'll see you in hell, fuckface.
Posted by: MickyW | August 4, 2009 5:24 PM
Frank @ 530; you knocked on the wrong door. Wannabe Iron Age prophets is down the hall........
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 4, 2009 5:26 PM
The Bible says "The fool hath said in his heart, no GOD" And you dumbies say it out loud
so did you.
the bible also says you can get striped animals by breeding them in front of striped sticks.
which parts of the bible did you want to claim as having authority?
Posted by: Smoggy Batrubble | August 4, 2009 5:29 PM
Dear brother Frank Ferrell @ 530
Thank you for your brave witness on this hellish blog! The marvelous alliteration of your names shows you are indeed a true servant of God.
Bless you!
Smoggy
PS Dear Frank, quietly (between us) could you do something about your spelling, grammar, and general coherence? Jesus appointed me to witness on this blog some months ago, and I have been working hard to show the atheists that we Christians are generally intelligent and understand the rules of grammar and how to string a coherent argument together. I don't mind you posting here, but perhaps use your spellchecker, and maybe ask your Mom to read over your writing before you hit the 'post' button. At the moment you are simply confirming the atheists' belief that most Christians and similar people of faith are a little bit brain-damaged or retarded.
Yours in Christian witness
Smoggy
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 4, 2009 5:51 PM
Incidentally, that's Psalm 14:1.
This Biblical passage has always struck me as one of the most condescending, arrogant, smug things ever written. A book pushing a particular belief has a bit that says those who don't believe are fools. I realize it's preaching to the choir and if the goddists kept it for home consumption I wouldn't complain about it. However, more than half the time I'm discussing belief with a goddist they trot out this quote. First of all, the Goddists are ignoring "...whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matthew 5:22 KJV) Another point is that I'm not going to accept a piece of self-serving propaganda. Finally, it's all I can do from saying "and a hardy 'fuck you' to you" whenever someone quotes this verse at me.
Posted by: Ken | August 4, 2009 5:56 PM
BIBLICAL CONTRADICTION -- here's one that nobody has been able to reconcile, at least to my knowledge (many of you reading this will enjoy tossing this one out for an explanation):
Matt 28:18-20 has Jesus (God incarnate) directing the Apostles to preach the Gospel to ALL nation & baptize everybody (there's no mincing words or meaning here, simple & straighforward). Mark 16:15 says something similar.
Acts 10 & 11 document a conflict among the Apostles & Peter about fraternizing with the "unclean" Gentiles; the original Apostles (& others) do not want to socialize with the Gentiles...until Peter has a vision from God making this ok...and suddenly they support preaching & so on with/to the Gentiles.
SOOooooo...if Jesus, God incarnate (the creator of Heaven & Earth & all that is seen & unseen) issues a directive that clearly was disobeyed:
- How convincing was he really--given that the Apostles clearly were not only not obeying this directive, but are on record as opposing it outright?
- Why did some guy need a special vision to make this missionary work happen OVER the in-person directive from God himself????
I know that if I thought I was talking to God and He told me to do something, I'd do it, no questions asked. The Apostles clearly did not (so why should I?).
While one can find Bible quotes that contradict, this behavioral inconsistency is pretty hard to explain away. Damn near impossible from what I can tell...especially if you ask a Christian to explain the above Matt & Mark passages...wait some time, long enough for them to forget that topic & their comments...then bring up the issue in Acts...wait...then hit'm with both of their replies with the relevant question(s).
It really rattles them when they're forced to confront such a clear contradiction. Sometimes it works and gets them thinking critically. Sometimes it doesn't.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 4, 2009 5:59 PM
Indeed. See also Larson, G., "How Nature Says 'Do Not Touch'", Journal of the Far Side, c. 1990...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 4, 2009 6:05 PM
And Fear and Loathing says
Your point? Fear and loathing seems much more appropriate to reality.
Sometimes I whisper it softly late at night in my lovers ear.
Did I hear a niner in there?
I feel a Big Lebowski Movie song lyric coming...
Bah shit. Just some idiotic ranting from a 2000 year old fairy tale. Damn it.
Well nananana. This is what you are.
I believe that is spelled EVILution.
Remember, when Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, if you go for all these fairy tales, that "evil" woman convinced the man to eat the apple, but the apple came from the Tree of Knowledge. And the punishment that was then handed down, the woman gets to bleed and the guy's got to go to work, is the result of a man desiring, because his woman suggested that it would be a good idea, that he get all the knowledge that was supposedly the property and domain of God. So, that right away sets up Christianity as an anti-intellectual religion. You never want to be that smart. If you're a woman, it's going to be running down your leg, and if you're a guy, you're going to be in the salt mines for the rest of your life. So, just be a dumb fuck and you'll all go to heaven. That's the subtext of Christianity. - FZ
How very Christian of you.
Oh, by the way, Pascal is on line 2 for you.
Posted by: Josh
|
August 4, 2009 6:09 PM
Frank, if Heaven is going to be crammed full of folks like you, then I really don't want any part of it.
Posted by: Watchman | August 4, 2009 6:12 PM
And His foes shall be as strawmen for the dumbell.
Posted by: Josh
|
August 4, 2009 6:14 PM
Ha!
Rev., there is pretty much no time during the day when you don't absolutely fucking rock.
Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 4, 2009 6:21 PM
The fool said in his heart, there is no god.
The wise man shouts it from the rooftops.
Posted by: DaveH | August 4, 2009 6:24 PM
Ken@542
Similarly, one can even concede (rhetorically) to them that the bibble could possibly be the literal word of gawd. The whole biblical literalism schtick is predicated on the idea that gawd does not speak in metaphors. Then what the hell are the "direct quotes" in the NT from Jeebus (=gawd, in their mythology) where he uses parables (AHAAAAAH!) to explain theological points?
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 4, 2009 6:33 PM
The bible also says that woman was created from a man's rib. Now clearly this book doesn't have a grasp on reality...Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 4, 2009 6:34 PM
Ichthyic #539 - I didn't know that one. A quick check on Skeptics Annotated Bible confirms it:
Gen 30:37-39 Jacob creates striped goats by having them look at striped rods while copulating.
I'd really like to see that done!
Posted by: Anonymous Reader | August 4, 2009 6:55 PM
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/08/04/up-for-grabs-%E2%80%93-the-creationist-theme-park-created-by-jailbird-fundie-ken-hovind/
Is this the guy who runs the "museum" you are going to visit?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 4, 2009 6:56 PM
The drive-by trolls like Frank Ferrell are really annoying. We've wasted hundreds of man- and woman-hours coming up with counter-arguments and witty remarks that they never see.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 4, 2009 7:11 PM
No, Ken Ham is the one.
Hovind owned a Lies about dinosaurs park in Florida. He also like to conceal what kind of money he made off of it and didn't like the whole idea of taxes.
He's now stamping license plated and getting three hots and a cot in a Federal Pen in South Carolina.
Both are equally moronic and dishonest, Hovind just was less disciplined about it.
Posted by: Josh
|
August 4, 2009 7:16 PM
Airborne! Couldn't happen to a better asshole.
Posted by: CJO | August 4, 2009 7:19 PM
Similarly, one can even concede (rhetorically) to them that the bibble could possibly be the literal word of gawd. The whole biblical literalism schtick is predicated on the idea that gawd does not speak in metaphors. Then what the hell are the "direct quotes" in the NT from Jeebus (=gawd, in their mythology) where he uses parables (AHAAAAAH!) to explain theological points?
Mmm. Not so sure. They're okay with metaphor and allegory; indeed, they use these devices as the excuse when the myths are too batshit insane even for them (Wowbagger calls this 'the genre defense'). What is interesting about the parables of Jesus, though, is how the later tradition allegorized them over time. Parables, as a kind of instruction, were nothing new to Judaism. The oral Torah is full of them. But in earlier traditions, they were explicitly not allegories. They were quite straightforward little stories with a usually blindingly obvious moral --if, that is, one had a solid grasp on the finer points of the law being discussed.
