…and this is a 
By way of the endless thread, I have discovered this marvelous quote from Andy Schlafly.
There's a broader point here. Why the big push for black holes by liberals, and big protests against any objection to them? If it turned out empirically that promoting black holes tends to cause people to read the Bible less, would you still push this so much?
Forget that math and physics stuff; the universe is actually a giant propaganda piece for liberalism, and the only reason scientists huff and puff about what's actually out there is to get you to stop reading your Bibles.
Comments
Posted by: Jean-François | November 26, 2009 11:20 AM
Didn't you know that, PZ? I thought you were on the dark side of the conspiracy with me and the others.
Posted by: Andyo
|
November 26, 2009 11:21 AM
Funny. Hawking's book is what officially put me in the road to perdition and heresy. And he doesn't even talk about religion almost at all, only one mention of that dumbass the pope telling them pesky scientists to stop probing into the Big Bang.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 26, 2009 11:27 AM
Considering the meaning of "black holes" in Russian - one which causes their cosmologists much regret that Westerners did not consult them before publicizing the term - it may well be that "promoting" them causes some people to turn to thoughts - and actions! - which are not biblically-approved.
If that's not what Ms. Schlafly's wayward little boy had in mind, I eagerly await his explanation of the "empirical" mechanism he had in mind (that last word being used rather loosely in his context, of course).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 26, 2009 11:28 AM
There isn't a big enough *facepalm* to give a proper response to AS. He seems to have a problem with reality.
Posted by: teammarty | November 26, 2009 11:30 AM
And all this time I thought it was just serendipity.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 26, 2009 11:31 AM
But Andy, you said the Bible was filled with liberal bias? If promoting black holes does cause people to read their Bible less shouldn't you be happy?
Posted by: Chester Burton Brown | November 26, 2009 11:32 AM
Funny. I just read a study that showed that Republicans tend to view black holes as blacker than Liberal voters do, which is probably linked to the traditionally right-wing discomfort with Hawking radiation.
Yours tongue in cheek,
CBB
Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 26, 2009 11:41 AM
Depends. Would this be the conservapedia bible? If so, Andy is already supporting a black hole of hubris and stupidity.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 26, 2009 11:43 AM
Andrew Schlafly: descending into insanity, 0.1 Tc per month.
Posted by: Xenithrys | November 26, 2009 11:47 AM
I don't think it's possible to push something that pulls as strongly as a black hole. Objecting to them's pretty pointless too.
But Andy: maybe God's in a black hole: that would explain the absence of evidence – it just can't get out. Also why a lot of folks got sucked in.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 26, 2009 11:51 AM
By what means has Andy Schlafly determined that all of the people who are promoting the idea of black holes are liberals?
Posted by: Peter Mc | November 26, 2009 11:51 AM
Mr Schlafly. Sometimes it's better to have people wonder if you're a complete arse than write something and confirm it for them.
Posted by: WMDKitty | November 26, 2009 11:53 AM
*snrk*
*giggle*
*uncontrolled laughter*
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 26, 2009 11:54 AM
Schlafly not only doesn't accept the theory of evolution, he doesn't accept the theory of gravity.
Posted by: Nomen Publicus | November 26, 2009 11:57 AM
Well, I believe in quantum mechanics purely because in makes the baby jesus cry.
These people are not just deluded fools, they are a danger to themselves and to society.
Posted by: 386sx | November 26, 2009 12:02 PM
By what means has Andy Schlafly determined that all of the people who are promoting the idea of black holes are liberals?
"Like most college majors, physics students repeat what they're taught. If they received good grades, then it becomes even harder for them to question it. But keep in mind that the people doing the teaching are the most liberal group in the world, and they almost never encourage the student to open his mind and think critically for himself.--Andy Schlafly 23:23, 12 November 2009 (EST)"
That oughtta give you some idea. Here's the whole thread on their 'servapedia:
Talk:Black_hole#Falsifiability
Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 26, 2009 12:03 PM
Haven't we been saying for a while now that reality has a liberal bias?
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 26, 2009 12:05 PM
Perhaps Schlafly just can't accept that the whole galaxy revolves around something which isn't as white as he is.
Posted by: Greg Fish | November 26, 2009 12:06 PM
People like Schlafy scare me. They want to live in their own personal fantasy so much, they basically abandon their wits and dive headfirst into total lunacy.
It's one thing to disagree on tax policies or how kids should be taught at schools. It's utter nonsense to demand that we start disemboweling knowledge we spent centuries accumulating because some airheaded Luddite feels his fantasy world is being infringed on with the facts and goes so overboard with his defense mechanism, he doesn't realize that he's basically a parody of himself at some point...
Posted by: Eamon Knight | November 26, 2009 12:10 PM
Is there an entry in the DSM for a specific variety of paranoia in which the sufferer has an obsessive phobia about a *particular* imaginary threat? Such that every thing they don't like is automatically, somehow, attributed to the object of the phobia? If so, Andy Schafly has that condition, and his phobic object is "liberalism".
Posted by: moderndaythomas | November 26, 2009 12:11 PM
It's a curious feature to religion and an even broader point to that statement entirely missed by our Tory minded friend.
The lunacy in suggesting that science exercise discretion, simply for the preservation of one's faith, and in place of scientific fact a whole body of people be kept in the dark, has been lost on this individual.
Posted by: Rick R | November 26, 2009 12:12 PM
Janine- "By what means has Andy Schlafly determined that all of the people who are promoting the idea of black holes are liberals?"
It's the same event horizon of stupidity married to gargantuan arrogance and hubris that allows conservatives to proclaim two types of people in the world- christians and liberals.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 26, 2009 12:14 PM
Talk:Theory_of_relativity/Archive_2
*snort*
Posted by: sterculus
|
November 26, 2009 12:14 PM
Maybe Andy Schlafly should look up 'Quasar' in, say, wikipedia.
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 26, 2009 12:14 PM
Like much of what Schlafly writes, this reeks of projection. He believes that "liberal" scientists make shit up to further a hidden political agenda because that's what he'd do, in their position. A dishonest man believes that everyone is dishonest.
Posted by: jolly | November 26, 2009 12:15 PM
Well, now we now what dark matter is composed of, huge billboards with liberal messages but the lights are off, so we can't see them.
Posted by: Rick R | November 26, 2009 12:18 PM
To add to my #22- "Liberals" defined as atheists, gays, commie socialists, Europeans, non-whites and Muslims.
By way of the holy trinity of Goebbels, Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh.
Posted by: DemetriusOfPharos | November 26, 2009 12:22 PM
Like Stephen Colbert said: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
Posted by: JimboK | November 26, 2009 12:25 PM
“The Way to see by Faith, is to shut the Eye of Reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your candle.”
Benjamin Franklin - Poor Richard's Improved Almanack, 1757.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 26, 2009 12:27 PM
It is bad to blindly repeat what one has been taught (Which is funny seeing that in the sciences, one is expected to add to the pool of knowledge.) But to blindly follow what they believe what their deity dictates is to be a critical thinker. Sounds like the very essence of duckspeak.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 26, 2009 12:27 PM
Lol, the PZ Myers article on ConservaPOEdia has a section entitled:"Creation Museum buffoonery". They don't know how right that that statement is.
Also,
Posted by: 386sx | November 26, 2009 12:29 PM
#23 "The biggest promoters of relativity today are more liberal than the Democratic Party, and that's saying a lot. --Andy Schlafly 19:20, 23 November 2009 (EST)"
Completely out of his mind. And he's in charge of stuff. Great...
Posted by: Con Sumatum | November 26, 2009 12:30 PM
You people MISS the point; Meyers is not a biblical literate person and Yet he criticizes the bible and God.
You do anything to have people avoid studying the Bible in depth.
Posted by: Michael Lonergan
|
November 26, 2009 12:32 PM
People wonder why I de-converted.... I was tired of my brain falling out of my head.
Posted by: Con Sumatum | November 26, 2009 12:33 PM
You liberals MISS the point; Meyers is not a biblical literate person and Yet he criticizes the bible and God.
You do anything to have people avoid studying the Bible in depth.
Posted by: Keenacat
|
November 26, 2009 12:37 PM
@Con Sumatum:
You posted in the wrong Thread. Your answer belongs in the "Happy Anniversary, Origin... some bad news"-Thread. We've been debating Meyers over there. :)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 26, 2009 12:38 PM
Your lies have been exposed on the other thread. You have nothing but blather. That doesn't go over here. Try real evidence, like an eternally burning bush, which you avoid like a plague of frogs.Posted by: golemxiv | November 26, 2009 12:38 PM
Andy is amusing. Apparently he does not know, that Catholics were forbidden to read or own the Bible for centuries by they own church, and for goods reason, too. Most of people does not read it till today. You want to be told, what is in there. If you read Bible yourself and see what is actually written in it, you are done. It is almost impossible to hold on your faith.
Posted by: Rick R | November 26, 2009 12:39 PM
Heh. Atheists "criticizing" god.
You left out the part where we taunt and berate the easter bunny.
Posted by: AJ Milne | November 26, 2009 12:40 PM
Yeah... I believe the point in this thread was Andy Schlafly is not a reality-literate person.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | November 26, 2009 12:40 PM
I'll keep my tongue in my own cheek, thank you very much.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 26, 2009 12:43 PM
Andy Schlafly, who has a degree in electrical engineering and so should have taken a course or two of college level physics, really dislikes Relativity. Somehow he conflates the Theory of Relativity with moral relativity. I really have to wonder if Aschlafly rejects gravity in favor of Intelligent Falling.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 26, 2009 12:44 PM
Two points.
First, PZ has shown he is pretty well versed in the bible. So your claim does not stand up to scrutiny.
Second, it is Myers, not Meyers. Given you are commenting on his blog that is a pretty stupid error to make. It shows a marked lack of attention to detail.
Posted by: Ruana | November 26, 2009 12:49 PM
@Con Sumatum:
You do anything to have people avoid studying the Bible in depth.
