…and this is a 
Creationists say the weirdest things. Every once in a while, someone sends me a creationist quote that reveals exactly how clueless and ignorant these guys are, because they start lecturing people on biology, a subject they clearly know nothing about. We've got a local boy named Brock Lee in Owatonna who is fond of writing amazing letters to the newspapers — I've mentioned him before — and here's a remarkable example of creationist inanity. Look at the conclusions he draws from the biological species concept:
What is a species? The evolutionary answer seems simple enough: a species is an interbreeding population.
Most people walk away from biology classes with this definition, and it is this definition which causes problems. (In the first DVD of Hovind's debate series, you can hear one college student give this exact definition.)
Notice that by this definition, those that are not interbreeding are not part of the species. This means that a virgin is not, by this definition, a human. If you use this definition, child sacrifice would not be considered murder, since murder only applies to humans; the child is not able to interbreed, and thus cannot meet the criteria of being in the human species. Do you see how something so simple as a wrong definition can have devastating effects?
Hormones, peers and the teaching of evolution work as a trifecta to push teens into being sexually active. Teens can control behavior and change friends, but the corrosive teaching of evolution will linger beyond them because it is ingrained in the modernist humanist belief system.
It is no surprise, then, that some teens in this town think sex stores are a good thing. They've been taught that sex is the only way to become human, and that even then humans have no value anyway because we're part of the problem. The right approach is not simply to get rid of the store, but rather to destroy the false teachings which make such a store thrive.
As Kent Hovind says, "What you believe determines how you behave." And when it comes to studying beliefs, begin at the beginning. If you would like to volunteer your time or talents to combat false teachings about origins, please contact me at brocklee@youngearthcreation.org.
God made sex, so use it as he says — in marriage.
Brock Lee
Got it, people? According to a creationist who claims that this is according to evolutionary biology, if you aren't pregnant or having sex right now, you aren't a human being, and we can kill you. And this is one of the reasons teenagers are having sex, because they've been taught that that "is the only way to become human".
His source is Kent Hovind.
Well, ol' Kent is in prison right now, and he sure isn't procreating in there. Why would anyone care what a non-human said?
It does provide us with a new pick-up line, at least. "Help, my humanity is fading! Only you can restore it!" Let me know if it works for you.
Comments
Posted by: Alexander Safir
|
December 19, 2010 1:24 PM
"Trifecta"?
Posted by: forksmuggler
|
December 19, 2010 1:26 PM
Please let that be the stupidest fucking thing I read all day. Week. The rest of the year.
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
December 19, 2010 1:27 PM
"Hey baby, wanna avoid getting murdered?"
Posted by: Treppenwitz
|
December 19, 2010 1:28 PM
Incidentally, am I the only one who finds "what is a species?" to be a pretty uninteresting question? It's better than "what is a genus," but not by too much.
Posted by: Blattafrax
|
December 19, 2010 1:28 PM
It's only going to work on someone that fully groks the wisdom of Hovind. I'm not sure if I want to stoop that low.Posted by: Lotharloo
|
December 19, 2010 1:32 PM
I love how it starts so reasonably with the definition of the species. I bet nobody could guess what was coming next. It's incredibly funny, the sort of thing you expect from a deadpan comedy show.
Posted by: raven
|
December 19, 2010 1:32 PM
In reality, which Brock Lee has never seen, fundie xian teenagers have higher rates of teenage pregnancy and abortion than normal people.
The data says being an ignorant, religious kook can mess up your life early on. Brock Lee and Hovind are good examples of religious induced brain damage.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkTzptVlEZQ2er6ymj1D_wskpB_1kIRN_o
|
December 19, 2010 1:34 PM
Wouldn't that be "Help, my humanity is shrinking! Only you can restore it!"
Sincerely,
Benjamin Franklin
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
December 19, 2010 1:37 PM
ouch
that was painful
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 19, 2010 1:39 PM
Incidentally, am I the only one who finds "what is a species?" to be a pretty uninteresting question? It's better than "what is a genus," but not by too much.
actually, it's still one of the driving questions n biology and evolution.
Jerry Coyne spells a bit of it out quite nicely here:
https://mindonline.uchicago.edu/media/history/fishbein/darwin_2009/coyne_512k.mov
Posted by: llewelly
|
December 19, 2010 1:40 PM
HoorAY!! I've been an inhuman for 15 years! A rousing cheer for inhumanism!!
Posted by: Ole O.
|
December 19, 2010 1:41 PM
Kent might not be procreating in there, but he may be having sex...
Posted by: Some bloke or another
|
December 19, 2010 1:42 PM
If someone wrote that piece with the earnest intention of comic parody, I'd dismiss it as being too absurd, too far gone to be genuinely funny.
I don't understand how anyone can genuinely come to that conclusion. Surely he's at least one step ahead of the immediately apparent, and is trying to use hyperbole to hoodwink people he perceives as less intelligent than himself.
Surely no-one with the mental capacity to form sentences can think this. There must be a limit, there must be!
tl;dr - The stupid, it burns.
Posted by: Kristian
|
December 19, 2010 1:44 PM
I wouldn't be too sure about that. Those prison issue hard bar soaps sure are slippery. :pPosted by: Iain Walker
|
December 19, 2010 1:46 PM
So basically, Lee can't tell the difference between a population and an individual member of a population, nor the difference between a criterion for distinguishing between different populations and a criterion for membership of a specific population.
The distinction is a slightly subtle one, I suppose, so you can kind of see how the error arises. The really mind-boggling stupid part is where he takes his misunderstanding, conflates biological identity with moral status, and then projects who whole sorry mess onto America's high school youngs*. Because we all know that teenagers are driven to have sex by worries about their taxonomic status.