It wasn't until gentile "godfearers" and Hellenized Jews in the diaspora who were unfamiliar with the Palestinian mainstream, and thus not up to speed on the fine points, got into the business of composing sectarian scriptures that the kind of story that gets put into Jesus's mouth as 'parables' took on these allegorical interpretations. It was a source of tension and confusion among early Christian groups, as we can see in the NT texts themselves. Mark's Jesus claims that the allegorized Parable of the Sower, in fact, all parables, were riddles, specifically to confound the understanding of all but the inner circle. Matthew uses this material, but has Jesus say the opposite, that the parables clarify his teaching for all.
So the question to me ends up being even more damning of the literalist idea than your comment supposes. If the earliest traditions are being so completely misunderstood and misused, what warrant do we have for claiming anything Jesus said is preserved in the NT, or, indeed, that we can say with confidence that any such person ever said anything at all?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 4, 2009 7:24 PM
Hey Look,Jesus found his way home
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 4, 2009 7:29 PM
First bird shit and now toilet seats. It seems gawd has a feces fixation.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 4, 2009 7:42 PM
On Traits in Common
Has anybody studied the traits in common held by arrow worms and hagfish? Could it be that arrow worms and hagish have a common ancestor, and that this common ancestor post dates the ancestor of chordates?
Just presenting disturbing ideas, that's all.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
August 4, 2009 7:45 PM
FRANK FERRELL says:
REMEMBER He who laughs last laughts best.
He who laughs last is slow to catching on. Fool.
Posted by: DaveH | August 4, 2009 8:29 PM
@CJO#556
You say "Mmm. Not so sure. They're okay with metaphor and allegory"
I bow to your greater experience of fundie nutjobs. I've not debated with one who has had even such a tenuous grip on reality with the very tips of his/her fingernails for a while. Just throwing it out as a rhetorical stance against the unthinking sheep. Gotta keep 'em pressed up against the edge of the canyons of cognitive dissonance in the hope a couple might tumble over the edge (not going to happen with Testes or janitor f.X777 [does he really think he's St Peter?]) but perhaps a sheep will realise they've been fed a diet of scrapie prions, It seems to me that they all go for the Matthew interpretation (id est AHAAAAAAAAH!)
Posted by: Jamie | August 4, 2009 8:32 PM
I've only been through about 30 of the 500+ comments (I intend to get through as many as I can), but on the subject of inaccuracies, why are the people wearing clothes? If this is before the fall of man (indicated by the harmless dinosaur), shouldn't the people be naked since they haven't yet known shame? And if this was really before the fall, why would the farmers need a fence? (Isn't this supposed to be paradise, making the fence unnecessary?)
Funny, it's not even accurate by biblical standards.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 4, 2009 8:38 PM
Because Pee-Pees are naughty
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 4, 2009 8:48 PM
Since dinosaurs are big but not too bright critters, farmers wanted to keep them out of the fields where they might trample crops. Think of the fences as jersey barrier, used to keep inattentive drivers from crossing into oncoming traffic.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 4, 2009 8:50 PM
"Above all, we know that the Most High is with us, and when He dresses Himself in arms, where are His enemies? If He cometh forth from His place, the potsherds of the earth will not long contend with their Maker. His rod of iron shall dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel, and their very remembrance shall perish from the earth. Away, then, all fears, the kingdom is safe in the King's hands. Let us shout for joy, for the Lord reigneth, and His foes shall be as straw for the dunghill."
Hoona Igna Chowa Neha!
Posted by: Mark M | August 4, 2009 9:44 PM
Re:JanitorforChrist777 #259
"until you can show [fossils] transitioning from one thing into another"
... I think JFC is looking for fossils in animated GIF format.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
August 4, 2009 9:48 PM
I vote "Not wasted." I have been enjoying pretty much every response. As unnamed emperor of the universe (see the throne? The hat? The scepter? The legions of robot minions? EMPEROR!), you have only one duty -- to entertain me.
And I am entertained.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 4, 2009 9:51 PM
That's not what my wife tells me.
Posted by: waldteufel | August 4, 2009 9:59 PM
If any of the godbotherers who troll at this site can explain Genesis 30:37-39 in any rational way, I'll organize a party where Mickey Mouse can kiss their asses on Main Street.
Once again, the Wholly Babble shows itself to be a bag of horse-shit.
Fuck Ken Ham and the sheep he rode in on.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
August 4, 2009 10:03 PM
FRANK FARRELL #531,
Dude. You are the beatest of the beat, the coolest of the cool, the uptest of the fucked up.
I am not yet stoned enough to understand you, Dude, but I'm working on it. I can almost grok you. It's like god is humble and kind, and wants to fuck you up in front of his girlfriend, just to show off. It's like he loves the dorks and the geeks and the meek, but really he's a jock who likes to punch all of those losers in the nuts. It's like he'd be a good guy and pay his taxes and take care of his mum and all, but he really doesn't give a fuck, and just wants his mum to die in a horrible car accident and let him fucking get on with his life, already!
It's like god gave you a car for graduation, but you can only use it to drive to a place of worship to shove your nose up his ass. It's like god likes peace, but loves to masturbate to blood and severed limbs and brains splattered across the Tuscan tile. It's like he is a vegan because he can't stand the thought of dead animals, but loves to pull the trigger on the bolt at the slaughterhouse just to hear that meaty thunk. It's as if he preaches equality and human dignity, and chooses to let people live in squalor and shit, simply because it gives him a woody.
You are almost the greatest poet I've ever read. It's like you get god.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 4, 2009 10:06 PM
Sven @ 522,
Yeah, I wondered about that, would have been nice of the commenter to elaborate.
That creationists should be a little troubled by the existence of say ,wisdom teeth, I understand, not sure about this vagus thing !
Posted by: E.V. | August 4, 2009 10:48 PM
Sorry, Nigel the Bold, it seems Frank is clutching his pearls and threatening divine whoop-ass on some other street corner.
I really liked your post, but Frank would rather denounce sinners elsewhere, pro'ly because he realizes we see that his gleefully sadistic retribution fantasies make him spooge all over himself.
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 4, 2009 11:00 PM
Rorschach #571 wrote:
I assume the cryptic reference was to this:
"Humans speak using their larynx, which is controlled by the left recurrent laryngeal nerve. The distance from the bit of the brain involved in speech and the larynx is about 20 cm, and yet the left recurrent laryngeal nerve is over 1 meter long ¬ it goes down from the brain towards your heart, loops around your aorta and then travels up your windpipe to the larynx! There is no conceivable advantage in doing things this way ¬ indeed, it means that a blow to your chest can damage your nerve and prevent you from speaking. According to the theory of macroevolution, the explanation lies deep in our evolutionary past: the larynx evolved from a gill arch in our fishy ancestors, which received blood from an artery and was innervated by a branch of the vagus nerve which went around it. Over hundreds of millions of years, as the gill arch was transformed into a larynx, the artery moved down into the heart and was turned into a ligament, taking the nerve branch with it, and producing the (apparent) "bad design" that we see today."
Posted by: Rorschach | August 4, 2009 11:08 PM
Thanks Sastra...!
The whole of human anatomy and development should of course be one big poke in the eye for the creationists and their funny theory, but as we know they won't let reality interfere with their delusions.
Posted by: Dr. P | August 5, 2009 12:31 AM
@ 531
What is it with you people that always reverts back to violent allegory and images of blood flowing whenever intellect fails to suffice in a debate? Seriously some therapy is in order if this is the best response you can summon.Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 5, 2009 12:31 AM
Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 4, 2009 6:05 PM
That was eloquent.