On the contrary; I date the beginnings of my own liberation from Christianity to the time I actually read the first half-dozen or so books of the Bible for myself. (As opposed to the watered-down version I was fed in Sunday School.) I would encourage all Christians to study the Bible in depth. Most non-Christians will probably have better uses for their time, though.
Posted by: anti-nonsense | November 26, 2009 12:50 PM
Actually we'd love to see people studying the bible to depth, because many people have become atheists due to studying the bible in depth. Serious thoughtful study of the Bible deconverts more people then it converts.
But that is beside the point of this dicussion.
Posted by: truebutnotuseful
|
November 26, 2009 12:51 PM
I'm inclined to wish a close encounter with a black hole upon Andy Schlafly, but it feels too much like when the godbots wish hell upon us.
Well, except that black holes actually exist.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 26, 2009 12:53 PM
This is far from the silliest thing Assfly is cranky about. He thinks complex numbers are decidedly suspect. You could probably convince him that the electromagnetic spectrum was a Commie plot.
Posted by: T_U_T | November 26, 2009 12:53 PM
Schlafly is the best evidence that teh stupid bozon is in fact massless. If it had nonzero rest mass, schlafly himself would almost instanteously collapse into a stupid black hole and destroy the earth.
Posted by: Con Sumatum | November 26, 2009 12:55 PM
You people Hide in another thread since you have nothing but emotive outbursts. Your ad homs and your emotive outbursts never make your case or point.
Myers et al hates to study the biblical evidence and to admit it is a fact. Myers's and your comments on the Bible tells me you have NOT done any study, but yet you have accepted blindly and without question your human fallible sources.
Posted by: Con Sumatum | November 26, 2009 12:58 PM
Duly Noted and thank you, your words reveal that you have NOT studied the bible in depth. You are typical of those who love to distort a book they have Never studied. What you have done is read it superficially for the most part OR accepted blindly and without question what others say. Anyone who says they have studied the bible in depth and rejects the Christianity of the New Testament is LYING 100%
Posted by: wheelbrain
|
November 26, 2009 12:58 PM
Unlike those Christians who criticize science with a keen grasp of scientific literacy? It's okay to read the Bible (if any one thing shook my faith in the Bible, it was the Bible itself). Just make sure it isn't the only book you read.
Posted by: kermit | November 26, 2009 1:02 PM
Con Sumatum - I agree, Christians especially should read their bible more. I was raised Southern Baptist, and as a child I found those sermons in church interminably boring. I couldn't sleep, and couldn't bring in comic books, but I could get away with reading the bible. By the time I was thirteen, I was an atheist, thanks to what I read in the bible.
To the others - read the Conservapaedia discussion page on this. They are still struggling with the concept of testability. They think the model for black holes is not falsifiable. You can't see 'em, right?
* rolls eyes *
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 26, 2009 1:05 PM
Are you talking about the Bible where Yahweh is shown to have the emotional maturity of a spoiled five year old? Yahweh kills every first born in Egypt because Pharaoh doesn't pay attention to Moses because Yahweh hardened his heart? Your god likes to play terrorist games because he can. He's not all loving and benevolent, he's a petulant bully. His boy Jesus isn't any better, cursing a fig tree because it doesn't have ripe figs out of season.
I've read your Bible and I'm glad I'm not a Christian. Your god is an asshole and I don't like assholes.
Posted by: bootsy | November 26, 2009 1:06 PM
@50: Conman:
What a 1-second Google search turned up:
Contradictions in the Bible:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
* God good to all, or just a few?
* War or Peace?
* Who is the father of Joseph?
* Who was at the Empty Tomb?
* Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
* Which first, beasts or man?
* The number of beasts in the ark
* How many stalls and horsemen?
* Is it folly to be wise or not?
* Human vs. ghostly impregnation
* The sins of the father
* The bat is not a bird
* Rabbits do not chew their cud
* Snails do not melt
* Fowl from waters or ground
* Odd genetic engineering
* The shape of the earth
* Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt
* Earth supported?
* Heaven supported too
* The hydrological cycle
* Order of creation
* Moses' personality
* Righteous live?
* Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?
* Jesus' last words
* Years of famine
* Moved David to anger?
* The genealogy of Jesus?
* God be seen?
* Cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocious or kind, merciful, and good
* Tempts?
* Judas died how?
* Ascend to heaven
* What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?
* How many time did the cock crow?
* How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount
* Does every man sin?
* Who bought potter's field?
* Who prophesied the potter's field?
* Who bears guilt?
* Do you answer a fool?
* How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
* How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?
* Marriage?
* Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?
* Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?
* How many apostles were in office between the resurrection and ascension?
* Judging
* Good deeds
* For or against?
* Whom did they see at the tomb?
* God change?
* Destruction of cities (what said was Jeremiah was Zechariah)
* Who's sepulchers?
* Strong drink?
* When second coming?
* Solomon's overseers
* The mother of Abijah
* When did Baasha die?
* How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
* Who was Josiah's successor?
* The differences in the census figures of Ezra and Nehemiah
* What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?
* What did they give him to drink?
* How long was Jesus in the tomb?
Of course, none of this is comprehensible to someone who is simply going to repeat that reading the New Testament is going to make you a Christian. Yeah, the book that retells the same story four different times... I can't see any possible contradictions in there? :)
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 26, 2009 1:06 PM
Such as Hector Avalos, former preacher, biblical scholar, professor of religious studies, and author of The End of Biblical Studies?
Is Random use of Capital letters a conservative Value?
Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 26, 2009 1:08 PM
Shorter Con Sumatum: "BOW TO ME, HEATHENS!" *rant rant froth roar*
Yawn.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 26, 2009 1:10 PM
Mirror time. You have nothing but your emotion that your deity exist and the babble isn't fiction. Both are at odds with reality, and asking you to show evidence is not emotionalism, but rather rational and objective. Since you provide no evidence, you are a delusional fool.Again, you have it backwards. The evidence falsifies the babble. Your claims are without merit.No, again the disortion is on you. Still not presenting any evidence for your cause, and you are considered just another Liar for Jebus™ without that evidence.No, you are lying 100%. The babble is fiction. The babble bites its own tail/tale time and time again. Anyone who reads the babble and doesn't consider it a myth is 100% delusional. You are living proof of this. Back up your claims with hard physical evidence, starting with your imaginary deity.Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 26, 2009 1:11 PM
Oh, great. Get rid of one obsessive troll (David Mathews) and another one (Con Sumatum) steps in to take his place.
I wonder if Con will be sitting there the whole day ranting on my blog?
Posted by: Woof | November 26, 2009 1:12 PM
Assfly (unfortunately) continues:
Way to have your vision stop at your nose, douche-bag.Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 26, 2009 1:13 PM
You know what's really perplexing? The sum of science today is a pack of lies spread by liberal "sheeple" who can't think for themselves, yet The Brave and Truthful Conservatives seem helpless to provide anything to the contrary. I mean, among Ken Ham, Andrew Schlafly, Teddy "I'm a member of Mensa" Beale and the brain trust at the Discovery Institute ("So far, we've discovered we're unable to discover anything but a vast liberal conspiracy") we've got fucking cubic kilocubits of right-wing Christian geniuses who seem unable to find their assholes with two hands, a flashlight, and Ted Haggard's meth-dealing 'masseur'.
So, pony up, fuckers. You've often complained about gaps in the fossil record. Well, here are a few 'gaps' that this hippie Jesus-hating Liberal promises to shut the fuck up forever if you'd only fill. So, if you think that evolution (and the rest of liberal reality) isn't true because we're not clambering over mounds of fossilised soft-bodied pre-Cambrian critters, then you should have no problem finding these fossils:
The fossilised loincloth of leaf Adam wore: Eve had one too, and probably a figgy bra for those days when her hair just wouldn't cooperate enough to cover her nipples, so there's an entire set of holy beach-wear just waiting for inclusion in some Creation Museum somewhere. Bonus points for unearthing 6,000 year-old scripture detailing the world's first wardrobe malfunction. Oh, and we'll need a little more authenticity than a 'Hecho en Edén' sticker.
Noah's ark: the fucking thing carried goddamn dinosaurs. It's fucking huge, and it survived a flood that destroyed every other man-made structure in existence at the time. We should be able to see the fucking thing from space. And no splinters, either. The Catholics tried that with pieces of Jesus' cross and now you can't shake a censer in a church in greater Podunkia without hitting a piece of the Cross, a vial of Mary's milk and two toe bones from Saint Whogivesafuckus.
Moses' (or Pharoah's priests') staves: I just think it'd be really cool to have a stick that turns into a snake and back into a stick. Think of all the good Christian boys who can no longer cause Godly havoc because we've eliminated inkwelled pigtails. Shouldn't be hard, either: what didn't the Egyptians preserve?
Jesus' oily sandals. If you can believe his swarthy One-Thirdness can leave his sebaceous likeness in a facecloth then you should have no problem believing his anointed Birkenstocks should last 2,000 years. Find them, and then we can set about happily persecuting all those whose feet are three Amercian shoe sizes larger or smaller than Christ's along with teh gays and the unwed teenage mothers.
Jesus' Crown of Thorns. Hey, if pieces of the Eucharist can bleed when Jews touch them, the Crown of Thorns must glow with an evil brighter than the tainted kryptonite in Superman III. Feel free to ask the Russkies for direction: they lived on Mir for months at a time and I'm sure their godless little hearts just burned with a prosperity Gospel-shaped hole every time they passed anywhere near over Golgotha.
Those are just a start: if you don't like our fucking science, then start doing your own, assholes.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 26, 2009 1:13 PM
Con Sumatum, you do not get to get away with claiming the the bible is 100% accurate. You need to prove that it is. Please provide your proof.
