Hey, it's been awfully quiet around here — it's been one of those lost weekends for me. Sorry about that, I've been up to my eyeballs in busy-ness, and it doesn't look like it'll get much better today. So I guess I'll steal something from the May/June edition of Skeptical Inquirer, by permission of managing editor Ben Radford.
14 (+ 1) Reasons Why Creationists Are More Intelligently Designed Than Evolutionists
Paul DesOrmeaux
"Creationism" comes before "evolution" in the dictionary.
Radiometric dating has determined that Kirk Cameron is between 6,000 - 10,000 years old.
The banana has obviously been perfectly designed by a designer for eating and for using in other creative, non-edible ways.
Where the hell are those transitional species, like flying squirrels, for example?
If we evolved from monkeys, why don't we look more like the Planet of the Apes chimps?
Ben Stein offers a perfect example of irreducible complexity "wherein the removal of any one of the parts [such as dying brain cells] causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
Especially when filled with animal crackers, my Noah's Ark cookie jar is an exact replica of the real deal as depicted in my illustrated Bible.
Evolution violates the second, third, fourth, and any future laws of thermodynamics that science types can dream up.
If the earth were actually billions of years old, all the water from the Genesis flood, which currently covers three-fourths of the Earth's surface, would have disappeared down the drain by now.
After supposedly "millions of years," tetrapods haven't evolved into pentapods.
Evolution is only a theory, like the theory of the Scottish origin of rap music.
There are well known, professionally published scientists who believe in God and who think dogs can telepathically communicate with humans.
If you leave bread, peanut butter, and Fluff on a counter long enough, does it eventually evolve into a Fluffernutter sandwich? Not likely.
Contrary to claims by Darwinists, Ann Coulter is not a transitional fossil.
If creationism isn't a valid alternative theory, then what are we going to do with all that crap in the Creation Museum?
- Log in to post comments
Portcullis when you get a chance...:-)
It might explain why homo sapiens had sex with Neandertals tho....:-)
By now the Pharyngulite population has been selected for creationist-poking-fun-at to such a degree that such verbiage can be predicted even when the nominal topic of a given post is hieropedorapine, the US war on Afghanistan, or mitochondrial RNA.
Just sayin'.
16. I made my pet rat fight my brother's hamster a bunch of times and he still didn't evolve into a Raticate.
Reason 16:
Creationists were created by god, in his image, on the 6th day of Genesis, in present form, 6000-10000 years ago
"evolutionists" evolved from monkeys
Hey, look: non-overlapping magisteria!
AH there he is.
Louis
The best evidence I've seen for I.D. is the fact that my own farts smell good to me.
Somebody call the plumber! The damn drain's blocked again.
17. Humans and dinosaurs coexisted, as seen in that documentary with Racquel Welch in a fur bikini
PZ is causing marital strife.
The lack of Pharyngula activity led to me feeling deprived and poking the creationist wife* with the proverbial 'But surely, you don't really believe that?'.
I got in trouble for mocking religion. And even more trouble for saying it's because it's so fucking batshit crazy it needs mocking.
Hence being on Pharyngula on Sunday morning and not in bed any more.
* She has many redeeming features, and is otherwise very clever. I keep working on de-brainwashing but it's a slow and evidently dangerous process.
#10: They're forgetting that pentapod monster: Humbert Humbert.
I love something nutty with my coffee in the morning!
Of course Ann Coulter is a transitional fossil. She used to be male.
It was mostly hides, not fur. Stoopid IDdiots can't even get their basic prehistory right.
And it was also one million years ago, as proven in that documentary. So not only is the IDdiots's timeline wrong, so is the evilutionistas's timeline! Them theories don't agree with the proven facts!!!1!
18. The X-Men are still just fiction (they're the predicted "next stage in human evolution," right?)
The Ann Coulter quip made me laugh like an ape.
Seems to me they ultimately all boil down to a small handful of very closely related things:
* lack of imagination (e.g., “I’m having a hard time imagining what a hundred years is like, let alone a hundred million.”);
* poor logic skills (e.g., “Everything that exists must have had a creator. God exists. God doesn’t have a creator. Therefore, God created everything.”);
* cognitive dissonance (e.g., “There’s no fuckin’ way I’m gonna admit, even to myself, that I and my whole family has been worng all these millennia.”); and
* greed (e.g., “There’s a major fuckton of money to be had from these sheeple. Let the fleecing commence!”).
It should be self-evident that it’s those last two that drive and / or exploit the first two.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
dingdong @ 9 with clever and redeeming features creationist wife (TM)
must have the patience of Job.
For me to consider trading in the current atheist model for a creationist wife (TM), the "redeeming features" would have to be - well, unpublishable really.
David Dell @12:
Please drop that transphobic "Anne Coulter's a man" crap. There is no evidence that Coulter is transgender, and even if she were, it would be irrelevant. Anne Coulter is a horrible person, but she is also cisgender, and calling her trans only attacks actual trans people, most of whom hate her as much as you do.
@Dave Dell, 12
Duuuuuude. That is an uncool, sucky meme, with lots of unintentional targets (that is, all the nice, ACTUAL trans folk, who would rather not have their status used as an insult).
Plus, I mean, it's not like there's a dearth of legitimate critiques to level against that fucking sociopath.
Class. Pure class.