*tears*
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 5, 2009 1:19 AM
To me, it's one of those telling moments that reveal the true reason one believes. They unintentionally reveal the emotional connection they have to a particular belief, and that only puts them into an incredibly vulnerable spot.Posted by: DingoJack | August 5, 2009 2:49 AM
For those of you who can't, won't or couldn't give enough of a fuck to look it up:
Yep, Christists sure hate Darwin, Lamarck on the other hand... DJ
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | August 5, 2009 4:35 AM
Nigel the Bold at 970
I always thought god would want to fuck you
upin front ofhisyour girlfriend, just to show off. He is a vindictive little prick after all.Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 5, 2009 5:43 AM
Hey ! Who put poor old Ray Comfort on this brachiosaur's head ? He looks pretty bad there ! Look out ! He's going to fall down and crack his skull !
Oh...
Too late...
Posted by: Josh
|
August 5, 2009 6:17 AM
Apparently not really. The two farmer-types in that illustration seem to be going out of their way to not pay attention to that friendly neighborhood theropod.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 5, 2009 7:48 AM
Gosh, if those happy go lucky all vegan dinosaurs had eaten from the tree of knowledge or tree of life...the story would have had a different ending.
Posted by: Joe | August 5, 2009 9:58 AM
Would someone take time out of Christian bashing and address #519? I would genuinely like this to be explained.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 5, 2009 10:08 AM
Joe, what do you want explained? I see nothing in #519 that needs to be explained, other than Ken Ham doesn't post here.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
August 5, 2009 10:12 AM
Joe,
The "cave painting" doesn't look at all like a cave painting. It looks like stains on the wall, just like the surrounding stains on the wall that don't look like anything but stains on the wall. It's the "Jesus in a piece of toast" experience. I don't even see the "dinosaur," and I can barely make out a mammoth, which doesn't look much like a mammoth at all, even a stone-age cave painting mammoth.
As for the others: dragons have been a part of mythology for a very long time. They really don't look like dinosaurs to me. They look like variations on dragons.
Of course, I'm no expert, so my opinion is hardly worth the electrons through which it's transmitted.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 5, 2009 10:13 AM
Joe I can think of a number of explanations:
1) Homo Sapiens and Neandertals were not contemporaries of dinos.
2) Homonids didn't see the dinos as food.
3) Morris and Ham are perpetuating and creating a myth to maintain their beliefs contrary to the evidence that disproves their beliefs at many levels.
I'm surprised Ham and his pals haven't used the central american clay dinosaur hoax to give credence to their "human-dino" parascience.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
August 5, 2009 10:21 AM
Thanks, E.V. That's really all I was going for, a little bit of catharsis, and perhaps some amusement. I figured FRANK would bug out. It seemed to be a post-and-run operation, and folks like that never have the cajones to stick around, poe or not.
Posted by: Josh | August 5, 2009 10:42 AM
Well, some of them are irrelevant (unless you really think that an illustration of a firebreathing dragon actually supports the idea that humans and dinosaurs coexisted), some are pretty bad/obvious fakes (in particular, the one down the page a ways that mimicks a very outdated painting of a hadrosaur with an anatomically impossible posture), some are known fakes, and some I wasn't previously aware of.
Given that we have literally hundreds of thousands of individual dinosaur fossils that have been found in a package of sediment several kilometers thick by thousands of people over hundreds of years, and we have never, not once, found a single human bone or trace in those same sediments, it is rather more likely that any given human artifact that depicts a dinosaur is a fake than it is that they represent actual evidence of coexistence. There are lots and lots of animals depicted in various human artifacts. Creationist illustrations aside, those which aren't imaginary animals tend to also have BONES in and amonst human remains. Given that the Dinosauria is one of the more diverse clades of terrestrial vertebrates known (boasting hundreds of valid named genera) and given that these critters were often not the smallest animals in their respective habitats, the absolute lack of their remains with humans, combined with how ridiculously common dinosaur fossils are, presents a problem for creationists that simply cannot be waved away by a couple of strange cave paintings.
That said, it would take some time to chase down all of those illustrations and determine their authenticity. Seems like a good book project.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 5, 2009 2:19 PM
Well, then let's waste some time on it. Right in the first sentence:
Bullshit. That's less convincing than the Face on Mars (which has turned out to be a consequence of poor resolution, too strong contrast, and the angle at which the photo was taken). Look, if there's a mammoth in a cave painting, you can recognize it as such. Those peoplea actually could draw.
Besides, what the fuck would that kind of dinosaur be doing in the same climate as a mammoth? And why aren't there any bones? (Remember, where there's one individual, there has to be a breeding population.) Morons.
"Fire-breathing" or "dinosaur"? Morons.
It's an obvious fake, because it depicts a specifically Western European medieval dragon.
Didn't they have any imagination?
Of course they did. Just read their epics.
The images? A sauropod? Morons.
Really, that's all I can say. Every single proportion is dead wrong, the tail is specifically mammalian, the feet is specifically mammalian, and the tongue is specific for snakes, monitor lizards, and a few other squamates. This dragon is an obvious mythical composite.
Besides, citing Shuker's most embarrassing mistake for this is quote-mining: Shuker is not a creationist.
What have these people been smoking, and can I get it legally in the Netherlands?
(Besides, how would a Corythosaurus get from western North America to Sumatra, and where would it hide for over 70 million years?)
The head of this one is in fact striking. It appears that the artist had seen a skull of Protoceratops. Such bones weather out of the desert in Mongolia; not only are they very common, they're also very easy to see (the bones are white and the rock is red).
This must be where the European griffin comes from, too. Adrienne Mayor has written a book about this and other such phenomena.
Note that nobody (at least in antiquity) ever claimed to have seen a live griffin. They've been dead for almost 70 million years.
<headdesk> Beaks evolved several times independently in dinosaurs. In fact, several times within birds alone, even though all surviving birds are the descendants of a single beaked ancestor. But I digress.
Well, oviraptorosaurs had feathers instead.
The statuette has a mammalian tail, showing that the artist had probably not even seen the skeleton... and obviously not the living animal!
Except that there are no three-toed sauropods. Next!
(Never mind the very nondescript head, and the general elongate shape of Chinese dragons... all of which have bird feet...)
That one is interesting, but it's got 4 instead of 3 toes per foot, the forelimbs are completely missing, mammalian ears were added... I wonder if it was inspired by a skeleton. The ears are proof that the artist didn't see the living animal. In general, the head looks like an ordinary Chinese dragon's.
I guess to a creationist everything that's dead is a dinosaur. This one is not a dinosaur, morons. It's the Miocene giraffe Samotherium. Also, it's not a head; it's a weathered skull. (Look how the tip of the upper jaw is missing – that's characteristic for early weathering of ruminant skulls.)
No, they saw them weathering out of cliffs. Morons.
I wonder if it could be a king of herrings. Especially because of the goofy spine on the head, which isn't known from any mosasaur. While the snout doesn't fit a king of herrings, it's not pointed enough for a mosasaur either... same for the tail fin...
And anyway, why aren't there still mosasaurs throughout the warm seas? They had live birth, so whatever happens to beaches wouldn't concern them... If there were mosasaurs in 530 BC, why do whales exist?!?
Obvious modern fakes, because they're so unrealistic. They fit artistic reconstructions of stegosaurs from up to the 1980s very well.
Bullshit. He gave them mammalian tails. Besides, the heads are way, way too big, and the necks way too mobile, and so on...
The modern artist at least tried to fit the skeleton inside his painting. Still, however, he didn't notice the attachment sites for the humongous caudifemoralis muscle, which is entirely absent from his reconstruction, so the tail is way too thin at the base... It's also much too short.
Obvious crocodile. Armor and all. Morons.
Besides, plesiosaurs are a type of sauropterygian, not the other way around.
As is obvious from the depictions, the winged serpent is just that: a snake combined with bird wings. A mythical chimera. No such animal ever existed in reality. Morons.
Yeah, whatever. Look like the abovementioned ones, only less detailed.
Same again. Look very mammalian this time.
Because that's what it looks like. Especially the one "cut out for clarity". Morons.