* I'm indebted to our charming Turkish friend martiler in the Islam Hates Women thread for this delightful coinage.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
December 19, 2010 1:46 PM
The sad thing is that even those on his side who know it's so much mindless twaddle typically approve, because he's working "for God." That's the Truth that matters more than merely telling lies, so the latter are at worst something to avoid when you can while working "for God."
It's one way the stupid continues without being threatened by learning.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
December 19, 2010 1:49 PM
No, you're not.
However, it's very important for conservation and environmentalism. And it's crucial to understanding evolution, since the point at which genes cease to flow between populations dictates where a population has an independent evolutionary trajectory.
If it's unimportant to you, that's fine, though.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
December 19, 2010 1:49 PM
That totally perverts the meaning of, "Oh the huge manatee!", thank you.
Posted by: j-brisby
|
December 19, 2010 1:51 PM
A shining example of someone too loony to refute. This is where the point-and-laugh is indispensable. Or the sigh-and-eyeroll if you're of a more retiring nature.
Posted by: AJKamper
|
December 19, 2010 1:55 PM
Isn't saying that "What is a species" is important for conservation sort of putting the cart before the horse? ARen't you really saying that conservation is about preserving "independent evolutionary trajectories?"
Just thinking out loud.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec
|
December 19, 2010 1:56 PM
words fail me is he trying to be funny to ridicule science? though he make a true observation.
""Do you see how something so simple as a wrong definition can have devastating effects?""
""The right approach is not simply to get rid of the store, but rather to destroy the false teachings ""
"""What you believe determines how you behave." And when it comes to studying beliefs, begin at the beginning. ""
it seems to be clear were he and they will take this. it would not be the first time but I do hope that it will be the last time.
ignorance and resentment and fear are a dangerous combination, sometimes I weep for the future.
uncle frogy
uncle frogy
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 19, 2010 1:57 PM
So that's why deeply fundagentalist Hovind is in prison.
Posted by: vanbeverningk
|
December 19, 2010 2:00 PM
It's always painful to see someone, clueless about a certain field of knowledge, work from false or misunderstood premises, but what me really gets is the smug "take THAT you stupid scientists" when they present their "conclusion".
This all reminds me of the poor guy who's trying to impress a girl at a bar, by confidently smiling while nonchalantly twirling his dad's BMW's car keys around his finger, unaware of the 2 feet of toilet paper sticking to his shoe and his fly being open.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
December 19, 2010 2:00 PM
interesting
MINNESOTA SECRETARY
OF STATE CERTIFICATE OF
ASSUMED NAME
Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 333
1. State the exact assumed
name under which the business
is or will be conducted:
Youth Earth Creation Organiza-
tion
2. State the address of the princi-
pal place of business. A com-
plete street address or rural
route box number is required; the
address cannot be a P.O. Box.
1417 Mineral Springs Road,
Owatonna, MN 55060
3. List the name and complete
street address of all persons
conducting business under the
above Assumed Name, OR if an
entity, provide the legal corpo-
rate, LLC, or Limited Partnership
name and registered office ad-
dress. Attach additional sheet(s)
if necessary.
Brock Lee 1417 Mineral Springs
Road, Owatonna MN 55060
4. I certify that I am authorized to
sign this certificate and I further
certify that I understand that by
signing this certificate, I am sub-
ject to the penalties of perjury as
set forth in Minnesota Statutes
section 609.48 as if I had signed
this certificate under oath.
/s/ Brock Lee
Signature
Brock Lee
Print Name and Title
Brock Lee (507) 455-4093
Contact Person /Daytime phone
Date: 02-18-2010
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
FILED
Feb. 18, 2010
/s/ Mark Ritchie
Secretary of State
4032641
3/2,3 OPP
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
December 19, 2010 2:01 PM
By the way, if the species definition (which many creationists accept, FWIW) is what's driving teens to have sex, shouldn't it also drive them to oppose not only abortion but also contraception as well?
Because sex with contraception is not exactly "interbreeding," unless accidentally.
OK, well, we knew he was spouting idiocy. I just thought I'd write out why it's especially stupid.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
December 19, 2010 2:03 PM
I'm sorry, but this guy is so far 'round the fucking bend, that letter must have arrived written in purple crayon with little spangles of aluminum that flaked off of this guys hat.
If someone is so fucking insecure in his beliefs that he must construct the views of his opponents out of whole cloth... well, let's just say I rather doubt he believes anything he purportedly believes.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
December 19, 2010 2:03 PM
#OP
Should that definition not require a 'Capable' somewhere in that construct?
"A species is that population which is capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."
Methinks 'brain in his arse' forgot to add that proviso...probably deliberately!
According to this doyenné of logical jiggery pokery what would the classification of a kitten be?...Sub-pussy maybe?
Or a puppy.....Sub-hound 'dawg perchance?
Posted by: vanbeverningk
|
December 19, 2010 2:05 PM
#24 ?? What is the "interesting" part?
Posted by: crocswsocks
|
December 19, 2010 2:07 PM
I would note that though Hovind isn't procreating, he's probably 'having' intercourse.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
December 19, 2010 2:09 PM
that he's running a YEC "organization" out of his basement.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
December 19, 2010 2:11 PM
Q "What is a species?"
A Sails right over Brock Lee's head.
The non impact of the answer with Lee's brain is directly attributable to willful belief in silly morality stories that really aren't morality based but really are silly.
Silly. The keyword of that sort of comfort that is wholly dependent upon ignorance. By the grace of an invisible supernatural spook who we are expected to worship based on nothing more than silly morality stories.