19. Fucking magnets-- how do THEY work?!
What Christina and Falyne said, again. No need for transphobia on this blog.
@Falyne, 19:
Thank you. I would say that calling her trans insults us far more than her. It's implying that being trans in and of itself is a horrible thing that's appropriate to use as an insult. And it's NOT! I'm so tired of so-called progressives thinking that's okay.
Well, those Scots had to apologize for haggis somehow.
@18, 19 - Thank you!
Butch @ #10:
Pure awesome. Now I'm gonna go back and re-read Lolita.
Coulter deserves to be reamed a new one for all sorts of reasons, but her gender is irrelevant.
Is she a transitional fossil? Yahyoubetcha. Ideologically, she’s a living fossil of the nomads of the Bronze Age. As we know, all fossils are either transitional or terminal. That particular line of ideology never died out; instead, it eventually gave rise to Spinoza and Einstein. (And others, too, of course.) QED and all that.
Sadly, she’s part of a thriving population of such living fossils, much like the coelacanth — and nowhere near as pretty.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Whoever wrote this clearly hasn't met my sons.
Ben Goren #16: Great list. I would add
* Pure Ignorance (e.g., "No way that all could have happened by chance alone")
* Denialism (= the idea that as long as you keep denying things and make everybody repeat it, they will go away, like "Radio dating doesn't work" and "There are no transitional fossils")
* Mental laziness (.e.: "If we come from monkeys, then why ...": If you don't know the answer to that, LOOK IT UP! Quit asking the same old tired questions over and over again!)
* Lack of critical thinking skills (self evident).
I'm a bit ambivalent about "lack of imagination" though: if you hear Ken Ham justify all the nonsense in his museum or hear Ray Comfort give the banana speech, you'd have to admit they have a bewildering and GINORMOUSLY deep imagination!
18 (or higher): IDers are smart enough to focus on the real facts and not all those silly tricks of science that evolutionists fall for.
@dingdong: you may find it works better if you confine your religio-mockery to groups outside your immediate family circle. That was my approach. I merely contributed relevant information on subjects which had happened to come up in the course of conversation. My wife found it highly disconcerting that her atheist husband was more familiar with the bible than she was.
I did eventually cure her of creationism, but it took over ten years. Patience is indeed a virtue.
If you care to check out this link Haggis related link, you will find that:
a) we have nothing to apologise for, and
b) you will find the origins of rap music.
20. IDers are dishonest enough not to make any testable or specific claims.
The unknown Designer(s) did something sometime to make the universe.
Which translated into English as GODDIDIT.
Except when they are among themselves. Then the unknown Designer(s) morph into a tribal god called Yahweh/Jesus and sometimes Noah had a boatload of dinosaurs.
21.
1 - PYGMIES +
2 - DWARFS ??
3 - ??????
4 - Yahweh !!!
Although I enjoyed the list of creationist foibles, I couldn't resist the urge to pass along yet another set of gut wrenching laughterinducing creationist propositions.
These are from a serial internet crank named Michael Tong. Some here may have encountered him along the way.
For many years now, Tong has been peddling the notion that the fact that men find women in high heels makes a slam dunk case for intelligent design.
But not just any high heels; the shoes have to meet the following specifications:
He somehow never seems to get around to explaining just how that supports ID. He just makes statements like
When asked where this notion comes from, Tong explains that he was reading a newspaper fashion columnist many years ago who put out the question whether men find high heels attractive, and the men who replied indicated that they do.
Ergo, all men from all cultures and countries find high heels attractive, and so that must mean that ID is true.
He also will go on and on about how a "genetic predisposition" causes all men to find Caucasian women the most attractive, and he has "specifications" for that as well, like length of hair, color of hair, color of clothes, etc. He is fond of posting photos as "proof" of his contentions.
The fact that he has never once gotten another man to agree with him doesn't deter him and somehow that fact doesn't give him indication that his fantasies are not in fact, genetically "hard-wired" into all men, or universal.
But the real howler is that he claims, with an apparent straight face, that invisible, non-human intelligences are controlling the minds of those who support the theory of evolution and scoff at creationism. These invisible aliens are also the reason that people like Hitler made the decisions they did.
He has claimed that Michael Behe supports these views, so a few years ago I took the liberty of e-mailing Behe. Behe's reply basically said 'this guy must be nuts."
So Tong did accomplish one thing: there is finally one thing on which Behe and I agree.
I don't think Michael Tong has his own website or blog; as far as I know, he haunts internet discussion groups. The one on which he is currently holding forth is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creation_evolution_debate/ where he only posts on weekends.
That group is where creationist loon/idiot Laurie Appleton takes up residence as well. A real smorgasbord of crazy over there.
#30:
If they're indeed smart enough to focus on the 'real facts', then why don't they?
And what "silly tricks of science" are you referring to? Be specific.
Okay...the Scots origin of rap music theory... I so need to see the full version. This could be better even than Jos. Smith and the golden plates. It can also be a brilliant video...if both tennis playing and blancmanges are involved (obligatory Python reference).
Ann Coulter is not a transitional fossil. Though she is scarier than clowns. But archaeologists (those who have escaped to tell the tale) have found her statues, complete with gnashing basalt vaginal teeth, in the ruins of Ib in the Land of Mnar. Just like the blood-stained statues of Coulter found at sacrificial altars in Mahometan temples today.