Translation: in order to be able to believe that this thing might be a sauropod, you first have to be a creationist.
Do I really need to comment on that one?
Yeah, except Tanystropheus had a much stiffer neck than shown in both illustrations. And the Roman version has mammalian ears, morons.
Doesn't remotely look like one. Morons.
Because that's what it is. Do you know what sorts of mythical animals were supposed to live in India according to Ancient Greek authors?
Wrong! No such animals ever existed! Next!
Nope. It's obviously a modern fake, because it looks like 1910s-to-1980s reconstructions of sauropods... and not like the living animals. Well, the head is way too big even for those outdated reconstructions.
Well, actually, maybe it's not a fake. Maybe it's a snake – next to white spots that look like legs if you're familiar with 1910s-to-1980s reconstructions of sauropods.
Creationists citing people who didn't know what they're talking about! Who'd'a' thunk! Morons.
Besides, that "one evolutionist" turn out to be two people in the next sentence. Morons.
Looks like a modern fake.
That? A pterosaur? What have they smoked, and...
My money is on "heavily stylized, outright ornamental, mythical bird".
Oh, fuck. That far-right picture is the worst 1960s artist's impression of a hadrosaur ever. It has practically nothing to do with the living animal, which wasn't even able to put its body anywhere near a vertical position, and those two curves in the tail would have required fucking breaking it (something that was, seriously, overlooked till around 1980). Morons.
Besides, "carved" is not part of the definition of "petroglyph".
Yep, that one's convincing (unless you look at the head shape too closely). Probably based on a skeleton that weathered out – lots of plesiosaurs have been found in Queensland.
Bullshit. Lots and lots of Aboriginal Australian art is in "X-ray style". That's why the vertebral column is depicted, too. Ignorant creationists.
Rorschach tests, both of them.
Yeah, right. No idea about pterosaurs. Morons.
ROTFL!
It's just a straight line, morons.
Double what? Have those people ever seen a Scaphognathus skeleton?
And don't they even know that Scaphognathus was way too small to attack a gazelle? Morons.
Those are clearly supposed to be feathers, morons.
Singular!?! Morons. Also, that's a feature of folded wings, not of extended ones, morons.
Can't see them on their photo. What might be present in it is the alula, the thumb winglet, a feature unique to birds and Microraptor.
Which is pretty much a stick figure itself.
Parrots? In Asia? Really?
Actually, it looks like a rhino. Humongous head shaped like that of a (...wait for it...) rhino, way too short neck (if any at all), far too long forelimbs, much too small tail... the "plates" are an ornamental feature found all over the very same photo, morons.
Fucking morons. Pterosaurs weren't remotely shaped like snakes, and they were covered in something very similar to fur.
Then why do they look like birds? Ordinary birds with long tail feathers, like magpies for example. Morons.
That sounds "suspiciously like" a pterosaur? Ridiculous.
It sounds more like Luther's vivid imagination to me.
Except that in Scaphognathus the fifth toe is offset from the rest. There is no pterosaur in which the first toe was offset. Add to this the already mentioned ignorant idea that anyone would confuse a pterosaur with a "serpent". Morons.
It's much too accurate to have been faked by an ignorant creationist. Typical creationists: they honestly believe that nobody on the planet knows more than they do. Morons.
This is not quite correct, there were bears there just a million years or two ago. But a rock painting of a bear is evidence of fabrication... if it really does show a bear:
Oh, morons. Those are extremely simplistic sketches.
Still, they obviously don't show sauropods. Not even the most strikingly short-necked sauropods have necks anywhere near this short... let alone heads anywhere near this big! Morons. Those pictures could show pretty much anything... probably lizards.
I can't see any.
No, honestly. I can't see any.
The one on the right is clearly a mythical animal, and the left one is at minimum a mammal.
Erm... no.
If you don't look too closely.
I suspect a stylized depiction of a mythical turtle, which could itself be based on fossils (there were such large tortoises).
Yeah, right.
And doesn't let anyone have a look at it, right? Because it's an obvious fake, as are all those crosses, right? Right?
Looks like a combination of a bison and perhaps a porcupine. It's not remotely similar to any known dinosaur.
Hint: there were no "plated and horned" dinosaurs.
Can be traced straight back to a Charles R. Knight painting. Google for "Agathaumas" or something. Morons.
Besides, what would this North American animal do in South America?
Don't look like anything I can think of. Anyway not like a dinosaur. I guess "mythical dragon".
Come on. These are so stylized... mythical dragons, obviously.
"Much like"? No, triangular as opposed to quill-shaped. Morons.
Well... no. Except maybe if you wouldn't know a dinosaur if it bit you in the proverbial ass.
Nope. They look like lifted from 1960s paintings, except thinner (more snake-shaped, less dinosaur-shaped). Really, I can't imagine how to fit a sauropod pelvis into any of these models. Clumsy fakes.
Let me guess: at the same location, but a meter deeper in the loam?
Are you nuts, morons? Iguanodon was first described in 1825, and 31 complete skeletons were described in 1878 to 1881. That's not nineteen, that's eighteen.
I guess cretinists are not merely entitled to their own opinions –
Oooh, I see: the cretinists have copied from a source that had a typo – "9" instead of "8".
How predictable. <sigh>
Nests and babies of Iguanodon have never been found. Just saying.
Fucking ridiculously huge head, absolutely laughable tail, risible hindlegs, wrong forelegs... carry on...
Something is fishy here.
The description of the mokele mbêmbe sounds more like a rhino, actually...
Face on Mars. Morons.
I can't see wings... and pterosaurs had fur. Morons.
Mythical dragon. Next!
No dinosaur is known to have had snake-style overlapping scales. Those are a snake feature, and snakes are an important ingredient in any dragon.
Besides, Plateosaurus was unable to walk on all fours. I repeat: unable. It wasn't able to put its palms on the ground (try it without pulling bones out of their joints or breaking them! Have fun!), and even if it had been able to do that, it would have had to crouch like silly for it.
Really, let dragons be dragons. They could be inspired by dinosaur bones (the one of Klagenfurt, Austria, is inspired by the skull of a woolly rhino instead), but they're not drawn after any animal any artist has ever seen alive. To claim otherwise is just silly.
The wings, maybe. The rest, obviously not.
Just ridiculous.
Fucking rays are more similar to pterosaurs than this dragon is. Morons.
Pretty pathetic modern fake.
Not even necessary. Evolution does not mean everything has to die out once something else evolves. That would be stupid.
What would be evidence against the theory of evolution would be humans in Mesozoic strata, not the reverse, yet the reverse is what the morons in question are positing.
What can I say?
These morons start out with a conclusion and then try to find evidence to support it. That's backwards. Science works the other way around: you take an idea and look for evidence that disproves it.
Why do people laugh at creationists?
Only creationists don't understand why!
(...And I wasted about two hours.)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 5, 2009 2:22 PM
Oops. Somehow, the <br> tag got broken.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 5, 2009 2:25 PM
THANK YOU David Marjanović!!!
I submitted a post with all of 3 links before yours and it went into moderation. Much to my surprise there was no comprehensive debunking of dinosaur rock art, just fragments here and there. I'll be saving your comment for later usage.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 5, 2009 2:33 PM
Thank you, David Marjanović.
Joe, I think we are free to mock the christians again. Or do you have an other objection.
Oh, what do I care; I think that young earthers like you are pretty damned funny. As long as people like you are not teaching children.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 5, 2009 2:39 PM
I have to give David Marjanović, OM, a standing ovation for his brilliant takedown of a stupid creobot. May his tentacle cluster collection keep expanding.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 5, 2009 2:52 PM
Thanks David Marjanović, OM. I've been to a number of the National Parks in the Southwest, for all I know I have photographed some of these "dinos" without knowing. I don't know if I would have spent 2 plus hours compiling the list.
Posted by: Josh | August 5, 2009 3:02 PM
Thanks, David. I was hoping you were going to jump in and make a comment; I couldn't devote any real time on it today--and it deserved a thorough spanking. Well done.