Posted by: Ouchimoo
|
November 26, 2009 1:15 PM
http://www.youtube.com/user/smbctheater#p/u/11/WlqDu2cDT0A
Posted by: chrisD | November 26, 2009 1:21 PM
PZ, your blog is like the Olympics for trolling. I'd call it the Special Olympics but I don't want to insult the differently abled. Most of your trolls run the sprints, some of them the hurdles and then there are those marathon types who can run for days saying absolutely nothing and being absolutely obtuse. I like the marathoners; at least they pretend to engage the ideas of others.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 26, 2009 1:21 PM
Dragons and Unicorns, show your work please Con Sumatum.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 26, 2009 1:23 PM
"and the only reason scientists huff and puff about what's actually out there is to get you to stop reading your Bibles."
I'd say it's one of many reasons.
For me, it goes something like this: black holes, wormholes, quasars, the wonder of, to quote Carl Sagan, the cossmuss, vs. an old, tired, morality play. It says volumes about Schlafly that he stands by the latter.
"Oh, great. Get rid of one obsessive troll (David Mathews) and another one (Con Sumatum) steps in to take his place."
Oh come on now, he's barely crossed the three-comment threshold. Let us play with him some more. Let's get him to actually say something about black holes. Let's get some of our actual biblical experts in to talk bib. (Not me, I've had a copy of that book for over two years now and it's just been sitting there like an English homework assignment with no deadline.)
Posted by: Con Sumatum | November 26, 2009 1:25 PM
Janine, DULY NOTED
No one has proven it to be a book of lies If you have the proof, please post it.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 26, 2009 1:25 PM
Con Sumatum writes:
Myers et al hates to study the biblical evidence and to admit it is a fact. Myers's and your comments on the Bible tells me you have NOT done any study
How many different versions and in how many different languages have you studied? I'm just asking, because it's quite possible that some of us here are more serious biblical scholars than you.
For what it's worth, I've also read the book of mormon, as much of the bhagvad-gita as I could stand, the koran, Confucius' analects, dianetics, and a bunch of other woo-woo. There are similarities that leap out at one across all these books, namely:
- They are written by humans
- They deal with problems specific to the technological time at which they were written (i.e: "covet thy neighbor's ass" as opposed to "covet thy neighbor's ferrari")
- They make "predictions" and "prophecy" that are retroactive
- They have been edited over and over by humans
- They document supernatural phenomena that humans simply have no way of knowing (e.g.: "god is love") without evidence
Did you study your bible in the Greek or Ahramaic? Or did you read it in English - you know, the language it was originally written in? Do you accept the version with or without the "jewish books"? (i.e.: edited and expurgated)
Please do tell us what a biblical scholar you are!
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 26, 2009 1:26 PM
PZ, your blog is like the Olympics for trolling. I'd call it the Special Olympics but I don't want to insult the differently abled.
What would be more accurate would be to call Pharyngula The Upperclass Twit Of The Year Competition for creationists.
Posted by: DoubleD | November 26, 2009 1:28 PM
Ooh, we've got a biblical scholar here, guys! As someone who's NEVER studied the bible, I have so much to learn from you!
Tell me, master Con Sumatum, what was God's purpose in making Jephthah sacrifice his daughter to him (http://tinyurl.com/yzqmfxa)? As someone who has only read the bible superficially, I have only blindly accepted my liberal conscience when it tells me senseless killing is wrong, but I'm sure you could explain the true meaning of the passage.
My human fallible liberal ethics teacher also told me genocide and child rape is always wrong, which I accepted without questioning, but my superficial reading of the bible has showed God commanding such things: (http://tinyurl.com/ycxynmy). Please, as one with access to the fount of all knowledge, save my deceived soul!
Posted by: David Estlund | November 26, 2009 1:28 PM
All this talk about giving the Bible serious, in-depth study, you guys must realize there are two possible outcomes, not one.
1) Someone actually gives the Bible serious, in-depth study, realizes that it's a real mess and anyone who claims to follow it is either ignorant, hypocritical, or dishonest, or
2) Someone spends a lot of time reading the Bible and assigning their own projected meaning to what it says, confirming their own belief.
A lot of the time, we are talking to people who have done neither, but if they're arguing with us, it's safe to assume that they've gone with option #2.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 26, 2009 1:30 PM
No one's disproved Tolkien's Middle Earth either. I posted a list of biblical fossils above; go dig 'em up and then we'll talk.
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | November 26, 2009 1:31 PM
Is there any actual data on whether reading the Bible makes Christians more likely to deconvert?
Christians, of course, tend to assume the the opposite, and the closest thing I've seen to real evidence on the issue - numbers, from a book I unfortunately do not have at hand, showing that Bible reading started declining in Sweden before secularization set in earnest - would seem more consonant with that view.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 26, 2009 1:32 PM
You're ass backwards as usual. It is up to you to prove the bible isn't fiction. We are waiting your evidence.Posted by: Savior Breath | November 26, 2009 1:33 PM
Andy's absolutely right. Though I remained Catholic after learning that armadillos are mammals, I dropped religion altogether when I found out about Kirchhoff's current law.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 26, 2009 1:33 PM
Nativity scenes don't cure the sick, feed the hungry, or house the homeless, but that doesn't seem to stop Conservative Christians form masturbating like bonobos over the very thought of them every December.
At least try to keep up the appearance of sticking to your own rules please, Christians.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 26, 2009 1:34 PM
DULY NOTED.
DULY NOTED that you must live in an alternative reality. For example, the name of Hector Avalos has been brought up. Have you read The End Of Biblical Studies? Care to point out where he is mistaken.
You are the one making the extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is upon you. Prove him wrong. Claiming that the bible is not mistaken does not make it so.
And pick a different catch phrase. You have no idea what it means. REJECTED OUT OF HAND would be more accurate.
Posted by: mayhempix | November 26, 2009 1:37 PM
But what about the black hole between Andy Schlafly's ears?
Posted by: chrisD | November 26, 2009 1:39 PM
They all usually finish just as they do in that competition. Only they point the gun at PZ and it's 'suicide by OP.'
Anyway, back to the races. Happy Turkey Day!
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 26, 2009 1:40 PM
... yeah. It was Chandrasekhar working out his limit that did it for me, mind. Chased me offa neocon politics, too...
(/I mean, if anything of such mass will eventually collapse beyond degeneracy, what does this mean for the end state of Pat Robertson's ego?)
Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 26, 2009 1:42 PM
Later friends, I'm off to the farm to gobble the gobbler. I'll expect to see the trolls proofs on dragons and unicorns when I get back. Fossils or living specimens, either will do.
Posted by: moderndaythomas | November 26, 2009 1:43 PM
Love your point Moggie, apparently schlafly can't understand why reality doesn't comply with the slogan "white is right".
Posted by: dutchdoc
|
November 26, 2009 1:44 PM
.. which may explain why so many right-wingers chose to abandon it.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 26, 2009 1:47 PM
For me the breaking point was finding out sponges and corals were animals. If an animal can't move, then why get on my knees to pray?
Posted by: Michelle R | November 26, 2009 1:49 PM
I saw that quote on FSTDT...
...It hurts.
Posted by: Quidam
|
November 26, 2009 1:49 PM
http://fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=67791
Your page is blocked due to a security policy that prohibits access to category
Hate Speech.
I guess it didn't have a category for insanely stupid speech
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 26, 2009 1:51 PM
Palin/Schlafly 2012!
/Dem prayer
Posted by: sharky | November 26, 2009 1:52 PM
But--but we CAN see black holes. They're the space where nothing is when it should be, and that nothing is affecting the movement of other enormous stellar bodies around it, because it's a kind of immense gravitational sinkhole. It tugs things off course; it affects orbits or the movements of things that are just kind of sailing around.
And we can "see" black holes through detecting powerful radiation. As I understand it, they actually are so intensely powerful they do throw off tremendous amounts of energy (otherwise they'd never stop existing.) It isn't *light* energy, but it's still detectable radiation.
This level of denial actually makes me want to cry a little bit. I mean, the everyday denying of science is equally sad, but to teach kids there can't possibly be dead-star remnants because it means the liberals are right... it denies the age and grandeur of not just our earth, but the universe itself, and it does so for the sake of one small person's ego.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 26, 2009 1:53 PM
Pierce R. Butler stay thy tongue! The campaign alone could irreversibly damage the American psyche.
Posted by: Clemens | November 26, 2009 2:11 PM
In other news, Schlafly demands to ban all left-turns on the streets.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 26, 2009 2:12 PM
All I want for Christmas is for Andy Schlafly to demand scientists hand over all their black holes to him so he can 'study' them himself à la the Lenski Affair. Please, please, please...
Posted by: wiley | November 26, 2009 2:20 PM
Anthropogenic Climate Change may well be a liberal conspiracy, and now that it has been comprehensively exposed as a scam (and "Global Warming" a hoax), Joe Public is entitled to consider Science to be a God-forsaken whore. One wonders what other groups of 'scientists' have been peddling bullfrog at large. Have evolutionary biologists (for eg.), out of sheer hatred & jealousy of competing belief-systems, been fudging and fiddling the facts to fit their favored theory? Feeling lucky, punks?
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 26, 2009 2:27 PM
Do you, fucker?
Posted by: Not that Louis | November 26, 2009 2:28 PM
I wonder if someone could do a Christian-oriented version of the Sokal hoax. I wonder if Andy would fall for it. Nah, too easy. The Andy Schlaflys and Jerry Bergmans of the world are unconsciously doing it every day. Forget I mentioned it.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 26, 2009 2:28 PM
'Bullfrog at large?'
Mkay...
Bullfrog at large! Bullfrog at large! Hide yer... umm...
... Houseflies?
(/... but ahh, conspiracy theories... betcha can't swallow just the one.)
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 26, 2009 2:30 PM
Inside your own diseased and broken brain, you mean.
The sky is no doubt chartreuse inside your head as well.
You mean like religious evolutionary biologists Ken Miller, Francisco Ayala, and Francis Collins?