Contrary to claims by Darwinists, Ann Coulter is not a transitional fossil.
If Ann Coulter is a transition I'd rather gouge out my eyes with a grapefruit spoon, fill the bleeding sockets with sawdust, and drink boiling lye than see the result.
JohnM55 @ #32:
+100 internets
@Isaac: He misses the fact that the atraction to high-heeled shoes is dependant, not on the shoes htemselves, but the fact that wearing 'em arches a womans back, making the breasts a little more obvious.
I.E., shoes = irellevant. Womans reaction to them = relevant.
Drool.
I'll be in my bunk.
If you care to check out this link Haggis related link, you will find that:
a) we have nothing to apologise for, and
b) you will find the origins of rap music.
I believe the same Bobby Burns described the haggis as "A noble pudding whose contents are best left a mystery." Haggis is like Hákarl, casu marzu, lutefisk and cholent. It was eaten back in the day when there wasn't anything else. Now it's eaten out of a misplaced sense of pride.
Physically and mentally, she represents an intermediate stage between primate and reptile.
Like the Oreo Pizza, Nuran?
Well I fucking don't. >.>
"The banana has obviously been perfectly designed by a designer for eating and for using in other creative, non-edible ways."
Hey, just because you use it in other ways doesn't make it inedible. I know of a bar in the red-light district of Amsterdam that's famous for serving the fruit up to paying clients in a somewhat less-than-PG way.
Azkroth @ *45
Neither do I. Not all men do, and that gets pointed out to Mr. Tong on a regular basis, but he has a virulent case of Reality Denial Disorder that allows him to insist on that, even though no man anywhere that I've ever seen agrees with his view. Puts a crimp in his insistence that it's the universal preference of all men everywhere.
It doesn't do any good to point out to him for instance, that there have been cultures that have practiced things like foot binding.
He also has never been able to explain things like how, if men are "genetically hard-wired" to prefer high heels, there is a shortage of classic artistic representations of feminine beauty, like Renaissance paintings and ancient Greek art, where a woman is depicted in high heels.
It's a weird hangup, but he's been at it for years with no sign of letting up. And he insists it's evidence for design, when more likely he's grappling with finding a justification or rationalization for his own foot fetish.
Since *he* thinks he was "designed" that way, all men must have been designed that way.
I'm just glad he's in the creationist camp.
John M55:
Was that in English? :-/
Well then, why didn't god just give us Barbie feet? Maybe then I'd believe the case for ID based off of this idiot's claims.
Intelligent Design Creationism: Fraudulent Science, Bad Philosophy.
Six Flood Arguments Creationists Can't Answer
DesertHedgehog #38
Now we know why Taran-Ish, the High Priest of Sarnath, was found dead before the altar upon which he scrawled the sign of "DOOM."
Ben Goren #16: Ha! Very good.
This guys reasoning is a joke, right? Right?! Someone pleeeeeeease tell me its satirical or something. Maybe he has severe Cranialrectumitis?
that gave me a good laugh.
@33 and 37 - did I sound like a real IDer!? That's pretty sad for them if that's something they would say.
Ruttee...
Oreo Pizza? Never heard of that one. But in a universe where people willingly put the deep-fried Twinkie (only foodstuff cladistically lumped with zombies, mummies and other undead) in their mouths anything is possible.
I'm developing an inverse pepperoni pizza:
Ingredients
Bottom layer - 10" wide slice of pepperoni produced with a tart pan and foil instead of sausage casing
Middle - standard tomatoes and cheese
Topping - quarter-sized biscuits
I could use some advice on my blog posting of a Bibliography of Secular Morality http://wp.me/pUHmd-1v
Desert Hedgehog #38 and 'Tis Himself #51
But archaeologists (those who have escaped to tell the tale) have found her statues, complete with gnashing basalt vaginal teeth,in the ruins of Ib in the Land of Mnar.
Now we know why Taran-Ish, the High Priest of Sarnath, was found dead before the altar upon which he scrawled the sign of "DOOM."
Is she a transitional evolutionary stage or intermediate metamorphic one between degenerate cultists and Bokrug the Water Lizard?
Wow. This is an example of why comedy is best left to professionals.
I did, however, quite like: 4. Where the hell are those transitional species, like flying squirrels, for example?
That's actually a great come-back!
Regarding £ 57: "Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment" by Phil Zuckerman
If these are some "random biological ejaculations" from PZ, does that mean that those who come here for his, ecm... ejaculations, swallow his information willingly?
It appears so. Sadly.
#61, Yup. Us Pharyngulites are a mindless horde and are ready to accept every ejaculation without questioning.
If you had any specific objection, please state it so we can show our zombielike singlemindedness and tear you down (while screeching for brains).
#61, Yup. Us Pharyngulites are a mindless horde and are ready to accept every ejaculation without questioning.
If you had any specific objection, please state it so we can show our zombielike singlemindedness and tear you down (while screeching for brains).
One of us...one of usssss.....
Unlike bananas, a full-sized watermelon does not perfectly fit in a human's hand. Only God could have made a fruit which would test our faith that way. Therefore, God exists and made everything.
Oh... so the answer is yes. Why am I not surprised.