Posted by: Joe | August 5, 2009 3:21 PM
Thanks David,
I certainly did not expect two hours of work, but I appretiate the time.
Posted by: E.V. | August 5, 2009 3:30 PM
And David M. distinguishes himself again! (We feel your pain)
Posted by: Josh | August 5, 2009 3:36 PM
David has a very small, minor, tiny you might say, case of SIWOTI*.
He can quit Pharyngula commenting any time he wants.
No, really.
*I suspect the actual situation is that he is so damn sick of his dissertation at this point that he looks for any distraction. Been there--it sucks.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 5, 2009 3:51 PM
I've been presuming David was off doing fieldwork. Dissertation indigestion has been known to happen. A cold beer or two helps to settle the stomach.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | August 5, 2009 11:11 PM
Anri #515
Nor do we have proof the planets orbit the sun. Or of the structure of the atom. Or that galaxies are made up of stars. Massively overwhelming evidence, yes, but not proof.
Of course, they start getting picky about what constitutes "proof" only when it comes to the ToE, mostly because they don't really understand that many other sciences also rely on "derived proofs", rather than "put it under a microscope" evidence.
Posted by: Chris P | August 6, 2009 12:21 AM
I spent several hours going through Tom's site which is as you have noted full of homophobic right wing craziness. But then in a recent post he said this:-
"I'm ALWAYS going to believe Creationists, ALWAYS."
That about summed it up for me. Blind and not wanting to see.
It was fun while it lasted but he just repeats the same old stuff. Wants women to die rather than have a needed abortion yada yada yada.
He's from the South which doesn't help.
Posted by: Shadowjack | August 6, 2009 4:18 AM
For anyone interested in the ol' vagus nerve, as evidence of evolution the TV series Inside Natures Giants has a nice example of the tortuous path of the nerve that demonstrates that we're descended from fishy ancestors.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/inside-natures-giants/episode-guide/series-1/episode-4
For a short explanation see Larry Moran's terse article on his blog.
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/07/evolution-and-lack-of-design.html
shitshovellerforjebus777 is probably Winston wackaloon woo woo Wu. Who styles himself a "master debunker of skeptics" but he is really just a mastur-bator.
;)
Posted by: Simon | August 6, 2009 4:25 AM
I might be missing a point here, but aside from the lies & confusion being sown in young undiscriminating minds by blind faith over reason & science, aren't these loonies undermining the ability of the US & any advanced society to evolve & protect itself?
Otherwise we stand the risk of being overtaken by hordes of 'atheist, communist chinese' or any other backward primitive sociset that can breed fanatics who will blindly die for a false belief.
Not a racist, just evaluating the current geo-political situation post Cold War.
1.2bn Chinese + nuclear weapons
1+ bn Indians + nuclear weapons
200 mill Indonesians, no nukes but Muslim
Not counting everybody else out there looking at the green grass on "our" side of the fence with jealous eyes!
Posted by: Kristin Estes | August 6, 2009 12:37 PM
I just want to clear up for all of you that have blown this thing way out of proportion, you need to get the facts straight! It's obvious Tom disagrees with everyone on here, but as far as this thing between him and Jen, this is ridiculous.
Posts have been made on everyone's blog in this arena about each other and/or their beliefs. That's fine and this sometimes leads to them commenting on each other's blogs, which is fine too. Jen engaged in civil debate on Tom's blog, fact. Tom had made a comment on his post about being there at the Creation Museum also and specifically mentioned meeting PZ and Jen because these are two bloggers that have written about him. And because Jen was able to have civil debate with him, he thought he'd be kind enough to tell her on twitter that he was sincerely interested in being able to meet her and say Hello. That's it, end of story, Jen I'm sure would concur. This is all a group setting, nothing weird about it. As much as he may disagree, I'm sure he could go on a tangent about how crazy people may be there and he had reason to feel threatened too, but he hasn't. He has left the character accusations to people on here.(not all) Jen has the right as a young woman to be leary of strangers and be careful, I just disagree with her on her paranoia in this situation. No one ever mentioned being alone, or has even come close to internet stalking. They may be angryc with each other now, but that's it, conversation has been equal on both sides. END OF STORY!
And the word sueing was never used, someone else accused Tom of copyright violation, which he didn't feel he was guilty of, but took down part of the comic just to be nice, and he just said fine, but if she does that I'll get her on character defamation. He takes it very seriously when someone puts you in the LIGHT of coming across as a stalker and most people would when all intentions were COMPLETELY innocent. Of course he has no interest now in meeting someone who has shared these types of feelings to others after partaking in civil conversation on his site which is what he thought was being hyprocritical.
And just so everyone knows, u try getting hundreds of hateful, malicious things said about u for a day and see how it feels. Just because u disagree with someone and have ur own opinion does not merit such behaviour.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 6, 2009 12:43 PM
Have you even read what your husband says on his blog every day?
Thanks for coming by to display your hypocritical nature.
typical
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 6, 2009 1:02 PM
The lady doth protest too much.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 6, 2009 2:23 PM
Me? Sick of my dissertation? I can understand that rocks alone can get boring after some time, but me, I have an interesting topic. :-Þ Plus, it's only the 2nd year. (French theses are limited to 3 years.)
I was procrastinating because I was supposed to do bureaucracy. Have now done... most of it. Should have done it a week ago, or maybe two. <sigh>
Posted by: Josh | August 6, 2009 2:47 PM
Humpf!
*folds arms smugly*
My dissertation wasn't just rocks.
*tongue*
But fuck, I did get tired of that son-of-a-bitch.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 6, 2009 2:54 PM
Definitely, the 12-14 hours per day of living with that document is tiresome after the first month.Posted by: Josh | August 6, 2009 3:13 PM
It doesn't seem to matter how early in the project you try to get a head start on the writing, either. The last year is still going to suck.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 6, 2009 3:20 PM
David @589
Long comment is looooong!
Absolutely love it. Gotta laugh when Creationists bring in the obvious hoaxes like the Ica Stones.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 6, 2009 3:33 PM
What David says:
What creationists will likely hear:
...Blah blah blah. Blah blah, morons. Blah, blah blah; blah blah. (Blah blah - blah blah blah.)...
Their typical response:
No one can respond rationally to the scientific evidence that has been presented! All you people do is toss around ad hominems! I can't believe you guys think this is a science blog!
***
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com
Posted by: Chris P | August 6, 2009 3:41 PM
Whoa - Pastor Tom's blog has disappeared. God didit.
His wife probably got fed up with him staying up late.
Chris P
Posted by: Kelseigh | August 6, 2009 8:35 PM
Looks like Honest Tom Estes has started IP-blocking his detractors, model of intellectual honesty and courage that he is. It sure got quiet fast over there, even if he's not very good at it.
Posted by: D | August 6, 2009 8:43 PM
Oh, man, I want to go to the "museum" so bad! How bad do I want to go? So bad. Alas, I have other more pressing commitments that day.
But not by much.
Wow, Raven, you sure know how to back yourself into a corner, don't you? Have you even heard of the principle of charity? Or did you take "don't talk to strangers" as a categorical imperative and stop making friends? OK, enough joking, I have a serious question for you: what if Tom Estes is in fact simply excited to meet people who he's only been able to argue with over the internet so far (and if so, how would you know it)? I mean, I sure would be! And then what would you be doing? Having an internet friend go through a whole bunch of angst over a whole lof of nothing, that's what. Better safe than sorry? Well, not always - you forget that danger equals fun, and whoever has the most fun wins. If you'd seen 10% of what I've seen, you'd know that. :)
Yes, in point of fact, Tom might be a dangerous lunatic. He might be. So might anyone. Anyone, at any time, might be carrying a gun and plan on shooting you with it. And there's nothing you can do about that. There is no such thing as one-hundred percent safe. The End.