And the wheel turns round and round . . . until chaste virginity, once a sign of grace and approval from said spook, has now become a stigma of inhumanity. OK, now I understand, I think. He's saying that the favor of the spook is reserved for them who deny the state into which they were born: virginal and atheist.
Gee, how could the Ur-creator fuck up so badly? Brock? Mr. Lee? Anyone? How?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
December 19, 2010 2:11 PM
Another person who thinks prison rape is funny.
Posted by: Alice Bluegown
|
December 19, 2010 2:12 PM
Oh come on, you gotta give ol' Brock props for trying to draw a direct line from evolution to porn, even if the logic leaps required are positively trans-oceanic. Does he see how something so simple as a complete failure to grasp basic concepts can have devastating consequences?
Anyway, some of us are quite keen on the notion of mixing horniness and the fate of species...
*flutters eyes coquettishly*
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 19, 2010 2:16 PM
When I was a teenage non-human being driven by raging hormones to desire sexual intercourse, I wasn't thinking of evolution or the definition of species.
When Lee and the wife are doing the dirty, does Lee just lie back and think of species?
Posted by: vanbeverningk
|
December 19, 2010 2:20 PM
Just checked out Lee Brock's 'faith statement'.
http://www.youngearthcreation.org/faith_statement.htm
Let me restrict my comments to just one remark about his closing statement:
I think this serves as a prime example of a prayer that went SPECTACULARLY unanswered.
Posted by: lykex
|
December 19, 2010 2:26 PM
Don't. He'll just start blaming teenage pregnancies on evolution, too.
Posted by: zach.sylvain
|
December 19, 2010 2:31 PM
Does this mean that Bristol Palin is a secret evolutionist?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/K2PNji0at.txAjzTShOlxwLuFcVVFwbnng--#bd813
|
December 19, 2010 2:36 PM
Mammals give birth to live young and suckle them. Therefore males are not mammals.
Posted by: Magicbullet
|
December 19, 2010 2:41 PM
I am disappoint..
Posted by: squiddhartha
|
December 19, 2010 2:50 PM
I take exception to the post title, "Not even wrong, again."
It's pretty darn wrong.
Posted by: Tim, not my real name.
|
December 19, 2010 2:59 PM
Thanks PZ, that one made me stretch my face with smiley. What a fine line there is with teh stupid; some causes pain and suffering, and this time it caused happiness. I know that the person who wrote this resembles dangerously insane, and maybe he is, reardless I am still lolling.
Thanks again.
Posted by: Deluded Creodont
|
December 19, 2010 2:59 PM
It never ceases to amaze me that, despite being so bonkers that even other Creationists have called him on it, Kent Hovind continues to attract people who think he's legit.
Posted by: Azkyroth
|
December 19, 2010 3:06 PM
So all those priests were just trying to "humanize" their victims?
Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
|
December 19, 2010 3:08 PM
Hilarious.
"All people are human, but some people are more human than others."
I guess porn stars are super-extra human.
Posted by: casey.oneill.is
|
December 19, 2010 3:15 PM
As someone noted above, you aren't the only one, but there are plenty of people who do find it quite interesting for a number of reasons. When ring species were brought up during my first physical anthro class was when I really became interested. It's one of those things like time or space, where scientists have functional definitions that have some problems with them but those definitions work in context. That doesn't mean there isn't anything to gain from looking at these concepts outside the current scientific context. That's one of the ways we can develop a better understanding of these sorts of processes.
Not that the guy quoted by PZ has any clue what he's talking about, but there definitely interesting aspects to be discussed.
Posted by: Jeanette
|
December 19, 2010 3:17 PM
Oh, well if one biology student said that on Kent Hovind's DVD...
Posted by: SQB (fuck death)
|
December 19, 2010 3:19 PM
What.
Warning: TV Tropes
Posted by: Bater1
|
December 19, 2010 3:20 PM
This one ranks pretty high on the lunacy scale.
He did accomplish quite an achievement – he managed to start with a reasonable question (what is a species) and reach virgins and child sacrifice in two paragraphs, perhaps he was going for some award for extreme lunacy?
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 19, 2010 3:22 PM
..I can't touch this.
Its like a monkey made entirely of asses, you can spend hours trying to figure out what end to pick it up from.
Posted by: PenguinFactory
|
December 19, 2010 3:25 PM
Notice that by this definition, those that are not interbreeding are not part of the species. This means that a virgin is not, by this definition, a human. If you use this definition, child sacrifice would not be considered murder, since murder only applies to humans; the child is not able to interbreed, and thus cannot meet the criteria of being in the human species.
The only reaction I could come up with in response to this is "Whuuuuuuu?"
Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
December 19, 2010 3:41 PM
This is mind-numbingly stupid.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 19, 2010 3:51 PM
Its like a monkey made entirely of asses
yesterday, Buffybot and I were reminiscing over that old toy: "Barrel Full 'O Monkeys".
the image invoked by your expression has entirely ruined it for me.
;)
Posted by: LightningRose
|
December 19, 2010 3:52 PM
Hovind is correct. Is this an example of broken clock syndrome?
Believe in stupid and you behave stupidly.
Posted by: freeverse
|
December 19, 2010 3:54 PM
Siiigh. I feel like an explanation of actual vs effective population size would go right over their heads.
And please tell me that Brock Lee is a pseudonym? Otherwise his parents named him after a cruciferous vegetable and he has every right to be mad at the world. Though how that would *encourage* faith in god... not quite sure.
Posted by: tsig0
|
December 19, 2010 3:55 PM
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp Author Profile Page | December 19, 2010 2:11 PM
I would note that though Hovind isn't procreating, he's probably 'having' intercourse.