Trinity, you asked an inane question and you are being mocked for it. Please, show examples of how the regulars just get their information strictly from PZ. Also, seeing as this is a thread that was set up to mock creationists, kindly explain why this subgroup of stupidity should be taken seriously.
Or would you rather make tut-tut while making veiled swallowing blow job comments?
The answer is "Sometimes," Trin. Any SPECIFIC questions that can bve answered specifically, without recourse to sexual inuendo that will send a few of us to our bunks?
I'm wondering, if I did provide a link to one of Sleazy's (PZs) ejaculations if you would be willing to spit it out if it were proven to be factually incorrect.
Yes? No? Or all of you going to continue to swallow?
Don't keep us in suspense, Trinity. Let's see that link.
@68 - sure...but that wouldn't make you any less of an douchebag.
Depends. Do you have facts? Are you going to continue to use juvenile sexual metaphors in a ham-handed and not even funny way? Are you going to try taking your hand out of your boxers and typing with two hands?
Doubt it.
Trinity, please do not keep us in suspense, please explain why anyone should have anything but a mocking attitude for creations. Since, as you may not be aware, this thread is for the general mocking of creationists.
You have to do better then you all blindly follow PZ. Or is stupid sneering all you got?
Boring? check
Foolish? check
Fucking coward? check
Yup, that makes it a trinity.
When a person makes one long for the wit and wisdom of Keenu Reeves, you know you have a dumb ass Trinity.
*headdesk* My sign-in time-out copypasta in #72 should not be blockquoted, just normal.
But the pineapple is perfectly fitted to fit up Ray Comfort's rectum.
Mistress of foul mouth - that evidently swallows PZ's ejaculations... (ecm... yes it does sound gross). Hamite Theory? Creation Museum? Wondering if you are willing to swallow his ejacualtion?
Of course Evolution isn't true, or else there would be evidence of it, like say, a strain of e. coli that mutated while under laboratory observation!
Or a species of lizard whose guts changed to better adapt to it's changing environment!
There's none of that! !!tyOne!
Trinity, just ask the damned question already.
Those few bits and pieces you have revealed so far do seem juicy, though.
Are you referring to the well-established belief that Ken Ham rapes piglets?
And we're the ones who blindly follow what others tell us to?
Do you mean Hamitic theory?
Do you have a point?
Do you really want to know the answer to that?
(Why are we answering questions with questions? XD)
You see Trinity, you were supposed to give a link to something PZ wrote, and then prove it factually wrong for a starting point to a discussion. We're waiting with extreme anticipation!
Has Trinity ponied up that link yet, or is he/she still a lying coward?
Don't you? :)
Trinity, you really are a dumb fuck. At no time has PZ endorsed the idea of The Curse of Ham. Or are you saying that you believe in the Curse Of Ham.
Because, if you do, you are a racist of the lowest sort.
And what is it about the Creation Museum that does not make it a scam job?
Trinity, you have to do better then this.
As a side note, I am a lesbian. I will not be giving PZ a blow job any time in the near future. But I suggest that you see a plumber. The septic tank that you mistakenly can a brain has backed up. You are leaving a rather putrid mess.
Janine, you know Keanu actually acted once. The film was - of course - Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. It must have strained his only acting muscle, which unfortunately never recovered.
@Janine: Maybe he's saying P.Z. accused a group (like, oh, say, the Mormons) of buying into the Curse of Ham, and Trinity is accusing P.Z. of falsely accusing them of it.
Or not. Fuck, who knows?
Trinity Pigfucker is likely referring to this post link.
It is not like dumb ass Trinity is showing any evidence that can make a coherent point.
Weed Monkey, let us not forget his role as Ortiz the Dog Boy in Freaked.
Something seems familiar about Trinity's trolling style.
*commence background sleuth on SB search engine.
Yeah, the Sleazy bit was a tip.
@Trinity:
Ugh. Yuck. As someone who indulges in naughty humor often, I know the fun in making racy jokes. But it takes a special sort of (forgive me) tone to make a statement like that genuinely filthy and unpleasant. Congratulations, you managed to actually disgust me.
So Larry accuse us of blindingly fallowing PZ. In the meanwhile, his religious right views demands that he reject all evidence against it's doctrine and continuously post on site where he's banned. And do this till all people adhere to his views. Gee, sounds like a zombie. Larry until you show peer-reviewed scientific data, you're delusional. (no your side does not have evidence. It has confirmation bias. Notice that the only people who finds evidence for Christian Creationism are Christians. Evolution, OTOH, has evidence found by people of all faith.)
And that was it? Damn, nothing to really bite into. Oh well, it's almost 6 AM so I'd better hit the hay anyway.
I thought Keanu showed some acting talent playing against type in The Gift. Not a great movie in and of itself, but he was way different from how he normally is.
Ah, hell. I thught Keanu was pretty good in the Devils' Advocate,just because he served as a great foil for Al Pachino. The cool, slick as greased owl shit well-healed Southern lawyer vs. the in-your-face lecherous little bastard.
Love that movie.
How nice of Trinity barge in on a thread devoted to mocking creotards and give us someone to mock directly.
Trin, you are going to have to raise the level of your game when you're talking to the adults. You don't get points for doing Beavis and Butthead impressions:
"Hee hee hee--he said 'ejaculations.' Hee hee. "
Anyway, it's getting late. Don't you have to be up for homeschool in the morning?