OK, so where do we go from there? Well, your first comments about documenting stuff and having a plan and staying in public were good advice. These limit the biggest and stupidest sources of risk. But after that, you just kinda got crazy. Sure, there are some crazy fucks out there who look perfectly normal to all appearances. This is not a reason to suspect ALL people who look perfectly normal to all appearances. Jennifurret's experience as president of an organization that pisses off idiots is probably better preparation for this than any amount of forum fearmongering could ever be. She's already as prepared as is reasonable - any more would be, as she put it, paranoid. And that's crazy.
There is no such thing as completely eliminating risk. All you can do is swing the odds in your favor and hope that you don't get unlucky. Everyone is going to die, and a lot of people will die at the hands of other people. That sucks - I'm not being sarcastic here, it well and truly sucks. Are you going to let that get in the way of having a good time? If you do, then "teh terrists haz alreddy winned."
If this guy shows himself to be a danger, then sure, treat him like a danger. But until or unless someone's safety is actually threatened (not just potentially threatened), then any precautions you could take will only amount to so much hand-wringing. And who knows? Maybe all your preoccupation with Tom is just falling into their trap so you won't notice Bill in the van with the AK who's going to "show all them thar atheists" by gunning them down in the lot.
I seriously hope that that doesn't happen, and I will feel fucking awful if it does. My point is that shit can go wrong at any time, and it can come from directions you can't expect or prepare for. And if someone really wants to get you... well, depending on how resourceful they are, they probably will. There are some simple precautions one can take to avoid earning a Darwin Award, but if you get too far beyond that, you're seriously eating into your fun quotient by worrying too much. And that'll kill ya. (Are you going to worry about worrying too much now?)
Oh, and I'm seven-hundred years old and have a PhD in everything, so you should trust what I say. I've also been a victim of every kind of crime, twice. Including murder and suicide. Man, being an internet authority is fun!
Posted by: Sastra | August 6, 2009 9:02 PM
Kristin Estes #604 wrote:
Kristin, I think most of the people who have followed the situation already know that it's a tempest in a teapot. Neither Tom nor Jennifurret seemed to be involved in anything, or advocating anything, which should cause any concern to anyone.
Relax. And tell Tom to relax, too. I'm hoping that everything will be smiles and good feelings at the museum tomorrow. That's really the likeliest scenario.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 6, 2009 9:10 PM
K Estes @ 604,
Huh?
You meant the creationists at the museum, of course, right?
And I guess Tom can easily demonstrate his non-sleazy non-stalking nature by staying away from Jen tomorrow.
Posted by: Kristin Estes | August 6, 2009 9:28 PM
To Sastra #616,
I didn't think I'd have the opportunity to say this, but thank you. I agree. All this nonsense has definately taken the excitement out of Tom going tomorrow, but he and some friends don't want to dissapoint anyone, and he would still like the opportunity to meet PZ. Which most people seem to be forgetting, there's a lot of people going that obviously are strangers to each other. Is there only merit for being leary if you strongly disagree with their beliefs. It's just strange to me.
Obviously Tom & Jen are mad at each other, but like you said its just a tempest in a teapot. The situation with her post AFTER she engaged in civil discussion with Tom was surprising and having someone put you in that light made both of us upset. It really is to the point where I have to stop reading comments or I'll get too upset. Some people have just gone too far in claiming that Tom is a deranged lunatic and clearly has it out for Jen. That is bogus! Just because you're a Christian does not mean you're not allowed to express your anger with someone.
And for the record, Tom is expecting an educated person like PZ to act civil & respectful, and therefore is still planning on introducing himself.
Posted by: Kristin Estes | August 6, 2009 9:43 PM
To Rorschach #617
Either you haven't read the crazy, malicious things people have been saying about my husband, or maybe you have a warped sense of morals and think they're ok. Either way, as he has said on Jen's blog, he has absolutely no desire to see or speak to Jen tomorrow. So she has nothing to worry about.
And I guess if you think writing about each other on your blogs and saying you'd like to meet them when they'll both be at the creation museum along with lots of other people comes accross as sleazy stalker, then I am leaning towards the warped sense of morals. Hopefully you just got the story wrong like so many others have.
Posted by: Ken Coper | August 6, 2009 9:54 PM
And for the record, Tom is expecting an educated person like PZ to act civil & respectful, and therefore is still planning on introducing himself.
There is nothing about Tom's smug ignorance, nor his attitude toward educated persons, nor Tom's behavior and belligerent derision toward people trying to clue him in, but most especially, his stubborn childish belief that he can reject anything anybody with a third-grade-plus education might tell him about what science has learned since bronze age goatfuckers at campfires passed around plagiarized stories, that is worthy of respect.
Civility is easy, it's practically an instinct among pack animals in person, and PZ would set anybody at ease. Your husband, the itinerant Pastor, knows jack shit about respect, so I'm not about to listen to anybody tell us that such a science-rejecting ignoramus deserves "respect." He deserves respect as a human being, but treating him as if he is potentially capable of being liberated from the lies he believes and promulgates, despite all evidence to the contrary, is the highest form of respect we can give him, although if he had any T.Estes, he wouldn't make his spouse post on his behalf. Paster Tom should grow some gonads. Make him pass the next child.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 6, 2009 9:59 PM
Some people have just gone too far in claiming that Tom is a deranged lunatic and clearly has it out for Jen
deranged?
yes, if his blog is actually reflective of who he is. You have actually read it, right?
stalker?
likely not, but frankly I rather think most of the stalker talk was a running pun on the many internet stalker types that have appeared in the news over the years.
That you feel a need to defend him aside from him defending himself has me concerned, though.
I rather think Tom should give up blogging if it's that emotionally involving for BOTH of you.
Blogs are subject to hugely variable audiences in quality and quantity. He, or yourself, or both, better swap out for a thicker skin if he plans to continue.
Posted by: Sastra | August 6, 2009 10:08 PM
Kristen Estes #618 wrote:
I think there's a tendency for both sides of any dispute to exaggerate the 'danger' of the other side -- and that seems to get upped when it comes to religion, maybe because it deals directly with ideals like good and evil, and ultimate values.
Christians may fear that atheists will be without morals, strange beings with no sense of limitations or bizarre ideas on right and wrong. Believe it or not, atheists sometimes fear the same thing. On the one hand, we're likely to have had the benefit of living and knowing many Christians, and so they're not strangers to us. But being atheists in Christian "territory?" We've heard so many tortured justifications for the wonderful benefits of pain and suffering that sometimes it's a little hard not to wonder how far someone is going to take the idea that "all atheists need to believe in God is a little fear for their lives." And, of course, there's the fact that atheists are routinely at the very top of the poll list on "most hated group in America." Belief in God can get mixed up with patriotism, or value for life, or what have you. If you saw some of the hate mail the Freedom From Religion Foundation routinely prints in Freethought Today, your hair would -- well, not turn white, that's a myth -- but you'd be a little grim.
At any rate, I think tomorrow will go fine.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 6, 2009 10:18 PM
Wow. This whole thing is giving me flash-backs to 1997...
Not for any reason you'd recognize. It's just, that's the first time I saw this sort of thing happen. Everybody learns why they call it Teh Internets, and goes on about their way. Most of the time.
For those continuing to wig out on Mr. Estes:CTFD. To Mr. & Mrs. Estes: have no fear; ignore them. Yes, everyone will be civil. No, we have no reason to respect religious people; they are dishonest not just to others, but to themselves. But I'm hope everyone will have a fun time tomorrow, on both "sides". As long as nobody reminds the atheists you want to take their rights away from them because Jesus told you to.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 6, 2009 11:27 PM
I hate to disagree with David Marjanović, OM, but...