Another person who thinks prison rape is funny.
Why do you think it's rape?
Posted by: Tim, not my real name.
|
December 19, 2010 4:10 PM
"Many people, including Charles Darwin, have had problems understanding how a loving God could create parasites which cause such pain. Those people forget, ignore, or don’t understand that we live in a creation punished for sin. God cursed the entire creation because of the sin of man. All evolutionists, including Charles Darwin, who can’t understand this make the mistake of stumbling at the Fall."
The tidbit above was from his FAQ here
I wonder; if 'the entire creation' is being punished for original sin, why is original sin still so much fun? Eve fucked a snake, we get parasites. What a kind loving god we have. (If she wasn't supposed to fuckasnake, then why did it fit so perfectly in the first place? :P)
If y'all follow the link, he also proves that dinosaurs are dragons, etc...
Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
December 19, 2010 4:30 PM
Tim, Manchurian Candidate for Santa,
I just skimmed the first couple of questions, but he already managed to explain that giants, dragons and unicorns exist(ed). And people get offended when I call the Bible a fairy tale.
Posted by: HughWillRidmee
|
December 19, 2010 4:54 PM
@ 50
and if a virgin is not a human then Jesus........................?
Posted by: Treppenwitz
|
December 19, 2010 5:10 PM
I should clarify that I didn't mean the sort of questions that Dr. Coyne talks about in that video, which are absolutely fascinating and worth the effort spent on them. I was talking more about things like lumper/splitter debates.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 19, 2010 5:21 PM
"Many people, including Charles Darwin, have had problems understanding how a loving God could create parasites which cause such pain. Those people forget, ignore, or don’t understand that we live in a creation punished for sin. God cursed the entire creation because of the sin of man. All evolutionists, including Charles Darwin, who can’t understand this make the mistake of stumbling at the Fall."
what about parasites that are themselves, parasitized?
god regrets?
Posted by: Moggie
|
December 19, 2010 5:21 PM
When creationists and fundies say something particular unpleasant, I often wonder whether projection is involved. In this example, isn't it mostly people on Mr Lee's side of the reality divide who wish to deny human rights to one group of non-breeding people? I wonder whether he is in the habit of thinking that some people are less than human, and should be treated accordingly.
Posted by: Tim, not my real name.
|
December 19, 2010 5:26 PM
Why do we let this kind of crazy to go on and on?
What is it about our modern civilisation that allows the kind of illness these people manifest to go undiagnosed and untreated?
Overnight you could transform the economy. Treatment of mental illness could become the largest sector of the 'merkin free enterprise system! Y'all could export effective therapies instead of weapons and second rate gas-guzzlers.
Posted by: Nick
|
December 19, 2010 5:31 PM
Isn't that the doctrine of original sin?
Posted by: Noni Mausa
|
December 19, 2010 5:33 PM
"...Got it, people? According to a creationist who claims that this is according to evolutionary biology, if you aren't pregnant or having sex right now, you aren't a human being, and we can kill you. And this is one of the reasons teenagers are having sex, because they've been taught that that "is the only way to become human"..."
I agree that the quoted piece is mindnumbingly illogical and flat out stupid, a huge, remotely operated straw man. However, a surprisingly large number of humans between 14 and 20 believe they are flawed outcasts if they haven't yet had sex.
But, they didn't need Bio 101 to make them think this, it seems to be hardwired.
They get over this belief quite speedily once exposed to sex and its failure to endow them with superhuman charisma and a knowledge of all things Grown-Up.
Noni
Posted by: Moggie
|
December 19, 2010 5:39 PM
Then why have I, a non-human, been paying taxes all my working life? No taxation without procreation!
Posted by: oodiesmith
|
December 19, 2010 5:43 PM
Before the teaching of evolution, I wonder what was the third part of the trifecta that made teenagers have sex? It must have been all those pornographic cave paintings....
It's pretty impressive for a creationist. The grammar is pretty good, decent spelling and none of the RANDOM CAPITALISATION that seems to be the hallmark of the creationist. The logic, however, remains consistent with the brethren.
Posted by: llewelly
|
December 19, 2010 6:10 PM
Noni Mausa | December 19, 2010 5:33 PM:
It is a notion aggressively promoted by most movies and television aimed at those between the ages of 13-25. (Interestingly, some religions promote something similar; Mormonism teaches that one cannot "spiritually progress" unless one gets married in the Mormon-approved way, and has sex in the Mormon-approved way.)
Posted by: lykex
|
December 19, 2010 6:16 PM
Well, according to him, it's humanism... apparently.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
December 19, 2010 6:18 PM
A sin that he admittedly set up for Adam and Eve. I mean, they didn't know the difference between right and wrong, and their sin was to learn the difference between right and wrong. But if they didn't know the difference, how did they know they were doing wrong?
But it's not really God's fault, now, is it? You poor sinners (and I include me in that; we're all sinners, but you all are far greater sinners than me, so I can discount my sins; besides, I had an aspect of God die for my sins, even if he didn't really die {but was only mostly dead}, and God rebuilt him so he was better. Stronger. Faster.)
You poor sinners are simply stuck not understanding that God's infinite Ire trumps God's Infinite Love. Ire is simply more infinite. And so while He infinitely Loves you, He also Infinitely Infects you with worms that eat out your retinas.
You poor sinners simply don't get it. God is just like my dad. He loves you so very much, sometimes he just has to punish you for your own good. Flesh-eating bacteria are God's way of putting his cigarette out in your eye, just like Dad does when you point out that He's had too much to drink and probably shouldn't be driving over to Mom's house to beat up her boyfriend. He just loves you that much.