If you were able to show that anything I believed (which btw is not what PZ writes, I form my own views) then I would discard that belief. There's no shame in being wrong, in-fact I welcome it. Getting things wrong and recognising it is how you learn and improve. Show me I'm wrong and I'll change my mind.
The question is why anyone wouldn't want that. If the facts are against the belief, then why would anyone want to hold onto that belief?
Wow, I’m honored at the response. Thank you so much for the warm welcome folks.
PZ’s piece critiquing an exhibit at the Creation Museum was disingenuous at best. I’m wondering if you swallowed that ejaculation?
No genius (who gave you that name to begin with?), I mean the Hamite theory Sleazy was referring to in his piece…
Yeah… I do. The man is a liar. Period. And you, being a boy… ecm… and a genius don’t seem to have a problem swallowing said ejaculation.
Well, bless your little heart
I didn’t say that he did.
Look, I’m not the one said he was ejaculating information… if you want to construe that as sexual innuendo then perhaps your mind is in the same gutter a PZs.
Thanks Petey...
Yet you frequent a website whose title states “Ejaculations”. Feigned indignation works some of the time, but not this time.
A service I happily provide to dumicans at no additional charge
See, here's the thing. You don't get to simply *assert* that the piece was wrong, and expect us to fall over ourselves, genuflecting at your revealed wisdom.
You actually need to make an argument. You actually need to refute the points of PZ's piece you disagree with. Oddly enough, folks here disagree with PZ all the time, and if they actually make a valid argument, others will consider well their words.
Pure bombast... does not get considered well.
SO, what was incorrect about P.Z. stating that the Creation museum endorsed the Curse of Ham? It seems to show black people as descended from him in their poster. The arros Descendant of Ham points right to fucking Africa!
Also, come one! We're not blind; we picked up on the salacious tone of your posts. A blind man could pick up on it.
Ah self service.
PZ’s piece critiquing an exhibit at the Creation Museum was disingenuous at best.
So, again it must be asked; what is it about creationism that allows it to be a creditable theory? Being a sneering dumb ass and stating that PZ is wrong does not cut it.
Also, no need to bless me. I do not require such a worthless action from such an worthless person.
Still waiting for evidence, not assertions or idiotic salaciousness Trinity. That's what separates the men from the boys, and the scientists from the creobots/theobots. You are nothing but an idjit boy. Still waiting...
Trinity Cowardly Pigfucker - since you were coy about pointing to your prior argument that proved nothing about something PZ didn't say that you thought he said, I thought that I'd help you get out of the way here so you don't get further splattered by any errant splooge.
Sleazy's opinion was gleaned from a poster in the creation museum that did nothing of the sort.
1. The poster deals with the dispersion of people groups after the Tower of Babel.
2. The poster indicates that some of descendents of Ham (not all as Ham had a few kids) migrated to Africa. The key being Canaan which did NOT go to Africa.
3. Sleazy is disingenuous by stating that the museum is promoting racial discrimination because of the curse place on Ham's son Canaan. This is complete crap (and he knows it) as if anyone knows anything about geography, Canaan is in Palestine... not Africa.
Sleazy is indeed... a piece of dirt by making said assertion. The poster does not deal with the Hamite Theory, it demonstrate that Canaan's offspring went to Africa, and if he would follow his own advice and read the book of Genesis he could of figured this out on his own without slashing this gusher of an ejaculation on the idiots who swallow it.
So, it shows that Africans are descended from Ham, thus...
Come one, Trinity. You can do it!
Still assertions/opinion without any hard evidence. Still being a boy. Get with the program. Show hard physical evidence that genesis is not mythology/fiction. We are waiting...
Dude, it's still saying that most of the descendants of Ham are the ancestors of Africans. And although the curse was levied against Canaan, it's still known as "the curse of Ham", and Ham himself has been historically viewed as yicky.
And you can't just ignore the cultural context of this story, seeing as it has long, long, LONG been used as justification for racism. Associating Africans with Hamites is an thing of ugliness, and reeeeeally should have been avoided.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham
What? An attempt at a derail... already... without addressing the content of my post? If you would simply follow the provided link by Petey... you just might see what I was writing about. But... but... instead you stick your head in the sand and click your heels together 3 times pleading "Twinity is wong... Twinity is wong.... Twinity is wong".
Typical nonsense when folks are swallowing Sleazy's ejaculations.
And yet again, the dumb ass cannot bother to give a reason why creationism should be taken seriously. It just keeps a huffing and a puffing and making itself dizzy in the head.
Still waiting for Trinity to come anywhere near actually making a point.
So far all he has is a diarrhea of words coupled with a constipation of thought.
So, Trinity, PZ doesn't know what he's talking about because you didn't like what he said about an exhibit at the Creatard Noseum?
A real argument would explain how PZ was wrong and why. But if you could have done that, you would have, wouldn't you? You're going to have to bring more to the table than arrogance, ignorance, flatulence, and a fascination with male bodily fluids.
@Falyne - take Sleazy's advice. Read the book of Genesis... you will find the curse was placed on Canaan... not Ham. Sleazy knows this... this is what he is lying about. When he speaks of the racial dispersion he is talking about blacks, being servants, are from Africa. This is the lie. Those descendants were not cursed, it was Canaan himself…. whose descendants settled in what is now Palestine… NOT AFRICA!