Against a moron like you? Oh, yes.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 26, 2009 2:33 PM
No, that is only done by religious/RW idjits like yourself. You have no respect for reality, which show you to be a delusional fool on so many levels.Posted by: David Estlund | November 26, 2009 2:34 PM
wiley:
I sure hope you're a parody.
Has it? Where is your evidence? Global warming and climate change, by the way, are the same thing. Climate change just better describes what the scientists are looking at because it encompasses the weather phenomena that come with it. That's a laugh. Nevermind that you're "just asking questions;" I'll just take your thinly veiled accusations as such. It's the opponents of evolution who freely fudge and fiddle with facts. The basics of evolutionary theory are so fundamental and so applicable to so many (even very simple) phenomena that it can be taught to a teenager.Posted by: grasshopper | November 26, 2009 2:41 PM
if Pi == 3 { black-holes = null }
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
November 26, 2009 2:54 PM
Wiley, do you even know any scientists? Do you even know how science is done? Would you recognize scientific evidence if it bit you on your tiny, little, inadequate pecker? Then what business do you have making pronouncements about science and scientists?
Moron!
Posted by: eddie
|
November 26, 2009 2:56 PM
Again it's the moronic delusion that trying to nit-pick the science has any merit with no substantive idea to put in it's place. Then again; if they had anything to offer, they wouldn't be trolls.
Please, trolls. Advocate something, anything, other than it was good of you to bugger all those kids and gas those jews and...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 26, 2009 3:00 PM
,It has? That's news to the polar ice caps.
Then they should throw out their computers, medicine, food (because the food safety measure surely can't be correct), stop drinking water, stop driving cars, stop using their air conditioners, never use a commercial product etc..
You are free to disprove any of that science. I'm not going to wait because not only can't you, you don't have the brain power to even comprehend it.
Luck has nothing to do with it
you incredible moron.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 26, 2009 3:00 PM
Oh, for crying out loud, don't take the bait.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 26, 2009 3:06 PM
whew, that's going to wreck me for a while
Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 26, 2009 3:14 PM
Evolutionary biologists have been fudging facts for eggs? That's the first time I've heard that one.
Posted by: Con Sumatum | November 26, 2009 3:14 PM
The Bible does not equate the greek letter pi to 3. Again you show how you lot can lie and distort and fail to deeply understand a book you criticize.
Posted by: No_Unicorns | November 26, 2009 3:22 PM
I don't think the liberal physicists and cosmologists start by pushing black holes. No, unsuspecting and enquiring minds are first lured to perdition with neutron stars. Really, neutron stars are the gateway stellar remnant.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 26, 2009 3:25 PM
And you show no evidence that you are anything other than a delusional fool, better know as a Liar For Jebus™.Evidence, not the friend of delusional fools.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 26, 2009 3:27 PM
Con Sumatum, come to think of it, the Bible doesn't include anything on Euclidean geometry. Obviously geometry is a liberal lie made up by the protractor lobby.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 26, 2009 3:28 PM
'The Bible does not equate the greek letter pi to 3....'
....stop! ...laughing... too... hard... can't... breathe...
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 26, 2009 3:28 PM
Are you really that fucking stupid?
π is the ratio of the circumference of a circle. Since π is not 3, it cannot be true that
and thus the bible is either fallible or very imprecise.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | November 26, 2009 3:34 PM
Dear Brother Wiley,
You are unusually twitchy, this fine day! What's the matter? Have your children finally called the police?
Cheer up! It's thanksgiving! You should be pleased to have discovered that science is a 'godforsaken whore' as it means your mother will have some company in her dotage.
I did like your gritty sign off: "Feeling lucky, punks?" . . . although it would have been more effective if it wasn't an anagram for "Plunge! Sick Flunkey", which we both know is what that scary voice in your head (the one you think is God) says to you as it casts you yet again into the frigid waters of atheist derision.
But don't worry, Brother Wiley. As soon as we attach our electrodes of knowledge to your nipples of ignorance and give you a few good jolts of reason, that scary voice will leave your mind and for the first time in your life you'll know peace.
Yours in Christian therapy
Smoggy M. Batzrubble
Posted by: vltava | November 26, 2009 3:35 PM
I call Poe's law on the reaction to wiley.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 26, 2009 3:36 PM
Sorry. Forgot to finish the sentence. For the benefit of the literalist Christians who might be reading I'll spell out the elementary geography.
&pi: is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. The bowl would have measured just under 31 1/2 cubits (rounded) in circumference if it measured 10 from rim to rim.
1 Kings 7:31 shows they could measure down to a half cubit at least; why the imprecision?
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 26, 2009 3:36 PM
It really would pay the non-scientists well to spend time trying to understand various scientific theories. Otherwise they come off as hopeless fools when trying to talk science, and arrogant hopeless fools when they think they are clever about it.
Posted by: Con Sumatum | November 26, 2009 3:39 PM
Brownian,
That is your interpretation. The bible, however, does not say that pi=3. Show me where is literally says that pi=3. You FAIL since you can not.
AJ Milne, you have nothing but emotive outbursts. Thank you for proving that you are just another groupie who can't prove the Bible is fallible.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | November 26, 2009 3:43 PM
Dear Brother Con Sumatum,
I too am a Christian. I prayed to Jesus about this very issue and He assured me that the Bible most certainly is fallible.
I do not think you are praying hard enough.
Your Christian Brother concerned for your weak faith,
Smoggy M. Batzrubble
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | November 26, 2009 3:47 PM
Con Sumatum can't do the math to find out that the numbers in Kings 7:31 shows that Pi=3 (which is wrong). What a surprise. But he has a point, because the bible is so vague that it can be interpreted in so many ways is proof that it is not infallible.
Of course, he'd be the type to believe that horrible biblical sayings like Timothy 2:11 as truth and law.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 26, 2009 3:49 PM
Just got back from my general relativity course. Was thinking of raising my hand and asking the professor why he hasn't focused on the liberal conspiracy aspects of relativity. Decided not to waste everyone's time.
Posted by: tim gueguen | November 26, 2009 3:51 PM
Andy S. and the crowd over at Sillypedia are just more examples of what so-called fundementalist Christians actually are, which is worshippers of the Bible, not God. After all they continually limit the actions and capabilities of God to the text of a book.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 26, 2009 3:54 PM
What do you think would prove the Bible to be fallible?
Doesn't the fact that the bible contradicts itself between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 demonstrate fallibility?
Posted by: David Estlund | November 26, 2009 3:57 PM
So you can't draw a logical inference from bare facts contained in it? That's like saying that everything in the Bible is true, but you can't try to prove it, apply logic to what it contains, or apply it to anything logical or plactical.
(I really need to figure out how to do a gumby/comic sans)
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 26, 2009 4:02 PM
See, now I'm one of the opinion that there's not many modern-day people who actually take the bible literally. Where's the vitalism movement gone? Why aren't people going around saying we're nothing but an animated dirt statue? And the moon as a light in the night sky? lol, it's a light the same way my desk is a light in my room.Do people really think these days that there was day and night before the sun, that the earth is flat and heaven is just one giant tower away? That the sun stopped dead still in the sky? Of course not, because literal the bible should be taken not.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 26, 2009 4:05 PM
plactical. Ha! I was distracted by a hawk on my roof.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 26, 2009 4:07 PM
The question is, why would the bible be anything but fallible? Why should the bible start as an infallible doctrine and be knocked down as opposed to starting as nothing is true and building up from there? That's right, if you base the truth on the bible on evidence then there's no chance of it getting to infallible. What's the archaeological evidence say about the supposedly slaughtered Canaanite cities?Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 26, 2009 4:10 PM
Sorry, you have to prove it is infallible. We are still waiting for your evidence. Time to put up or shut up.Posted by: Kel, OM | November 26, 2009 4:10 PM
Okay, take the formula circumference = pi * diameter. So if you plug in the variables in the bible 30 = pi * 10. pi = 30/10. pi = 3 Q.E.D.Get your head out of the bible and do some maths boy.
Posted by: James | November 26, 2009 4:11 PM
"That is your interpretation. The bible, however, does not say that pi=3. Show me where is literally says that pi=3. You FAIL since you can not."
"Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference.--I Kings 7:23"
Kings 7:23 literally states a diameter of 10 cubits and a diameter of 30 cubits. That is a literal claim that π=3 ∴ the Bible does say literally that π=3 ∴ you are innumerate (as you are incapable of working out the simple mathematical concept of 30/10) and illiterate (unable to read what has been written). As you have inferred that you have read the Bible this also makes you a liar. Further proof that you are a liar is that you call the Bible a bible. A true Christian would never leave off the capitalization. That's Game, Set and Match.
Any further postings by you will just be the pathetic puerile whining of an infantile mind who has yet to learn that wetting yourself and throwing your toys around is not the best way to get attention.
That's how you deal with trolls. Dip them in sweet chilli sauce and have them for supper.
Posted by: Zmidponk | November 26, 2009 4:15 PM
Con Sumatum #66:
No-one has proven the book 'Dune' to be false. Prove that it is, please.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 26, 2009 4:23 PM
Con Sumatum, since you've claimed to be a biblical scholar, I'm going to repeat myself using very small words, just for you.
You are indeed correct that the bible does not proclaim "The irrational constant ratio of a circle's cicumference to its diameter which geometers refer to as π and estimate to be roughly 3.14 is actually 3," so you get a gold star. Please report to your nearest priest and mention your penchant for pedantry and poor communication skills--perhaps he'll have a special prize, just for you!
What the bible does do--and here's where you might want to grab a pen and jot this down in case you need an adult to help you understand the hard parts--is describe an impossible object: a bowl with a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30. According to the rules of Euclidian geography, such an object cannot possibly exist: rounding to the nearest half cubit, the bowl must be either 31.5 cubits in circumference or 9.5 cubits in diameter.