The logic of it all is so beautiful, so inescapable, it's a wonder you have the temerity to call yourselves rational.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
|
December 19, 2010 6:28 PM
I haven't had any offspring.
WooHoo! 41 years of being non-human!
Hey, doesn't the Fall only apply to humans! Great-- I don't have original sin (only repetitive ones). No need for Christ for me!
Posted by: Tim, not my real name.
|
December 19, 2010 6:30 PM
Well put Nigel.
'God's infinite ire trumps god's infinite love'
God is bipolar.
We can fix him, we have the technology!
Posted by: jefrir
|
December 19, 2010 6:30 PM
Sort of; there are some populations that do not breed together (different behaviour, different markings so they don't recognize each other as potential mates, geographical separation), but which are physically capable of doing so, and may be prompted to do so in experimental settings. For exampl,I remember reading, probably in one of Dawkins' books, about two species of insects with different colour legs. In the wild, they never interbred, but when captive ones had their legs painted the other colour, they hybridised quite happily, producing fertile offspring. Basically, it gets complicated at the edges.
Posted by: Tim, not my real name.
|
December 19, 2010 6:36 PM
of course, in the world of prokaryotes it is very different all together...
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
December 19, 2010 6:44 PM
Tim, MCfS:
That's what I don't get. If God were truly a father, child services would've taken the kids away and put them in foster care years ago. Yet for some reason, that behavior is not only admirable in a god, but worthy of worship.
I just don't get it. It seems like Christians are willing to accept the most abhorrent behavior from their Font of All Morality, and they spend so much time spinning it, they don't stop to think what it really means.
Posted by: Aliasalpha
|
December 19, 2010 6:46 PM
So because I've never done the sex at anything, that means I'm not presently and never have been human?
WOOOOHOOO! I don't have to be embarassed to share a species with knobheads like this!
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
December 19, 2010 6:47 PM
Damnit. That "Font of All Morality" should really be the "Fount of All Morality."
I'm not sure what the Font of All Morality would be. Times New Roman?
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
December 19, 2010 6:51 PM
Don't forget your ring species. While the concept of "species" is useful, it's hard to pin down a single definition that fits all cases. It's a rather fluid concept.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 19, 2010 6:54 PM
I'm not sure what the Font of All Morality would be. Times New Roman?
hah, obvious answer:
comic sans.
Posted by: SpeakerToManagers
|
December 19, 2010 6:58 PM
Throw another virgin on the barbie, PZ. And by the way, if god is bipolar, it explains where all the lithium has been going.
Posted by: Warm Little Pond
|
December 19, 2010 7:03 PM
Oh my, the stupid hurts.
Posted by: Aliasalpha
|
December 19, 2010 7:09 PM
Well its not comic sansPosted by: Tim, not my real name.
|
December 19, 2010 7:10 PM
Nigel, the font of all morality is the one they used in the king james version, lolz.
Posted by: A Bad Idea (♀)
|
December 19, 2010 7:24 PM
Say his name out loud. Brock. Lee. Brocklee.
I think... no, I hope... that we have an epic troll on our hands.
At the very least, his parents trolled him.
Posted by: evilDoug
|
December 19, 2010 7:36 PM
"God is bipolar.
We can fix him, we have the technology!"
What'd the plan? Re-do him in CMOS?
There has to be a wafer joke in there somewhere, too.
Posted by: Imbecile Heureux
|
December 19, 2010 7:55 PM
Leaving, if at all possible, all of the rampant stupid to one side, am I the only person who thinks that there may be something of interest in this claim:
?
Posted by: webriggs
|
December 19, 2010 8:13 PM
Okay, that third paragraph in the quoted text was just too fucking stupid for words (I didn't need to read more). No wonder these people believe anything. They have no ability to reason through anything. That was some of the craziest rationalization I've ever heard, and I've heard some pretty whacko stuff in my day.
A virgin isn't human? What the fuck? I have two daughters, both of them are very young, and virgins. I think I'd have to look far and wide to find anyone, even a loony fundie, who would tell me that they were not human. This wanker is so full of shit. How does one get that stupid? Oh, I know, religion.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 19, 2010 8:15 PM
In other words, god is an asshole.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 19, 2010 8:21 PM
am I the only person who thinks that there may be something of interest in this claim:
only from a psychological perspective.
as a likely example of projection.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
December 19, 2010 8:30 PM
I really don't get that there are still people out there who take the original sin story literally. Surely the talking snake is a dead giveaway that the story is allegorical. Silly fundies, myths are for kids.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
December 19, 2010 8:38 PM
It's a morality of obedience. Do what God commands, not what is good. There's a reason after all divine command theory is so prominent despite the Euthyphro dilemma.Posted by: DrGonzo666
|
December 19, 2010 8:42 PM
Sing it with me, humans!!!
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
December 19, 2010 8:44 PM
Kel, OM,
True. But as soon as you dispose of Euthyphro's dilemma, "morality" is no longer about doing what is right, but doing what is lawful. You can no longer speak of the Bible as providing morality, but only as providing law.
It's trading one dilemma for another, one that is harder to justify or defend.
Posted by: TimKO,,.,,
|
December 19, 2010 8:46 PM
Several things he states qualify him as sociopathic. Hopefully people in his town are keeping an eye on him. Are there any missing people there?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
December 19, 2010 8:47 PM
Exactly. I'm sure you've come across the apologetic that asks you to judge your worth as a 'good' person by how closely you follow the 10 commandments.It's all really absurd, and these are the same people who talk about how there can be no good without God. The good they're referring to must be arbitrary constructs, so good riddance!
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
December 19, 2010 8:52 PM
And yet they accuse atheists of having the arbitrary morality.