No... Adrienne Mayor relates that they did in fact dig them up as well -- not necessarily in the systematic way of modern palaeontologists, of course. Cliffs are not the only Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene strata in the Mediterranean, and farmers plowing their fields would sometimes dig up a kneecap, or tooth, or shoulder blade, or even the complete skeleton of the various megafauna of those eras. There were also more than a few bone beds, and there's the story of a fisherman who pulled a shoulder-blade out of the sea (OK, that one may have eroded out of a cliff first).
In antiquity, these bones were regarded as being those of heros or giants or monsters -- I repeat my speculation that they may very well have been the source of the stories about the "Sons of the God[s]", and of the Nephilim and other giants, mentioned in the Old Testament.
Let's see, what else ... Fossil tusks were dug up specifically to sell their ivory (although some were also kept as heroic relics -- obviously, peoples' ideas about them were not uniform), and the Emperor Augustus created the first museum to house a collection of fossils.
In China, any bones that were dug up out of the earth were called "dragon bones", even if the animal was obviously similar to a living species, such as deer (and note that some Chinese dragons are depicted with obvious antlers). The Chinese medicine market has included "dragon bones" -- fossils -- as ingredients for centuries, and some farmers would supplement their income with diggings for additional material.
These excavations were hardly professional palaeontological operations, but they were made, all over the world.
I note that Mayor's book is on books.google, and is searchable:
http://books.google.com/books?id=MXCQKJwLGS4C
And she has another one out more specifically about fossils of the Americas, and how they may well have contributed to legends of the first Americans -- I have not yet read this one in full yet, though.
http://books.google.com/books?id=CMsgQQkmFqQC
Posted by: aratina cage | August 6, 2009 11:39 PM
Thanks to you, too, Owlmirror. I think this thread now qualifies as a fairly thorough and illustrative resource for debunking the myth that our ancestors walked with dinosaurs. I especially enjoyed your conjecture that fossils may have served as a basis for talk of giants in the Bible as I hadn't seen you suggest that before.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 6, 2009 11:43 PM
It's good to see you've achieved enlightement and realised what it means to be gay, or an atheist, or a muslim, or any other minority. Do you think it appropriate to call people sinners? To threaten them with hell? Do you think it appropriate to criticise people for their lifestyle just bceause you don't happen to like it?I hope you're the centre of tolerance and you show that despite you disapproving of the lifestyle choices of others that you won't condemn them or their behaviour - because like you said - see what it's like to have malicious things constantly said about you and you'll know how it feels. I really hope your sincere in your protection of others, and that you apply this to even those you dislike. After all, just because you disagree with someone it doesn't merit that behaviour...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 6, 2009 11:47 PM
Kristen, ever stop to think that lots of people are saying the same thing about your husband that they just might be true? Your husband is mean, and gets treated the same in return. Your husband is a stupid man, so we treat him like a stupid man. Your husband shows no respect, so we give him none in return. Your husband shows no respect for learning, so we try to teach him anyway. Maybe the problem is your husband.Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 6, 2009 11:53 PM
Kel makes a good point.
The short of it is: Christians think atheists are going to hell because we don't think the same thing they do. They frequently threaten us with eternal hellfire.
And Kristin Estes is talking about the "crazy, malicious things" other people are saying?
Atheists deal with crazy and malicious on a daily basis.
Why did Tom come to this blog in the first place? It sure seemed like he wanted to poke and prod with his smug Christian attitude.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 7, 2009 12:21 AM
Exactly, this is the internet. It's a free and open environment where anyone and everyone has the opportunity to respond to you in semi-anonymity. If you are perceived as talking shit, people are going to call you out on talking shit. If it happens that you call profess young earth creationism, no-one with any scientific knowledge is going to respect you and attack it.Personally I've found this happens when one puts forward their beliefs, that the argument is never about the logical and empirical merits of a particular position but the emotional significance those beliefs have to you. So if you're going to argue on positions you have a significant emotional attachment to, then be prepared to be insulted. You either need to separate the argument from yourself (I try to do this, I try to be as impersonal as possible because I want to test the merits of what I'm arguing rather than my emotional attachment) or be thick-skinned enough to deal with it.
But there is good in this format. It forces you to be honest, about what you say and why you say it. And if you can survive the process, then there is the chance to learn about it. To me this process works if you go in with the desire to learn. I've learnt so much by participating in online arguments, in writing blogs, and investigating the world. It's forced me to be as honest as I can with what I believe and why, and I've grown as a person because of that.
You get the good with the bad. I've lost count of the number of people who have called me immoral, told me I'm going to hell, said they would pray for me, or despite being shown repeatedly that 2+2=4 that they want to say 2+2=whatever the bible says. It's frustrating, yes. But that's how it goes. I'd much rather put my arguments into an environment where I'll be lampooned for talking shit, because civility tends to make people hold back.
Posted by: Sanction | August 7, 2009 12:52 AM
@Kristin Estes:
There is a part of me that respects what you are attempting to do in this thread. After all, if my wife were accused of an action that I thought she did not do, my first instinct would be to defend her.
What you fail to understand is the context of your husband's interactions with those who regularly comment here. He has proclaimed that he will always be a creationist no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary. In that respect, your husband is irrational and, yes, stupid.
You have said nothing here (on this thread anyway; I'm a recent reader of PZ's blog) that would cause me to think that you believe in the same bullshit as your husband. My wife believes that there is some sort of higher power but is unable to offer any evidence or rationale for that belief. I don't respect that particular aspect of her.
I knew that going in and I married her anyway. She's a wonderful person notwithstanding that particular quirk. I hope that you can say the same about your relationship.
But if not, get your head out of your ass. Think for yourself. Not for anyone here. For you.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 7, 2009 1:27 AM
Exactly, it goes further too. I'm told repeatedly that I don't have morality because I don't have a god to get it from (ignoring the Euthyphro dilemma there), that my life has no meaning because one needs God for meaning, that I'm going to spend eternity in agony, that I hate God and want to live a life of sin, etc.If they want to believe that, good for them. But if you're going to preach that to me, I'm going to call it a load of nonsense, explain just why it is a load of nonsense, and if you are incredibly insistent call you an espouser of nonsense.
What bugs me the most is how proudly scientifically ignorant some of these people actually are. Yet they talk down to me like they know something about the universe while I do not because they read it in an old book? Then have the nerve to pull decades-old arguments out as if looking for a 'gotcha' moment where my scientific knowledge lacks as proof that the whole enterprise is invalid? Fuck that, there's not much more insulting and condescending than the scientifically illiterate pretending they have a greater insight into the world than anyone who has actually studied on the matter. You can't get much more arrogant and dishonest to think you know better than everyone else on matters where you don't have the slightest clue.
Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 7, 2009 10:19 AM
Kel, once again, very well said.
Posted by: Edmond | August 8, 2009 1:40 AM
I'm not going to pretend that I read ANY of those posts, I just came for the article. My favorite quote of the pastor's was "And not only that, he doesn't care what the scientic community's lemmings think of him." In other words, he reached his conclusions with all of the scientific body united against him.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 10, 2009 5:52 AM
I like trying this approach sometimes. After all...
Why do people laugh at creationists?
Only creationists don't understand!
Besides, I'm not a postmodernist. There is such a thing as a demented fuckwit. :-) Most of the claims on that website are outright moronic, so I feel obliged to say so.
Yes. I was -- not clearly enough -- referring to just that one painted vessel, which shows a Samotherium skull sticking out of a rock face.
Wow. I must have missed that part.
Posted by: jaypee | August 11, 2009 11:39 AM
The existence of atheists like you proves that the Bible is really true and God really exists. Psalms 53:1 states "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good." You are one the causes of the corruption of this world along with those who pretend to know God yet their works deny their claim - Titus 1:16 says- " They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."
For a more logical and more sensible proofs on how scientific the Bible is, give time to visit the recently-acclaimed most popular website in our country, esoriano.wordpress.com and see for yourself.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 11, 2009 11:47 AM
The existence of atheists like you proves that the Bible is really true and God really exists. jaypee
Are you really stupid enough to believe this?