Now, this isn't necessarily an indictment: approximating &pi: to be roughly 3 is perfectly reasonable for a bunch of bronze age tribesmen with limited mathematical ability. However, it's not what we would expect of an omniscient deity-led group of bronze age tribesmen who were already supposed to have already been capable of building ocean-going boats capable of carrying two of every extant animal and all of their food and water requirements for over a month in stormy seas. You gotta be good at measuring to build one of those (though you're more than welcome to try it yourself: a short pier and your math skills should be sufficient to prove my point.)
Anyways, you've shown yourself unable to comprehend either simple math or written English. I'm not much interested in tutoring you further in either, so please feel free to fuck off.
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | November 26, 2009 4:23 PM
Con Sumatum wrote:
You'll burn in hell for your denial of the unambiguous word of God. Your shameless lying and lack of faith disgust me!
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 26, 2009 4:31 PM
I'd agree with you Tim if you could find me one of them who actually knows what the book contains beyond a few select quotes indicting homosexuals, women, and non-Jewish Middle Easterners here and there (and that goes for Cum Stainum in this thread as well).
They're more like worshippers of themselves: in love with their own sense of persecuted righteousness.
They disgust me both as an atheist and as a former Catholic. Take the book seriously or not at all; those who do neither can get the fuck out of my way.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 26, 2009 4:35 PM
Oh, come now... don't get all bitter...
I mean, this can't be the first time you've had someone break down in helpless, amazed laughter in reaction to your near complete inadequacy for the task at hand...
(/Like, say, the last time you took your clothes off...)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 26, 2009 4:38 PM
Con Sumatum: Prove the Bible is fallible.
Pharnygula: Kings 7:23* says π = 3.
Con Sumatum: Does not. So there. Nyah!
*Verse repeated in 2nd Chronicles 4:2
Posted by: T_U_T | November 26, 2009 4:41 PM
A differential geometry question. How warped ( in terms of the Riemann curvature tensor ) has to be the mind of a biblical literalist, given that a 10 cubit diameter circle has really 30 cubit circumference in his mind.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 26, 2009 4:54 PM
Given that Conservapædia was (is?) actually discussing rewriting the bible to make it say what they want to say, I don't think they can actually be accused of bibliolatry.
Of course, the real point is that every group that has a scripture has interpreted it differently -- and split into various factions over how the scripture is to be properly interpreted. And those factions have split over time as well.
Ultimately, it's because God does not exist and tell people how scripture is to be interpreted. There's no empirical way to determine what is meant literally, and what is meant figuratively.
Of course, liberal religionists agree that that which is in scripture which has been disproven empirically cannot have been meant literally.
People arrive at various interpretations all on their own, convincing themselves that because they have a certain feeling, or lack a certain feeling, when they read something, that part is true, or not literally true, or more important, or less important.
Of course, there's also group reinforcement; one interpreter with a particularly loud voice speaks up, and everyone agrees with it -- or some don't, and there's another schism, yay.
There's also the the weight of tradition. So many people before you said that the interpretation was one way -- who are you to argue otherwise, just because that way of interpretation makes no sense?
And so on.
Posted by: Norse | November 26, 2009 5:02 PM
(I don't know how to quote someone) :P
Con Sumatum: "No-one has proven the book 'Dune' to be false. Prove that it is, please."
**DUNE is considered one of the greatest science fiction novels of all time** - Dune's official novel website.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 26, 2009 5:07 PM
I think it's just laziness on the part of the author (which is God, I guess, so there's that.) However, it does say something as to how people who claim to 'understand the bible deeply', like our illiterate and innumerate friend here, can derive the prosperity gospel from a book in which the protagonist says "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God". And it's in three of the four synoptic gospels, which for a text as sloppy as the bible constitutes damn near unanimity.
Hey! Con Sumption:
Have you given away all your money and turned against your mother and father to follow Christ, yet? No? Whatsa matter, not enough faith?
@ Norse: to use blockquotes, place the text to be quoted between the blockquote tags:
<blockquote>Like this.</blockquote>
Posted by: SEF | November 26, 2009 5:09 PM
@ NoR #37:
Erm ... you mean: head towards it, with love-light in one's eyes, making cooing/croaking noises and working out how many one can get away with carrying back home? That sort of "avoid"?!
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 26, 2009 5:19 PM
This image has been forever merged by the image of the singing bush from The Three Amigos.
I'd be grateful if those of you with better recall than I would remind me exactly which verse details Moses' slaying of the Invisible Swordsman.
Posted by: SEF | November 26, 2009 5:22 PM
Not only does pretty much all of reality disagree with the bible (eg all branches of science but also relevant bits of history and geography), but the bible frequently even disagrees with itself!
Posted by: Rick R | November 26, 2009 5:25 PM
"Ultimately, it's because God does not exist and tell people how scripture is to be interpreted."
If god existed, there wouldn't be a need for scripture in the first place.
OK, I'm off for Thanksgiving dinner with the fam! Have fun with the christard chewtoy(s) while I'm gone!
There's going to be pie.
Posted by: raven
|
November 26, 2009 5:30 PM
Con Sumatum is crazy, mentally ill and trolling.
I recognize the style from a multi-ID troll that haunts the internet.
You will never get a coherent thought out of it. No one ever has in years.
Posted by: herr doktor bimler | November 26, 2009 5:32 PM
The biggest promoters of relativity today are more liberal than the Democratic Party
AS is one step away from decrying Jewish Science.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 26, 2009 5:40 PM
Aren't they all?
Nonetheless, if s/he is ill rather than merely an asshole, I shall refrain from engaging him/her.
Posted by: Zmidponk | November 26, 2009 5:44 PM
Norse #136:
But that's only a claim that it's false, not proof. Con Sumatum requires proof that the Bible is false, so I require proof that Dune is false.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 26, 2009 5:50 PM
Schlafly finds liberal bias in the oddest places. Not only are black holes liberal, but so are complex numbers, proof by contradiction, and Vikings visiting North America around 1000 CE.
Posted by: raven
|
November 26, 2009 5:54 PM
It is always so hypocritical how people who live in a Hi Tech age of miraclous science can still viscerally hate ....science.
I suspect they just hate everything on general principles, including their miserable lives.
Posted by: sng | November 26, 2009 5:58 PM
Kel,
Funny you should mention the moon thing.
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2006/04/06/04062006wacbillnye.html
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 26, 2009 6:02 PM
Well, at least that's one point of agreement between me and them from which we might be able to forge some commonality: I also hate their miserable lives.
Posted by: not a gator | November 26, 2009 6:03 PM
Wow, that meeting with the Pope (JPII) and what he said was really one of the most fatuous moments in history and a large part of the reason that I never had much respect for him. (It's funny, because most of the RCC's I knew looooooved JPII.) I mean, for chrissake, knowledge man was not meant to have? What the heck does that even mean? Anyway, isn't archeology more of a threat to the RCC's authority than cosmology? Like, seriously.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 26, 2009 6:13 PM
Wow, that's some crazy right there.Though that kind of thing sounds more like a gut reaction to someone criticising the bible than being truly offended that the moon is a reflector of the sun. Surely they can look up at the moon when it's in 3rd quarter or even at new moon and see for themselves.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
November 26, 2009 6:13 PM
Con So-I'm-dumb reminds me a little of facilis, saying: 'The bible is great and none of you can disprove it; oh, and I've done the analysis on all the other religions' holy books and they're all false.'
Us: 'Really? Show us the analysis you did on the other religions.'
Con So-I'm-dumb: 'I don't have to. Just take my word for it.'
Us: 'No. Fuck off - you assclown.'
Posted by: Woof | November 26, 2009 6:35 PM
I just spent a good part of my afternoon reading through some of the discussions on Fucktardopedia.
Warning: Once you've read that shit, it can't be unread.
Posted by: Haley | November 26, 2009 6:42 PM
I really wish I could call Poe's law on this one. I thought that the theory of gravity was accepted by everyone, but I guess I'm too optimistic about humanity.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 26, 2009 6:52 PM
Hey fellow Pharyngulites, the "eternally burning bush" would definitely have divine origin. Now, if you have other examples, I will be glad to throw them into the rotation, or let you make the examples to the godbot. Sometimes a concrete example is needed. As an old fart, sometimes putting something on the table allows others to modify it, perhaps extensively, so a consensus can be reached. And I don't need the credit...
Posted by: SEF | November 26, 2009 7:00 PM
@ NoR #155:
Not if it were merely the semblence of a bush over a gas fire (like the fake coal version). It's not as though anyone's going to be able to check the full eternal-ness of it. And they might not be able to get close enough (without asbestos or similar suits) even to check the bush credentials of it.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 26, 2009 7:05 PM
You pathetic moron. There have been, like, three posts here on ScienceBlogs about this "incident". Haven't you read any of those?
Reality, wiley, is that which does not go away when you stop believing in it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 26, 2009 7:11 PM
Take a couple ofyearsdecades to investigate. That makes a good test...Posted by: Paul Murray | November 26, 2009 7:35 PM
I love the comment on the conservapedia black hole page:
[blockquote]it is impossible to prove that no black hole exists anywhere, and thus it fails the falsifiability requirement of science[/blockquote]
The same might also be said for girrafes.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 26, 2009 7:48 PM
Some guy on youtube tried to convince me of that. I decided not to oppose him but just frame his position back to him - there's just no arguing with conspiracy theorists.Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 26, 2009 8:19 PM
Just as I thought. No proof from the troll on the biblical animals I quizzed him about.
New troll please PZ, this one is chewed to gristle.
Posted by: ngong | November 26, 2009 8:29 PM
I note similar egotism on the part of many Muslims. Why are Muslims involved in so many hotspots of war and terror on this globe? Because non-Muslims, knowing in their heart of hearts the truth of the Koran, are intent on destroying Islam. If the Koran weren't true, non-believers wouldn't spend so much energy opposing it.
Posted by: mayhempix | November 26, 2009 8:57 PM
What happened to the Con Summate Idiot?