That's what I don't get about this rant. It twists an "is" (species are breeding populations) to an "aught" (humans aren't human unless they are breeding) in an arbitrary manner. This is then used to falsely accuse atheists of arbitrary morality, all the while ignoring the arbitrary nature of their own purported moral foundation.
It fucking boggles the mind.
At least, my mind. I might be easily boggled, I admit, but this is a logical knot of gordian proportions.
Posted by: Joe Bloe
|
December 19, 2010 8:54 PM
Don't worry about Brock Lee. The leaders of the mainstream churches will soon put him right. They won't tolerate anyone telling lies for Jesus.
Posted by: lykex
|
December 19, 2010 8:58 PM
I've asked this question of christians myself and never really gotten a satisfying answer.
The closest I ever got was that Adam and Eve supposedly knew the difference between Good and Evil, they just didn't know what actions fell into which category.
Since god had told them about that specific act, they knew it was wrong and have no excuse.
Of course, if you ask for a bible verse that backs up that view, you'll get a blank stare, so it's clearly an ad hoc explanation.
Your comment did bring up another concern that I have never thought of before: Why did God put the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden in the first place? What could possibly be the purpose?
He wouldn't eat from it, since he already is all-knowing. The animals wouldn't, since they have no need for that kind of knowledge. Adam and Eve might have reason to eat, but were forbidden from dong so.
There is literally not a single being in all of creation that would have both reason and permission to eat of the Tree. So, why is it there?
The only explanation is that God wanted Adam and Eve to sin, so he would have an excuse for inflicting everlasting torment on his creation and pretend it wasn't just because he was a sadistic bastard.
The problem with that is, once you've tossed out one story as metaphor, how do you know which other stories to take seriously? How do you know if any of them are to be taken seriously?
Once you've pulled this trick once, you've basically admitted that the bible is just another story-book, with no more inherent authority than Grimm's fairytales.
Posted by: F
|
December 19, 2010 9:01 PM
@ nigelTheBold
Your usage of font is perfectly correct. If fact, it also works in the reverse: You can refer to typeface as fount.
Aught, on the other hand, is right out. (Ought.)
</done being silly and pedantic for now>
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
December 19, 2010 9:01 PM
Well they do have prominent atheists like JL Mackie to pull out in support of that claim, and perhaps there cannot be a non-arbitrary objective atheist morality (though Michael Martin in Atheism, Morality & Meaning argues that an Ideal Observer works as an objective non-arbitrary metaethical framework), but it's a deflection because all they have is God says so. William Lane Craig might say what God says is in his nature, but that doesn't stop it being arbitrary - it just puts the arbitrary one step back.Posted by: F
|
December 19, 2010 9:04 PM
@ nigelTheBold
Or, aught is actually pretty funny there, but I'm imagining it wasn't the word (verb) you had intended.
Posted by: DrGonzo666
|
December 19, 2010 9:11 PM
This goddamn link outta work...shit!
Posted by: Tim, not my real name.
|
December 19, 2010 9:37 PM
Hi lykex,
One of the funniest things I read awhile ago was something by an Xian apologist that 'proves' how the whole eating the apple thingy was a metaphor. The eating of forbidden fruit was a metaphor for Eve actually having sex with the snake. He had a long, scholarly type bit of lunacy, but sounded as good as anyhing else I had seen regarding the whole story. Anyone else seen that one?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 19, 2010 9:39 PM
They won't tolerate anyone telling lies for Jesus.
you forgot to add:
"other than themselves"
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
December 19, 2010 9:50 PM
@F,
You are, of course, correct. I saw "Font" and saw the chance for a quick joke, which I jumped at (I mean, who wouldn't?). I used "aught" (0) inadvertently.
Sigh.
Thanks for being silly and pedantic.
Posted by: Frank0570618
|
December 19, 2010 10:00 PM
Do you see how something as simple as being functionally retarded can have devastating effects?
It seems to me that religious thinking (or lack thereof) inhibits the normal development of telecephalic structures in the brains of individuals within the Christian community. This is the only truly reasonable explanation for the complete lack of logical coherence that this man displays.
Posted by: sidhe3141
|
December 19, 2010 10:54 PM
7:
Well... if only fundies are worthy of respect as human beings... that means only fundies are human beings... and therefore fundies must act like human beings by making themselves part of the human species. If you accept the incredibly absurd premises, it does make internal sense.
Posted by: drbunsen
|
December 19, 2010 11:04 PM
nigelTheBold @74:
He doesn't write, he doesn't call, and he's never once remembered my birthday.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
December 19, 2010 11:20 PM
A more charitable interpretation might be that God wanted Adam and Eve to have the choice between eternal innocence in ignorance or knowledge of morality but with death and suffering, and that, for whatever reason, despite his supposed omnipotence, the individual components of each option are inseparable (one must go with the other, or, you know, the universe would end. . . . or something).
The commandment not to eat the fruit was deliberately arbitrary because the rejection of arbitrary edicts from outside sources is the necessary first step towards moral self-awareness.
In this view of course God is benevolent but not omnipotent, and indeed his benevolence rests entirely on the fact that his is not omnipotent, because if he were omnipotent, then he would, indeed, have been a sadistic bastard.
Posted by: DLC
|
December 19, 2010 11:33 PM
@84: God is a germanium substrate doped with boron or gallium arsenide?
Posted by: lykex
|
December 19, 2010 11:33 PM
You could make such an argument based on the fact that when the bible talks about "knowing" someone, it means sex. It would also correspond with Adam and Eve realizing they were naked, when they ate.