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | August 11, 2009 12:10 PM
Funny. That must be a small country you live in...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 11, 2009 12:12 PM
Jaypee, start with the following presumptions:
God doesn't exist.
The bible is a work of fiction.
Now, show physical evidence to refute both presumptions without invoking circular reasoing. Starting with god. If he doesn't exist, the bible is perforce a book of fiction.
That is the only way you will impress us.
Posted by: Jesse D. | August 11, 2009 12:49 PM
If Creationists believe that the fossil record was planted by Satan, then do they believe that their cars are powered by evil?
Posted by: jaypee | August 11, 2009 11:37 PM
Bernard, well, your right, our country is just a small one, with a population of about 80 million, very small and poor as compared to your country. But nevertheless, I am proud that I am living in a country where 99.9% believe in God. Regarding the blog site, esoriano.wordpress.com, It doesn't really matter if it didn't reach the top 100,000 sites, after all, the content is more important. Besides, I am not amazed that u have more viewers than we do, because more people nowadays love evil more than good. And regarding one of Nerd's presumptions, prove me first that the Bible is a work of fiction and I will give you numerous physical evidences of science regarding its authenticity.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 11, 2009 11:46 PM
Liar, no country has that rate. And your god only exists as a delusion in your mind. Show us physical evidence otherwise. Popularity is irrelevant for existence. Only evidence matters.And, of course, you get things backwards. The proper way to do things is not presupposition, like you do for your imaginary deity and holy babble, which is always false, but rather presume the opposite, that both are fictions, then prove that wrong which hard physical evidence. And you have none for either proposition. Show me wrong. It will be a learning experience for you.
Posted by: Kiwi Polemicist | August 12, 2009 9:22 PM
I recently and fortuitously received a copy in the mail of the closest thing to a scientific publication ever authored by Ken Ham
You are being very economical with the truth. This is clearly a children's book.
Posted by: jaypee | August 13, 2009 5:23 AM
[Liar, no country has that rate - Nerd].
Before you have such accusation, better do a little research {http://www.nationmaster.com/country/rp-philippines/rel-religion), IDIOT!
Anyway, here are just some proofs of the Bible's Authenticity {I posted this for the sake of those who where mislead by your stupid ideology)
From: http://esoriano.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/beyond-an-iota-of-a-doubt/
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
The history of the very empire who put Jesus Christ to death testifies that in the reign of
Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea, under Ceasar Tiberius, Christ was nailed on the cross and
died.
Roman History (Annals 15:44)
The Roman historian Tacitus wrote concerning the Great Fire of Rome, in book 15, chapter 44 of his Annals (c. 116):
Sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia, quin iussum incendium crederetur. Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat;
The following is a translation of the above Latin text:
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius:
TANGIBLE AND PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
Before his death, Jesus Christ taught the unbelieving Pharisees upon presenting to Him a
Roman coin with the inscription of the picture of Ceasar to “give unto Ceasar the things
that are Ceasar’s and unto God the things that are God’s”. (Matthew 22:17-21)
“Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.
Octavian who became “Augustus” meaning “exalted” in 27 BC. took Egypt as his personal estate which was ruled by a prefect. The Republic was replaced by imperial rule. This was the Caesar under whom Jesus was born (Luke 2:1). Caesar Augustus brought an age of Peace called “Pax Romana” meaning “Roman Peace.” This was the golden age of literature and architecture. (left)
Jesus’ ministry takes place under Tiberius Caesar. When Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar” he was referring to Tiberius. Pilate is appointed and Jesus is crucified. (right)
A clay tablet dedicated by Pontius to his ‘boss’ Tiberius Ceasar affirms further the authenticity of the story regarding Christ death on the cross. Jesus Christ died and was buried by two well-known figures in the Jewish community — one of whom is a Pharisee, the group that is bitterly against Christ. (John 19:38-42)
“And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus. And there came also Nicodemus (a former Pharisee), which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulcher, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews’ preparation day; for the sepulcher was nigh at hand.”
His enemies even asked Pontius Pilate to guard the tomb to be sure that His corpse will not be stolen by His disciples. (Matthew 27:62-66)
“Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the
sepulcher be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulcher sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.”
Had there been anomaly regarding His body, and if His resurrection did not come true, there must be circumstantial evidences (bones, tomb, etc.) to prove that He did not resurrect. (I Corinthians 15:3-8)
“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.”
After His resurrection, He showed himself not to all, but to more than 500 people, with whom He stayed for another forty days before He ascended into heaven. The people that testify to His death and resurrection are more credible than the ‘incredible’ Dan Brown, and a host of his cohorts, who, if not ignorant, are blatant liars — among them are lawyers, tax collectors, fishermen of moral integrity, and many others. (Acts 1:1-3; 10:38-42)
“The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:”
“How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.”
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Money deposited and withdrawn from a bank existing under definite laws, have their paper-trail. The Christian faith started in the first century of our common era. There is a traceable historical trail that proves the authenticity of Christ’s death and resurrection. A declaration of the apostle Paul will spark doubts and frustration among the first-century Christian community if the resurrection did not really happen. (I Corinthians 15:14)
“And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.”
The fact that the Christians continued to embrace their faith even unto the start of the next century of our common era, circumstantially proves that the issue regarding the resurrection has been moot and academic.
The apostasy that happened later as predicted by the apostle Paul was not able to erase the truth among the knowledge of Christians and in the Bible. (II Timothy 4:3-4)
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”
There are fragments of the Gospel of John existing now, which dates back to as early as the year one hundred twenty AD, that tells us the story of the death of the only religious leader and founder who came back to life to prove that the religion He teaches is the Truth; and to prove further that there is a judgment day which all men will inevitably face! (Matthew 12:38-40)
“Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah: For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
(Acts 17:31)
KING JAMES VERSION
Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
(Hebrews 9:27)
KING JAMES VERSION
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
From all admissible evidences, a fair and honest court of law will admit all evidences hereby being offered by this representation.
I REST MY CASE.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | August 13, 2009 5:51 AM
So if you assume that the gospels are history, and ignore their contradictions, and if you assume that every time somebody else writes down what the early church claimed, that's an independent confirmation, then you can convince yourself of the proposition you started out believing.
This case isn't resting; it's dead.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 13, 2009 6:16 AM
jaypee,
Your own link shows you are dishonest. Here are the totals it gives from the 2001 census:
Roman Catholic 80.9%, Evangelical 2.8%, Iglesia ni Kristo 2.3%, Aglipayan 2%, other Christian 4.5%, Muslim 5%, other 1.8%, unspecified 0.6%, none 0.1%
So you are illegitimately assuming that the 1.8% "other" and 0.6% "unspecified" all believe in God, even though the same link says (inconsistently) that 3% of the population is Buddhist, a non-theistic religion.
Had there been anomaly regarding His body, and if His resurrection did not come true, there must be circumstantial evidences (bones, tomb, etc.) to prove that He did not resurrect.
Garbage. Grave robbery is quite possible. In any case, the gospel narratives date from at least a generation after Pilate's term - plenty of time for invention out of whole cloth. Tacitus wrote nearly a century later, and could not possibly have talked to any witnesses.
He showed himself not to all, but to more than 500 people, with whom He stayed for another forty days before He ascended into heaven.
Oh yeah? Show us the signed depositions by these 500. You can't, can you?
The rest of your cut-and-paste screed is similar rubbish. Grow up.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 13, 2009 6:58 AM
JayPee, I am still waiting for you to show physical evidence for your imaginary deity that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural, origin. I also recognize the babble as being a book of fables, and as such is not a bit of evidence for your deity, but rather some goatherders drank some bad cactus juice. If you are smart, you will fade into the bandwidth, otherwise we will expose your lies, as was done above, which is all delusional godbots like yourself have. If you had anything, you wouldn't post cut/paste nonsense like above.
Posted by: clay | September 12, 2009 1:09 PM
I don't see why you would care if they lied to little kids--little kids are just primordial soup