Posted by: Con Sumatum | November 26, 2009 8:57 PM
Patricia,
DULY NOTED. Translations do contain errors; i have no issue with that, however, the hebrew/aramaic and greek texts are non contradictory and do not contain the words dragon or unicorn.
Please, you people aren't even trying to prove me wrong, ergo, you wannabe atheists have failed yet again.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 26, 2009 9:00 PM
not a gator #150
Come now, have you not read Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's classic Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus? There is knowledge man was not meant to have. And if you do not acknowledge the lesson of Ms. Wollstonecraft Shelley, there's always the Mad Arab Abdul Alhazred's Necronomicon.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 26, 2009 9:06 PM
Con Sumatum #154
Explain to us again why we should prove you wrong? What's in it for us? Will you give up your superstitions? Will you denounce Pat Robertson and Pope Benny Ratzi? Will you desecrate a communion host? If the answer is no, then it's not worth the minimal effort to prove you wrong.
Besides, you've been proved wrong several times. Your response each time has been to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"
No, asshole, you're not a good enough troll for us to play with.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 26, 2009 9:06 PM
Guys! Guys! You'll never guess what I just discovered!
It's an ancient magic book which was buried in my backyard an' which sez it's the word of Gawd hisself! Right here on the mysterious (makes wiggly fingers) cover... which strangely, looks incredibly like it was printed on a laser printer!
Praise 'n glory be! Clearly the product of an ancient, advanced civilization...
... and it sez... wait for it... Hold on... let's see here...
(Flips through the pages...)
'Con Sumatum blows goats too.'
Huh.
Well, anyway... I'm just gonna assume this is true... I mean... Word of Gawd 'n all... Sez right here, see...
(/And now, you loser atheists, prove it wrong!)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 26, 2009 9:06 PM
Sorry, Cricket, with science you have to prove yourself correct. And you have made no attempt to do so. Only ignorant, stoopid, and idiotic godbots think they have to be proven wrong. That means you are a mental midget.Quoting a second fiction book besides your babble? You must be desperate.Here's the lesson you get from Pharyngula. If you present no evidence to back your inane and insane accusations, you are a liar and bullshitter. Learn oh cricket. You may develop wisdom in a score of years or so, and actually learn to show evidenc, and then your word may actually mean something.Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 26, 2009 9:08 PM
Con Sumatum - You are one piss poor christian. The bible as it is written in English is the truly inspired, inerrant word of god.
Enlighten us on how a translator, inspired by god almighty could make a mistake?
That is blasphemy.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | November 26, 2009 9:16 PM
Schlafly finds liberal bias in the oddest places. Not only are black holes liberal, but so are complex numbers, proof by contradiction, and Vikings visiting North America around 1000 CE.
Damned liberal pacifist Vikings.
Posted by: druidbros | November 26, 2009 9:37 PM
Con Sumatum, I have a question. What is your educational background as it relates to the study of the bible? In other words, what makes you an expert?
Posted by: mayhempix | November 26, 2009 9:39 PM
You wonder where the troll went and Poof!... there he is.
It's like summoning a genie from a bottle.
Con, will you sit in a chair that hasn't been washed after a menstruating woman has?
If yes, please explain who decided which of "Old Laws" must still be obeyed. If no, who washes it and with what?
Should homosexuals be executed?
If no, please explain why homosexuality is an abomination, but they still get to live. If yes, who should execute them, the church or the state?
And finally, for the Big Prize, please prove God, or any god for that matter, wrote either or both of the Testaments without resorting to the words of the Bible as proof.
Good luck with that one.
Posted by: F
|
November 26, 2009 9:46 PM
Waitwaitwait - hold it right there.
This clown has a degree in electrical engineering but has this strange problem with complex numbers?
I seriously hope he does no actual electrical engineering. #1 practical use for complex numbers? Electrical engineering. He could be seriously dangerous to unsuspecting people.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 26, 2009 9:55 PM
What is a wannabe atheist exactly, one who doesn't want to believe in God but can't get free of their belief?Posted by: F
|
November 26, 2009 9:58 PM
Hm. What do you want to bet that there is a correlation between the people who won't believe in these liberal atheist black holes, and those who insist that the LHC, upon reaching full power, and beginning to run experiments, will make black holes that will destroy the Earth.
Must. Search. Internets.
Posted by: Norse | November 26, 2009 9:58 PM
Thanks, Brownian, OM.
Zmidponk #145: it's quite easy to prove if a novel is fictitious. Just quote the author.
As for the Bible, it's even easier. It was written by man, man is fallible, ergo the Bible is falsifiable, tainted, unclean, flawed, etc. (whatever term floats your boat)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 26, 2009 10:03 PM
Wannabe atheists?
What the hell does that even mean?
I wannabe lacking in belief in gods?
Cum Staintum is getting dumber by the post.
Posted by: chrisD | November 26, 2009 10:05 PM
Yeah, but Norse, he may THINK he is writing fiction, but there may in fact be planets of an empire engaged in an epic struggle for the spice! The biblical authors of every book write something they consider as truth from the beginning which has no correlation to anything we can see but only imagine, a mostly complete inverse of science fiction!
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 26, 2009 10:11 PM
No, unfortunately he is doing his damage by teaching children. Here are many examples of him doing a disservice to his "students".
Posted by: Zmidponk | November 26, 2009 10:22 PM
Norse #176:
But, again, that's only a claim that it's fiction. I want proof.
Con Sumatum #164:
Please, you aren't even trying to prove Dune is false, ergo, you have failed yet again.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 26, 2009 10:24 PM
Oh, and as the link @179 mentions Schlafly gives separate tests to boys and girls.
Posted by: mayhempix | November 26, 2009 10:27 PM
According to the two most recent trolls we have "Child Onset Atheism" and "Wannabe Atheists".
Soon they will need an addendum to the Bible titled
"The Fundies' Guide to Atheists: Learn Which Type of Atheist You Are Dealing With To Increase Effectiveness At Ignoring Facts and Reason.
Posted by: Rick T | November 26, 2009 10:33 PM
So Con Job, you admit that there have been translation errors. I wonder how many? Maybe we could compare the translations against the original text? Whoopsie poopsie, biblical scholars can't seem to locate a single original biblical text.
In light of that disappointing development, how smart is it to claim that the babble is true when we don't have the original texts available to us?
Nerd wants you to provide evidence. A good start would be to find an original text. Then you would, at least, have something to defend, not just the untrustworthy mistranslations you are so willing to throw under the bus.
On the other hand, Patricia has produced the most logical conclusion. What kind of piss poor god would allow his word to be mistranslated time and time again. What's more, he also failed to preserve the original. What an incompetent doofus.
Posted by: Dust | November 26, 2009 10:43 PM
Your right Con Stapation, I haven't studied the bible in depth--nor do I intend to. I deconverted without reading it 'cause I came away from my experiences with the RCC and Catholic School disliking religion so much I had no interest in reading it.
A whole world of interesting things to do, to learn and to read instead.
Reading this blog didn't make me an atheist--I was one before I ever heard of PZ. So, stupid troll, you whining about not reading the babble is just hot air out of your ass as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 26, 2009 10:45 PM
My bowels boiled, and rested not: the days of affliction prevented me. I went mourning without the sun: I stood up, and cried in the congregation. I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls. My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat. My harp also is turned to mourning, and my organ into the voice of them that weep.
Job 30:27,31I'm not a doctor, but I would say it will be hard for our current troll to prove someone can survive boiling bowels, an organ with a voice and being a sibling with a dragon. Walking around with burned bones can't be all that easy either. Care to prove that is true Con Sumatum?
Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 26, 2009 11:19 PM
Pffft... I getteth tried and bored with this dumbass troll.
Circumcise yourselves to the lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it , because of the evil of your doings. Jer. 4:4
OK, so as usual god is burning and slaying everyone, but can someone explain to me what the hell a foreskin of your heart is? Gawd said it, so it must be there.
Posted by: raven
|
November 26, 2009 11:23 PM
The truth is the opposite. The original texts contain more contradictions and discrepancies.
The bible has been rewritten and revised over the centuries to get rid of them. The latest, the fundie NIV, has made several major changes. Fundies believe the bible is inerrant and they will keep rewriting it until it is.
For collectors of trivia, the discrepancies were deliberate. The bible is an anthology, a collection. The compilers included several different versions of the same myth because they had multiple sources and multiple audiences and didn't want to slight anyone.
You have been proven wrong multiple times. Since you are a crazy troll, you just ignore it and keep babbling. Soon enough people get bored and go read something more interesting.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 26, 2009 11:34 PM
so, Karen Armstrong?Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 26, 2009 11:48 PM
Translations do contain errors.
No. Hell no and fuck no.
God Almighty, Jesus the Son of God and the Holy Ghost DO NOT MAKE ERRORS. You had better revisit Exodus 20.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 26, 2009 11:55 PM
*da boom crash*I get the feeling with many liberal theologians that it's the opposite, that they want to believe but just can't quite get there. So they've concocted this new god that looks completely unlike anything seen before and say "Look, God ain't dead. We were just looking at It the wrong way." Though careful not to say "It" because it implies a thing, and that's being too definite. Better bring it back to an abstract, but not to imply it's an abstract just incase it is something more - or less... so how can those fundamentalist atheists deny God?
Posted by: wiley | November 27, 2009 12:43 AM
@#160
Ah, yes but one cannot be labelled a "conspiracy theorist" if there really was a conspiracy, as there clearly was in the case of the deceitful IPCC Data Deniers at the CRU in East Anglia.
@#101
stop drinking water? STOP DRINKING WATER? you mean, H2O
Posted by: David Estlund | November 27, 2009 1:25 AM
AJ Milne @167
I call foul. You weren't even peering into a hat with magic glasses. I bet angels didn't even show you the super-secret hidey-hole it was in or teach you the super-secret language in which it was written. Some of us can tell when we're being Conned.
Feynmaniac @179
Good GAUD! I look at RationalWiki for the funny stuff. That's just depressing.