And here goes the dumb ass, ignoring the history of American racism and one of the main justifications of keeping a race of people in bondage.
Thank you for proving conclusively that you have shit for brains.
No need to bless me. Spend that time actually trying to learn something truthful.
If it is nothing by mythology/fiction, what's the use? Then it's nothing but junk, and you know. Quit repeating yourself and present real evidence. If you know what that is...
Read Genesis, with two different creation stories. Talk about swallowing ejaculation. Only the dumb ass is sucking off a mugwump. He just can't get enough.
Prominently displayed on the poster: "Of the three sons of Noah the whole earth was overspread" Genesis 9:19 and "By the sons of Noah were the nations divided" Genesis 10:32. There are arrows labeled as descendants of Japheth, Shem, and Ham. This is the Hamite theory of racial origins.
It does not say "some". It says ALL modern people are the descendants of the sons of Noah.
You don't get it. The Hamite theory is the idea that there was a segregation of racial properties by the dispersion of Noah's descendants, with a specific distribution defined by Ham, Japheth, and Shem. It's simplistic and wrong, invalidated by the genetic evidence, and actually has been used historically as a a justification for slavery. I documented it all— the "museum" actually does include all of the above. I also pointed out the piece that the "museum" left out, where the Canaan the son of Ham was cursed to servitude by God, for something he hadn't even done.The main point is that Ham is peddling a fallacious theory of race, based on a literalist reading of the Bible. Whining that there are details about Canaan or whatever is irrelevant. The whole notion of any subset of the human race can be categorized as Hamitic is an error.I'll also note that the Hamitic theory of race has undergone historical revisions. Older versions argued that all black Africans were descendants of Ham. More recent versions argue an even nastier version, that all the civilized accomplishments of the natives of the African continent were the product superior Hamitic peoples from the north who brought in all those works. All versions are wrong.
Genesis says Canaan. I know this.
Racists throughout history have said ALL the children of Ham are tainted. After all, Ham was the one who dishonored his father (either by raping with him, or sleeping with his wife, or literally laughing at his nudity, or some combination thereof (see link above)). Those same racists have identified the tainted children of Ham with black-skinned Africans.
Identifying Africans with the children of Ham is a direct reference to an ugly, ugly history. If you can't see that.... I don't know if I can help you.
Methinks Trinity is blinded by the accuracy of PZ's splooge - right in the pigfucker's eyes.
Of course not. But it will spontaneously generate ants and mice...
And let's be absolutely clear -- Christians themselves did not care what was in the bible.
The Curse of Ham in the Early Modern Era: The Bible and the Justifications for Slavery
So Trinity is arguing that allusions to the curse of Ham are inconsequential because it doesn't actually occur (in quite that form) in the bible.
And as a handle he uses the name of a key christian concept ... which doesn't actually occur in the bible.
I wondered why my irony meter had gone AWOL
Holy fuck, but some people become totally unglued when they read a word like 'ejaculations'. By Trinity's constant reference to the word, it's clear that it's one that s/he doesn't hear adult words all that much in real life, but simply cannot resist the temptation to use them with abandon should s/he find herself in an environment free of that taboo. Anyone else get the impression that Trinity is akin to 7-year-old who comes home from school chanting "penisvaginapenisvaginapenisvagina" because teacher said those words in that day's health class?
Nothing says 'source of objective morality' than theists whose MO boils down to 'everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't I?' No wonder they're so eager to impose their morality on everyone else: they've simply got no spine.
Prominately displayed it states "The Tower of Babel". You wouldn't be trying to mislead those whom you ejaculate upon.... would you?
The poster has nothing to do with the Hamite Theory as you insist it does...:
Very good, of these three sons, which one was cursed? Oh... none you say, so again, how is the curse upon Canaan carried to those who migrated to Africa again? You wouldn't be trying to mislead your readers... swallowers now would you mr meyer?
I get it very fine thank you very much... I just happen to know that you are lying about the poster in order to denigrate those with whom you disagree. Which makes you... well... you know wha that makes you.
You are right about that, but that isn't what you were implying... you asserted the museum was promoting a theory... which it wasn't. Seems to me you are promoting a lie.
And this is the lie. Canaan was cursed. Canaan was to be servants of his brothers... where as the Hamite Theory states that the Africans, from Ham's other sons, became servants... which is something you simply missed in your musings... um... ejeculation. But... you knew this when writing the article now... didn't you?
and is not what the poster was promoting, like you asserted. It was a lie and you know it.
Funny how you left that out of your article... while not mentioning which one you were referring too.
Pathetic piece of obfuscation and lies mr meyer.
TrollWatch Update!
Crypto-creationist asshat misspells P.Z. Myers' name, obsesses over term "ejaculation", otherwise has no discernable point! Film at 11.
Trinity, where does your name come from?
Yawn, still no evidence. The babble isn't evidence, but rather mythology/fiction until you demonstate otherwise. Which makes interpretations of the mythology even more mythical. We are waiting for real physical evidence, the type that scientists use...
So...
Trinity is ranting about PZ and his minions because he thinks PZ once said something incorrect--nine months ago?
And this egregious solo error by PZ is about a poster hanging in the Creation Museum?
And the fact that PZ made this horrible single (alleged) error apparently has been eating at Trinity for nine months?