Of course, there's this bit, from God (Gen. 3:22):
Which means that if we interpret "knowing" in this way, it means that god just wanted to keep all the sex for himself :)
Also, it raises the question; who was god having sex with?
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 19, 2010 11:36 PM
Be grateful I didn't share my illustration of what such a creature would look like
My guess? Because it's a myth left over from polytheism and the tree was originally like the food of the gods or the Chinese fruit of immortality or the other such trees that in mythology provided the source of the god's divinity/power.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 19, 2010 11:41 PM
Backing up my theory. Adam and Eve ate from the food of the gods and gained their knowledge. The story also mentions a tree of life I believe that would grant immortality and fear of them finding that and gaining full godhood is why they were driven out.
I liked this myth better when it had Monkey King eating all the fruit and then taking a piss on Buddha's hand
Posted by: Morse
|
December 20, 2010 12:45 AM
Wow, I never thought I'd see someone shove that many equivocation fallacies into such a small amount of text.
Although, maybe he just got his monotheism mixed up with his linguistics and believes that a word can only have one true meaning. (Except in the cases where it also has three meanings, that are different, but also the same).
Posted by: Rumtopf
|
December 20, 2010 1:11 AM
Stupid, bitter virgin, end of story.
Posted by: AmVik
|
December 20, 2010 2:11 AM
I tried it. It didn't work.
Although, the gin and tonic thrown in my face was rather refreshing. :)
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 20, 2010 2:21 AM
did any of it get in your eyes?
can you support the "drinking thru yer eyeballs" postulate?
:)
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 20, 2010 2:25 AM
“The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil...
Who is "we", kimosabe?
Posted by: AmVik
|
December 20, 2010 2:28 AM
You mean, she was trying to help me?
Damn. I can never tell when they're flirting.
Posted by: Equisetum
|
December 20, 2010 2:32 AM
#7:"fundie xian teenagers have higher rates of teenage pregnancy and abortion than normal people."
To Mr. Lee that just proves his point: they're more human than the rest of us.
Posted by: Birger Johansson
|
December 20, 2010 4:04 AM
"Nicht eben falsch"
...what is the German word for "again"?
Posted by: KG
|
December 20, 2010 6:39 AM
He was enjoying threesomes with himself, of course!
Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory
|
December 20, 2010 6:55 AM
I think you mean:
Posted by: christophe-thill.myopenid.com
|
December 20, 2010 6:59 AM
Projection at its finest! Procreation means giving birth, not having sex. Usually the religious believers (especially of the fundamentalist kind) are the most dedicated "breeders". They are the first to ask you why you have no children, with an accusating look. they are the "go forth and multiply" people. So this.. err... argumentation (sorry, I didn't find the proper word) is extremely dishonest. (No surprise here, I know)
Posted by: kai.extern
|
December 20, 2010 7:23 AM
#120 Birger Johansson
Ouch! That hurts. "Eben" is "just", not "even". (Well, it's more complicated than that (isn't it always?), but the short of it is that it's definitely a wrong translation.)
Try "Nicht mal falsch", and "Wieder nicht mal falsch" or "Nicht mal falsch, die zweite" or something like that.
Posted by: Rob883
|
December 20, 2010 7:34 AM
Why in the world would anyone admittedly quote Kent Hovind on behavior, does anyone else see the paradox of a guy in prison telling you how to behave? Like an arsonist saying don't play with fire or a pedophlie talking about protecting children. What the f*** is wrong with this guy?
Posted by: adam.koncz
|
December 20, 2010 7:40 AM
Well I wonder how much human would be this creationist guy if his parents were not having sex.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
December 20, 2010 7:45 AM
I wonder what he thinks of dinosaurs, they haven't been getting any for quite a while...and asexual reproduction in plants?
Scrap that, he probably thinks they are a type of fish which live in the underpants on his head.
Sometimes, it's best not to ask.
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
December 20, 2010 9:09 AM
"What is a species?"
A miserable little pile of secrets.
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
December 20, 2010 9:40 AM
OK, I did a quick ctrl + F on the comments and am surprised to see that no one mentioned gay sex (with or without Brownian). After all, by this loon's bizarre logic, anyone who is gay or lesbian exclusively is also not human. And how much of the Sex Store's trade is with gay and lesbian customers? And if teh gay is a disease spread by atheism and science (a statement I am certain this fellow would agree with, since science is already spreading premarital sex), then just how does that work? Wouldn't this atheist science that tells virgins they must have sex to be human also be telling people they must have sex with the opposite sex to be human? But it's a creationist, so anything that doesn't fit is just ignored.
Also, this all sprung from PZ mentioning Hovind having sex in prison, and while I get a certain glee from imagining, in general terms, his predicament, it is not an image I need in my head. Damn you PZ.
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
December 20, 2010 9:44 AM
What about "Nicht mal falsch, noch einmal"? Or does that only apply to ordering beer?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
December 20, 2010 9:50 AM
Why would you think he's having intercourse?
Posted by: Witzbold
|
December 20, 2010 10:32 AM
schon wieder/noch mal
Posted by: NixManes
|
December 20, 2010 10:36 AM
Hovind? Seriously? People are still quoting him? That trait has to be one to help define a sub-species on its own because mating with one would be nearly impossible for those outside the group.
Also, if not having sex means you're not human, what does not using your brain make you?
Were the Shakers non-humans?
What about the Virgin Mary? What about Jesus?
Personal ad: "SWM looking to become member of homo sapien clan. Willing to watch to Kent Hovind DVDs."
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 20, 2010 10:45 AM
Hello. my name is Dracula. And I was brought back by mankind who wish for me to give my dissertation.
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
December 20, 2010 11:11 AM
@Ing:
Dissertation? You steal men's souls and make them your slaves!