Kel @190
I was an agnostic deist for a long time, at least a decade. And I will admit that it started with learning evolution theory. However, I started learning about evolution from a Southern Baptist pastor teaching "science from a Christian perspective" in a Christian middle school. It went roughly along the same lines as learning about President Clinton from Rush Limbaugh in my conservative grandfather's truck. Much like with Limbaugh, I found myself thinking, how can these people be spewing all these slanderous, hateful things if they're right? Can't they just prove that they're right and move on?
My move away from the Republicans didn't take long, mostly because Limbaugh is such a sleaze. But I really dove headfirst into evolutionary biology because of a bad biology teacher in public high school. During the chapters on evolution theory, he would preface every lecture with "I just want you all to know that I don't believe this, but you have to learn it and pass the test." He held special lectures that wouldn't be on the test, in which he would lob some of the same nonsense we see today, and I worked hard to be especially prepared to debunk his claims. University was the first time in my life that I was satisfied with the science I was being taught. I think ironically all this has made me a better person. I learned critical thinking skills and the relationship between politics and the media not because of good education and exposure to useful, working, unbiased media, but because of the opposite. It really prepared me for what we seem to face everywhere.
I think there are a lot of people like me out there, and I'm really proud of recent efforts to reach us. Thanks PZ, everyone here, and also the orgs with the new billboard campaigns. I think it's really doing good out there. Sorry for the rant, but it felt good to get it off my chest.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 27, 2009 1:40 AM
wiley,
Yes, you should stop drinking water, unless it's from a creek/well/rain barrel/river/lake.
Posted by: John Sandlin | November 27, 2009 1:55 AM
In #33 posted by Con Sumatum on November 26, 2009 at 12:30 PM, blather thus spewed:
Who?
Actually, I prefer people do study the Bible in depth. I have a small library of biblical study materials, including several translations. I can assure you, I have studied the Bible. I see nothing errant in Dr. Myers assessment of it.
I also heartily recommend a detailed study of the Qur'an, the Analects of Confucius, the Hindu Vedas, and especially "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell. Comparative religion studies can be rather informative.
Posted by: MikeM | November 27, 2009 2:26 AM
Man, how many incentives do we need to not read the Bible? I've read enough of it. Stopped doing it some time ago.
Well, that's not quite true. Skeptics Annotated is the best version ever.
Numbers 31 offers an especially heartwarming story. I think all pastors need to expound upon the wiseness of Noah, using this as their source.
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 27, 2009 2:49 AM
#134:
Dunno, but I bet it could happen near a black hole.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 27, 2009 2:51 AM
Moggie wins the BackOnTopic Award!
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
November 27, 2009 8:01 AM
Wiley, have you actually read any of the emails form the EAU hack? In context? It takes a really astounding...shall we call it creativity...to project any sort of conspiracy theory onto these--and we've only read the version of the correspondence selectively edited by the hackers.
Meanwhile, there are mountains--literal and figurative--that demonstrate that Earth is warming and that we're doing it. Hows about you look at some of the evidence. Maybe start by thinking what it says about the source of the energy that you have the troposphere warming while the stratosphere is cooling.
Hint: the troposphere is below the stratosphere.
Now for extra credit: Go figure out why the planet is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be if it didn't have an atmosphere.
Posted by: Steve in Dublin | November 27, 2009 8:19 AM
@David Estlund #121
This blog has a style sheet class defined called "creationist" that does that. So in your post, just wrap the text you want to enclose in a gumby/comic sans like this:
<blockquote class="creationist">(Inane creationist drivel goes here)</blockquote>
So when displayed up on the site, it looks like this:
I took the liberty of using some actual creationist drivel I found yesterday there. Yup, it looks a lot better next to a gumby.
Always make sure to Preview your comments first to make sure you didn't make a mistake with the syntax.
Knock yourself out!
Posted by: Steve in Dublin | November 27, 2009 8:26 AM
Darn. The site stripped out the class="creationist" bit when I posted. I guess PZ's on to us coders :-(
Probably only allows that class to be used in PZ's original posts. I could have sworn I saw it used in one of Sastra's posts (that's how I figured it out). Maybe it was allowed at one time but no longer is? Anybody know? PZ?
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 27, 2009 8:46 AM
Let's see what happens with this one.
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 27, 2009 8:48 AM
There you go. Fun is officially banned.
Posted by: SEF | November 27, 2009 8:58 AM
No. You just have to be more proficient at HTML and CSS. In the blockquote tag you need something like:
style="background:url(http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/tiny_gumby_trans.gif) no-repeat; height:64px; border-left:solid 2px #CCCCCC; padding-left:52px; font-family:'Comic Sans MS'"
You don't necessarily need to add the grey border line and/or you might decide to add the dotted line part.
Posted by: Fernando Montelbon | November 27, 2009 9:23 AM
No, God's Penis is not a biological organ. I never said God's Penis was the same as man's penis. Obviously it wouldn't be. That is why I pointed out God has a Holy, Righteous Penis. That is to say, it's not the same as man's corrupted, fleshy one.
As I said when this subject first came up, once again: Penises are not just for sex & peeing. It is only because man is evil that he thinks of penises exclusively in those terms.
Man is made in the image of God the Father. That is the primary reason why man has a penis.
You cannot insert your evil prejudicial ideas of man's penis onto God - which is exactly what you are doing. God's Penis is not equal to man's penis. It's really not hard to understand.
WOW that site has some amazing quotes.
Posted by: Steve in Dublin | November 27, 2009 9:33 AM
@SEF
Fair play to you for figuring it out, but please don't get snarky about HTML/CSS proficiency. I'm a professional software developer, and I write web sites as a hobby. Plenty familiar with CSS.
It looks to me like being able to use class attributes may only be a privilege awarded to the Order of Molly members. But style attributes are allowed for anyone (silly of them, and they'll probably ban that too after this rather public exchange that we're having on the subject :-)
Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
November 27, 2009 11:09 AM
@Patricia, #186 --
The foreskin of the heart is the aorta, of course.
I really wish fundies would just go ahead and do that already. Hell, I'd then have more posthumous respect for them than for snake handlers. (Now there are some fundies with serious cajones.)
Posted by: bcoppola | November 27, 2009 11:26 AM
Is it just me, or does Andy S. make even his dearly departed wingnut harridan mother seem sane by comparison?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 27, 2009 11:34 AM
Phyllis Schlafly isn't dead yet.
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 27, 2009 11:38 AM
#206:
Box drums? I thought they preferred banjos?
(It's "cojones").
Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 27, 2009 11:40 AM
con sumatum:
I'm tempted to call Poe on this commenter. Loosely translated from Spanish, its name means "with summation."
But then again, if you use BabelFish, it translates from French as "idiot Sumatum" so I could be wrong...
Posted by: CRS | November 27, 2009 11:44 AM
Her mouth continues to move, but I'm pretty sure she's been brain-dead for years.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 27, 2009 11:47 AM
Officially.It has been suggested that Phyllis died 10 years ago and that
NormanAndy keeps her mummified body in his cellar. Andy wears her clothes, talks in her voice and has essentially become her.Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 27, 2009 12:14 PM
That would be a remake more terrifying than the original.
Imagine an updated shower scene where instead of a knife and the reet-reet-reet sound, our psycho Andy Bates silently enters a voting booth in 2012 and screechy violins approximate Palin!-Palin!-Palin! as he angrily stabs his finger at the machine again and again until every Republican on the ballot has been voted for.
Somebody hold me.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 27, 2009 12:17 PM
No, ScienceBorg in general doesn't allow class attributes in comments. PZ only noticed this after he made class=creationist for us.
And the Seed Overlords won't ban style attributes. They never read the comments here. Not even the complaints about them.
Posted by: Steve in Dublin | November 27, 2009 12:35 PM
Thanks for the info, David. But I'm still not clear on this. Does that mean that only you OM folk can use class="creationist" in your blockquotes? Because I'm sure I found it in one of Sastra's posts in another thread.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 27, 2009 12:36 PM
--Phyllis SchlaflyWow! Thanks guys! (I think she deserves the beard. She's been one for years.)
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 27, 2009 12:45 PM
Phyllis Schlafly isn't dead yet. - PZ
Huh! You just had to go and spoil my day!
Posted by: william e emba | November 27, 2009 1:43 PM
The direct observational evidence of Sgr A* (the black hole at the center of our galaxy) keeps getting stronger and stronger. See the latest issue of Scientific American for an article on the newest round of observations expected to begin next year, where the goal is to image the black hole's horizon itself blocking what's behind it.
Cool stuff, unless, of course, you're a total moron.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 27, 2009 2:12 PM
william e emba,
I think you meant to say, "Cool stuff, unless, of course, you're
a total moronAndrew Schlafly."There are plenty of total morons who know enough about black holes to think seeing one would be totally rad.
Posted by: wiley | November 27, 2009 3:01 PM
@ray#198
Yes. The Data Denialists discussed a 'trick' to 'Hide The Decline' in global temperatures, and they expressed an intention to delete files & emails in order to thwart public access to climate info. That's not 'science', that's a fraudulent conspiracy.
Climate change is caused by the Sun (see Gen 1:16)and there's nothing we can do about solar cycles. I am aware of the 'greenhouse effect' but global temperatures are not proportional to % CO2; the graph is not linear. There's only so much IR a particular tri-atomic molecule can absorb, and at ~0.04% it appears that CO2 has reached it's saturation point. Dr Heinz Hug measured the radiative forcing of CO2 with an IR spectrophotometer and found a figure that's at variance (by a reduction factor of 80)with the (undetermined) figure used by the now discredited IPCC. Who you gonna believe?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 27, 2009 3:21 PM
No, nobody can. Even PZ can only use them in his posts, not in his comments.
Then why has the late-20th-century increase in solar radiation stopped while the increase in temperatures continued?
Why do you talk about stuff you don't know anything about?
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
So you're not even trying to make a scientific argument here? Thanks! Why didn't you say so right away!