And Trinity has picked this thread--after nine months of this obsession gnawing at his brain--to post repeatedly about it?
Sounds like a perfectly rational course of action to me. So, carry on....
Something substantive to add... well done sir. It appears your IQ is at least one standard deviation below those same folks whom you fantasize about engaging in some form of swine fornication. Thinking deep thoughts does not seem to be a strength of yours.
Trinity, still no evidence, just attitude. Still an idjit godbot...
Translation: I cannot actually read the English language or the prominent words DECENDANTS OF HAM overlaid on the big brown arrow pointing south into Africa.
Translation: I cannot actually read the English language or anything written in comment #123 which shows, without a shadow of a doubt, that Christians neither knew nor cared which specific son of Ham was cursed.
Translation: I am a hypocrite who denigrates those with whom I disagree, and a liar who calls the truth a lie.
Translation: I refuse to admit that the Creation "museum" is indeed dedicated to promoting a "theory", or rather, "theories".
Translation: I refuse to admit that the lie was one originally told by Christian racists and propagated by Christian racists as an excuse to profit by slavery.
Translation: I refuse to admit that this is exactly what the poster was promoting.
Translation: I refuse to admit that I am talking about myself, here.
Pathetic showing, Trinity. PZ really took you to school on that one. And it was solely on the basis of your own lack of knowledge of a bible-based belief that you labeled him a liar, when it is clearly you who is wrong. PZ shows a deeper knowledge and understanding of biblical issues than you do.
Maybe you can make up for it though; show that PZ is wrong on a scientific point. He's posted plenty on scientific issues.
Just out of curiosity (provided you've been to school), what did you get on your science exams?
Besides drool, I mean.
PZ says
Trinity says
Here's the poster which clearly shows Ham's descendants directed toward Africa, implying that Africans are Hamitic in origin. This is the Hamitic theory of African origins and it has been used throughout history to justify Jewish enmity with Egypt, European enslavement of Africans, and historical violence between various African populations.
PZ's point was clearly about the absurdity of perpetuating ignorance regarding the origins of differences between humans by those who believe in the biblical mythology of Genesis so proudly displayed on the linked poster. Whether the curse was on Canann or Ham or Trinity Pigfucker, the fact is that the implications of this ignorance have historically resulted in injustice to many. And you are here to antagonize us about whether or not PZ has mischaracterized the poster and that we have lapped it up without consideration. Wash out your eyes and go fuck a pig.
You see, Trinity, all you're arguing is that the Hamitic theory is biblically wrong. You say, "Nah, it was Canan who was cursed."
Well, fine. I accept that. Ham wasn't cursed. You know more about the Bible than the racist shitheads who wrote the theory. Honestly, well done.
Tell that to hamitic racists, because for more than a century they've used that excuse to hate black people; and when someone shows a poster that shows Ham's descendant heading to Africa, it's a good bett they're endorsing this theory. Whether the theory itself is biblically accurate is irrelevant.
um...lots of unfunny comments.
Of course ID is true, why else would people be the right size to fit through doors and gates? Why do chairs fit our behinds so well? And how is it so many people speak English? Only ID can explain that.
Why do our eyes see the same colors that make paintings beautiful? Why do our ears hear the same tones that make music danceable? ID.
It's too bad, though, God didn't know about Fahrvergnügen
The point is that Sleazy is asserting that the creation museum is promoting this theory when it is not. The poster clearly indicates that the topic is the Babel dispersion... not the Hamite Theory. Yet, the Sleazy one insists that this is what the museum is promoting, when it clearly isn't. He admits that it is Biblically wrong, but yet insists that the museums is somehow pimping some convoluted theory that has nothing to do with topic.
A great analogy would be for me to pick up just about any science textbook today that illustrates homologous embryonic development features between differing species, then make the assertion that the authors of the textbook are perpetuating Haekle's recapitulation theory. It would just as wrong for me to do that, knowing damn good and well that isn't the case, as it is for PZ to make the same assertion.
Yet, folks here have no problem sucking up (justifying) Sleazy's ejaculated lie.
Hypocrisy at its best! I would think… think, that here would pride themselves in accuracy. Especially when demeaning people in a thread like this.
Trinity, still nothing cogent. Have the Creations Museum change their poster. You will get no place here with your inane and childish temper tantrum little boy. You demean yourself, so we don't need to.
Come on, were still waiting for hard physical evidence, better known as scientific evidence, not your opinion, which is worthless...
The poster clearly indicates that the topic is the Babel dispersion... not the Hamite Theory.
what?
man, you must not be looking at the same poster.
The denial is strong in this one...
I always enjoy reading sophomoric me-too-ism devoid of substance. It makes for quality entertainment...
I don’t suppose you would like to quote or point out which part of my post Sleazy refuted? I mean, if I was ‘taken to school’… it should be an easy task for ya… yes?
The fuck is your problem? Here is the poster:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/08/hamite.php
Your whole point is that the title is "Babel explains our differences" instead of, say, "African mudpeople came from Ham"?
Check the subtitle ("Of the three sons of Noah...").
Check the giant fucking arrow labeled "Descendants of Ham".
Are you criticizing the poster, or PZ's description of the poster? Because the latter is perfectly accurate, as anyone can see.
I don’t suppose you would like to quote or point out which part of my post Sleazy refuted?