Posted by: morisal1966
|
December 20, 2010 11:16 AM
1. Fertility rate declines with advanced education.
2. People with doctorates are the most educated.
3. Evolutionary biologists have PhDs.
Therefore, evolutionary biologists are statistically more likely to commit suicide, as they're not human and want to kill non-humans.
No wonder there are so few evolutionary biologists. It all makes sense now!
Excuse me while I jump out of my office window...
Posted by: jbowen42
|
December 20, 2010 11:51 AM
Hmmm. How long does the transformation take? If a non-virgin has sex with a virgin, could it be considered beastiality?
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 20, 2010 1:46 PM
@Keve
THE SAME COULD BE SAID OF SCIENTISM!
Posted by: no2ndhandgod
|
December 20, 2010 3:37 PM
Ain't no 'scientism'
Why so serious, Ing? All upper case indicates a lack of impulse control and an inability to make critical distinctions:
There is no such animal as 'scientism'. Biology as practiced by professionals is a science. But, your only mindset is knee-jerk fundie.
'Scientism' is a category mistake -- that is, you're lacking a decent education in properly applying concepts. 'Scientism' is the standard shibboleth of fundies who don't know how to distinguish xianity (a non-science) from biology (a legitimate science).
Not even 'naturalism' or (even worse) 'materialism' are forms of religious thinking. They are philosophical viewpoints which science and the philosophy of science have shown to be false.
Here's my question to you: why doesn't "God" cure stupidity?
Xianity is a sign of poor mental hygiene.
the anti_supernaturalist
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
December 20, 2010 4:17 PM
"Here's my question to you: why doesn't "God" cure stupidity?"
You might want to familiarize yourself with the locals before asking one of them silly questions about a joke they made.
Posted by: lykex
|
December 20, 2010 5:12 PM
@139
Ing is well-known here. I think I'm safe in saying he was joking.
Btw, are you the same Ing who posts at the AE blog?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 20, 2010 5:16 PM
Hello. my name is Dracula. And I was brought back by mankind who wish for me to give my dissertation.
LOL
...a Dracula that reeks of pork...
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 20, 2010 5:27 PM
AFAIK, that would be a pretty good example of a propositional fallacy known as "affirming the consequent"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
more commonly:
post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Posted by: KillJoy
|
December 20, 2010 5:27 PM
I can't believe I just read that.
No I mean seriously.
I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around the sheer amount of stupid.
Yours in baffled incredulity, I remain;
KJ
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 20, 2010 5:31 PM
post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
In fact, probably the single most important fallacy that maintains religion itself.
Posted by: lykex
|
December 20, 2010 6:06 PM
For example:
1. I prayed to god for healing
2. My disease went away
3. Therefore god exists
Posted by: Quodlibet
|
December 20, 2010 9:38 PM
We see this in the conservative-fundie homophobes who berate and belittle gays and lesbians, then they're found out to be closeted or in-denial homosexuals. They can't accept their own sexual orientation; they engage in elaborate denial and deception, including hetero marriage with children; and they are publicly homophobic and discriminatory, especially those who legislate discriminatory laws; but they engage in clandestine gay sex.
Posted by: Robbie
|
December 20, 2010 9:47 PM
So, this Brock Lee person is enamoured by a certified crook. This hovind idiot would appear to be running his delusion show from behind bars. Is he perhaps being garnered some sympathy 'coz of his religious beliefs? The mere fact that the man is in jail is proof of his total dishonesty, his ability to lie and to profit from doing so. Brock Lee really needs to splash his face with cold water and wake up. Hovind is a convicted criminal, a shady SOB and the Brock Lee person (sounds like a brand of denim jeans)is quoting and would appear to be worshipping him. He's a crook, that is a BAD person, one not to trust.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 20, 2010 9:52 PM
Go up thread to catch the start of the joke.
This doesn't make much sense.
Posted by: drbunsen
|
December 21, 2010 1:55 AM
Ichthyic #117
Yeah, that always bothered the heck out of me. And who is he talking to???
And there was a second tree? Jeez, Lord, why not just throw a Total Perspective Vortex in there while you're at it?
Ing #112
I'm movin' to the
countryGardenHeavenly OrchardI'm gonna eat me a lot of peaches.
I'm movin' to the
countryGardenHeavenly OrchardI'm gonna eat a lot of peaches
Mmmm, immmortality peaches {droool}
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/UuUUIc5nsYCS1BjPkHFaKXgxYBRBHv8.a9.ysA--#82c32
|
December 21, 2010 7:48 PM
A species is not defined as a population that interbreeds. Interbreeds is a term to describe hybridization or the breeding between species hence the prefix "inter" meaning between...The proper term is intrabreeding but that's not even a real term because it's self-evidence is so painfully obvious. I recommend looking up the definitions you wish to use before basing a tirade on them. Also, let it be pointed out that had his definition been correct, he's "child not being a human" argument fails miserably. A). The child is capable of reproduction, just not involved in it. B). A population refers to the group at large, not a case by case situation. Otherwise the definition, that term used loosely, would read "an interbreeding individual" (again, it shouldn't be "inter"). However, it is possible for a population to be something and an individual is not. America is a "Christian nation" I am not a Christian, yet, I am a citizen just like everyone else.
Posted by: caligulathegod
|
December 22, 2010 11:07 AM
"The only explanation is that God wanted Adam and Eve to sin, so he would have an excuse for inflicting everlasting torment on his creation and pretend it wasn't just because he was a sadistic bastard."
Kent Hovind suggests God allowed sin to enter the world so that He could show his love for humanity by dying on the cross. So he's masochistic, too.