Yeah. Who I gonna believe? One random anonymous moron on the Internet, who knows the name of a PhD but is too stupid to cite that PhD's publication, or the scientific literature? Huh? Huh??
Why do you keep bringing up arguments that were disproven years to decades ago? Go to http://realclimate.org and spend the entire fucking weekend there. You just might learn something.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 27, 2009 3:23 PM
wiley,
Too funny. Anyway there are going to be a lot of wileys running around thinking they've got their final "proof" of a vast
realityleft-wing conspiracy, and I for one would like to know how to knock them down. I don't know a lot about climatology, except that we've been getting pretty damn good at it the last couple of decades. Anyone know of a good climate change denial debunking toolkit?Posted by: David Estlund | November 27, 2009 3:27 PM
David Marjanović, you gave me what I was asking for before I asked the question! Unfortunately I think that's proof that the universe was designed by an intelligent entity with me especially in mind. Oh wait, I forgot that it means the designer also put wiley out there. Disbelief back online.
Posted by: Con Sumatum | November 27, 2009 4:36 PM
My so called ignorance of math, science, and other religions is over-shadowed by your total and complete Ignorance of the nature of God and His book.
"There is no God!" is the cry of many a wanna be non existing atheists, even though they wear the label. And you haven't even addressed how you claim to be atheists. Finite mortal limited beings, Pretending to be infinite immortal beings with infinite data, what arrogance.
Posted by: Ben in Texas | November 27, 2009 4:40 PM
"Finite mortal limited beings, Pretending to be infinite immortal beings"
Uh, don't you have that backwards? In a couple of ways, actually.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 27, 2009 4:47 PM
We aren't ignorant, as your deity doesn't exist. You have presented absolutely no evidence for your deity. Another lie for the godbot.Since your diety doesn't exist, he can't have a book. Eithet put up the conclusive physical evidence for your deity, or shut the fuck up. Your presupposition argument, like all presupposition arguments, is false.Now you get it. Your deity exists only between your ears, which makes you a delusional fool. Show us otherwise. We are waiting for your evidence.Irrelevant, until you prove that your god exists. No god is the default by parsimony. That comes from basic logic without the presupposition that your deity exists. And all presuppositions like that are false.That has defined your who series of posts here. Arrogance. You can't give evidence for your deity and babble, but you can't shut up like a rational person either. That just leaves you being an arrogant delusional fool.Posted by: Knockgoats | November 27, 2009 5:00 PM
wiley,
You're a moron.
Climate change is caused by the Sun (see Gen 1:16)and there's nothing we can do about solar cycles.
Genesis is a load of crap. The solar constant has shown no significant change since 1950. You're a fucking moron.
I am aware of the 'greenhouse effect' but global temperatures are not proportional to % CO2 the graph is not linear.
Which is why climate scientists say the rise in temperature is proportional to the logarithm of the CO2 concentration. You're a fucking ignorant moron.
There's only so much IR a particular tri-atomic molecule can absorb, and at ~0.04% it appears that CO2 has reached it's saturation point.
You don't even know what a triatomic molecule is, you're just cutting and pasting, you fucking ignorant plagiarising moron.
Dr Heinz Hug measured the radiative forcing of CO2 with an IR spectrophotometer and found a figure that's at variance (by a reduction factor of 80)with the (undetermined) figure used by the now discredited IPCC.
Hug is a crank without any knowledge of or qualifications in climate science. You're a fucking ignorant plagiarising lying moron.
Who you gonna believe?
The experts. Not a shit-for-brains fucking ignorant plagiarising lying moron.
Posted by: JB | November 27, 2009 5:03 PM
I think that's the point. I have such complete ignorance of your god (along with the fairies, leprechauns and Grandithriples) that to any practical effect it isn't there.And the book... It describes an indecisive, insecure and mass-murder-inciting hypocrite with little better to do than meddle in the affairs of a tribe of goat-herders (but no-one else on the planet) for a thousand years or so and then go suddenly quiet on us.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 27, 2009 5:06 PM
'I do not blow goats!' is the cry of a specific wannabe non-goat blower... And he hasn't even addressed his claims not to blow goats... Finite mortal limited* goat blower... what arrogance.
(/*Insofar as reports are that so far, no, the goats haven't much enjoyed it.)
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 27, 2009 5:07 PM
.Posted by: Kel, OM | November 27, 2009 5:17 PM
My non-ignorance of maths, science, other religions is mainly why I am an atheist.See the device sitting in front of you now? It's a computer, made through the scientific method. So why is ignorance of science a problem? Because science evidentially works. You admit this by being on the internet. Yet the same forces of physics that govern how a computer works are what is used to measure the age of the universe. The same process that makes nuclear power work is what is used to measure the age of the earth.
So the question is, how can you possibly sit on a computer without feeling like a hypocrite? I'm betting you don't think about it. While the magic smoke hypothesis might be just as valid to you as one involving electron flow through semi-conducting material to make logic gates, to those who make the system it actually matters. This is why it is so important to be well-versed in science, it's how the world works!
And if you don't know how it works, how can you confidently proclaim that an interventionist deity is a part of how the world works? It's like burying your head in the sand to think that will make enemies disappear.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 27, 2009 5:17 PM
"Finite mortal limited beings, Pretending to
behave infinite immortal beings"There, I fixed it.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
November 27, 2009 5:26 PM
after perusing the following list, I have come to the conclusion that Aschlafly is more than just wilfully ignorant; there has got to be some serious delusion or other brain-damage involved: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Andrew_Schlafly/List_of_supposed_expertise
either way, it's a pretty impressive list of Epic Fail.
Posted by: strange gods before me, OM
|
November 27, 2009 5:32 PM
Joshua 10:12, sucker.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 27, 2009 5:35 PM
Aww, it's so cute when they melt down and admit they got nothing. Nothing but their interpretation of a book with a billion interpretations by a billion people, every one of which thinks his interpretation is right. If there's anything I've learned from these morons, it's that I can safely say the number of Christians who are wrong about god is at least N-1, where N is the number of Christians in existence.
Remove the theology, and CS "I wish I were Lewis"' argument boils down to this:
"Oh, yeah? Well, I'm gonna go get my best friend Buster Carusoe who's a, a, world-famous wrestler that you don't know about because he lives in Connecticut where they don't have phones and if you call me stupid again he's going to beat you up because he's a green beret and he almost killed Osama Bin Laden last year but he had some pity so he didn't kill him but he told me he learned from that mistake so you are dead if you call me stupid again!"
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 27, 2009 9:04 PM
I live in Connecticut. What is this "phone" you're referring to?
Posted by: David Estlund | November 27, 2009 11:23 PM
It's something one would use to produce evidence of someone's existence. Don't worry, you're better off without one. ;)Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | November 28, 2009 8:19 AM
#115 Con Sumatum
Ohh, can I play? Show me in the bible where:
- Jesus actually says he is the Messiah prophesied by the Jews?
- Jesus actually says he is the Son of God?
- Jesus actually says he part of the Trinity of Father, Son & Holy Ghost?
- Jesus actually says you have to be baptized or go to hell (extra points if you find where he specifies as an adult or child)?
Because, as you have so sagely pointed out - unless the bible literally says something, using logic, imputation or inference is wrong. Which makes a large chunk of Christian theology a FAIL.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
November 28, 2009 11:10 AM
Wiley,
You know, under normal circumstances, I might find it necessary to rhetorically bitch slap a denialist like you, but really, you're doing a better job of discrediting yourself than I ever could. Carry on. However, you might want to get help with that reading comprehension problem. How anyone could carry away the impression you have from these emails is beyond human comprehension. Yes, some climate scientists argue for some unwise action, but every evidence in these emails suggests they were written in the heat of the moment and that no one acted on the unwise advice, including Phil Jones.
As to the saturation argument, sorry Charlie, but spectral lines are thick tailed. Even water vapor at 4% is not saturated. Now run along and come back when you've actually learned some science.
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
November 28, 2009 11:58 AM
I really don't understand. What is this person trying to say anyway?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 28, 2009 12:09 PM
Who are you referring to?Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
November 28, 2009 12:11 PM
Andy Schlafly, I believe his name is?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 28, 2009 12:18 PM
Andy Schlafly is a wingnut who hasn't said anything cogent in years, and runs a website called conservipedia. We laugh at his inane proclamations, since they usually are devoid of reality, like him trying to say black holes are caused by liberals and people not reading the bible. Don't bother trying to parse what he is saying. You could spend a while and still not figure it out, as it is borderline insane.Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | November 28, 2009 6:51 PM
...In the same way that New Jersey is close to the Mexican border.
Posted by: Erog | November 29, 2009 9:21 AM
“If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” - Richard Feynman
Posted by: tus | November 30, 2009 3:09 AM
"and everyone knows reality has a liberal bias"~stephen colbert.
Posted by: its_me | December 2, 2009 7:57 PM
You know what is pretty funny? The number of people on here who actually think they are intelligent and witty, but really come off as elitist and dim.
Don't think the truly intelligent can't identify you as to what you really are. Regardless of how many big words you use, or witty geekspeak you weild like no more than a intellectual wet noodle.
Oh, and how are all of you climate-freaks enjoying the exposure of your own religion?
Seems like it makes the Bilbe a trifle more believable than the words of our internet's creator Al Gore and his ilk (read: you).
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 6, 2009 2:07 AM
You are indeed funny! I can only infer that you speak of yourself.
Your above sentence has poor grammar and syntax. And you misspelled "wield".
Hope this helps!
You misspelled "Bilge". Why is the Bilge more believable?
You're allowed to be impressed by Al Gore, but we're not his ilk. Sorry. Or did you use the wrong pronoun, and actually meant yourself?
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 6, 2009 2:25 AM
really? hmmm Another irony meter explodes.Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 6, 2009 3:10 AM
and another idiot who thinks the USA is the whole world, therefore Al Gore matters.
Al Gore doesn't matter to climatology, you numbnut.