I think you're been here before, claiming the same nonsense, and were thoroughly trashed then.
many have indeed pointed out exactly what you asked for, then and now, and you repeatedly ignore those responses, or twist what they said.
the most recent being 135.
your level of denial is truly astounding. You should see a professional before you do something you (or others around you) will really regret.
Nerd, please go HERE for some help. The help you need I am unable to provide in this thread. However, the provided link just might get you pointed in the right direction.
the most recent being 135.
and of course Owlmirror in 123 makes it explicitly clear what the history of this is...
and as for PZ, he very clearly refutes your thesis on a point for point basis in 119.
again, that you then claim that he did not surely as anything exemplifies your total level of denial.
it's pretty spooky, really. I do indeed recommend you see a mental health care professional, before you jump off a cliff or out a window, in your fervent effort to deny gravity.
As for my house, we will serve ham.
(cuz ham is a blessing).
Trinity:
So reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it? Yes, PZ took you to school, but it looks like you slept through class.
If I provided a quote, it would be the entirety of PZ's smackdown back in #119. It appears that denial is one thing you actually do very well. Denial isn't a very effective tactic if your aim is to demonstrate that you have anything going for you.
It looks like you picked a fight and the only weapons you brought with you are a bid red rubber nose, clown pants, and floppy clown shoes.
Until you convincingly rebut PZ from #119, you are effectively smacked down.
Translation: I will once again lie about what the creation museum is promoting !!
Translation: I am a liar who fails to acknowledge that "the Babel dispersion" from Genesis 11 follows immediately after the genealogy of the sons of Noah in Genesis 10, which follows the cursing of Canaan in Genesis 9 -- and the poster clearly indicates a reflection of that sequence with DESCENDANTS OF HAM in big letters over the arrow pointing into Africa away from the "tower of Babel" on the poster.
(cuz ham is a blessing).
all hail the mighty pig!
'cause Pork is the Meat of Kings!
Trinity,
I forgot to mention that your feeble response to PZ in #126 is not a rebuttal, just pure denial.
Great. Now I am hungry as hell for a ham sammich.
Or the Trinity: ham, salami, and bacon.
Trinity, I need no help, you do. You can't even post a link with the instructions at the bottom of the page. Not very smart, are you. You need to stop throwing this childish temper tantrum, and quit being a little boy. Grow up, and become and adult by realizing you are wrong. And will stay wrong until you acknowledge the facts that your deity doesn't exist, and your babble is a work of mythology/fiction. But, based on your denial of the facts, I suspect you will never grow up or learn to think clearly.
Trinity, find an adult with reading comprehension skills to sit you down and read you the poster that's got your little Spongebob undies in a bunch.
I would recommend that that adult shouldn't be any adult involved in your homeschooling.
And if you weren't homeschooled, I would be more than happy to be a material witness if you ever decide to sue the public school system for failing you so badly.
Trinity is lying for Jesus. What a surprise.
Trin. There was no Noah. No Ark. No Tower of Babel. The poster itself is a lie. The entire piece of shit "museum" is a lie.
Ham is a liar. If you present fiction as fact, it's a lie.
Pearls before swine… it really is disgusting, although if I mention that piggy thing Petey might get excited… anyway, perhaps we can avoid further swallowing if we stick to the facts.
I digress.
OK… Fact Number 1: The Creation Museum has a display titled “Babel displays our differences”. I think we can all agree on that one fact. Whether or not you believe the Bible, think it is nothing but a bunch of fairy tails and such… that is irrelevant to the discussion.
Fact Number 2: P.Z. writes a critique of the Creation Museum. Regardless of whether he feels the museum is full of lies, etc… he critiques the above mentioned exhibit. I think we can all agree that P.Z. wrote the critique in discussion of this display.
Fact Number 3: In P.Z.’s critique he asserts that the creation museum is promoting the Hamite Theory. I think we can all agree on that one too.
Fact Number 4: The exhibit being discussed illustrates how the descendants of Noah (according to the Bible) were dispersed after the Tower of Babel. Again, only an ejaculating guzzling idiot would disagree with that fact too.
Fact Number 5: P.Z. insists that the Hamite Theory, although it is a false both Biblically and scientifically, it was perpetuated by people in the past to justify enslaving those of African descent. Which again I would not disagree with… and I don’t think any of you zombies would disagree with it either.
Fact Number 6: The exhibit (poster in question) says nothing about a debunk theory, in fact, YES FACT, by following the Biblical narrative we realize the it was Canaan, not Ham’s other sons who migrated to Africa and were falsely accused of receiving Canaan’s curse. Anyone disagree thus far? If so, cite how I’m wrong or forever hold yourself.
Fact Number 7: P.Z., by his own admission, knows that the Hamite Theory is incorrect (Biblically and scientifically), knows that it was Ham’s other sons who migrated to Africa, knows that the curse was placed upon Canaan who remained in Palestine (which is on the poster BTW), and is able to recognize that this is clearly not the intent of the creation museum still asserts it is.
Perhaps you all have indeed digested just a smidge too much of his ejaculations. Please, for the love of life here… point out the error in my reasoning.
In post #119 Sleazy states:
The fact is, if you look at the poster, Canaan (in Palestine – not Africa) is on it. Another one of his lies.
He goes on to write:
And? How does that relate to him promoting the Hamite Theory again? This is another one of your obfuscations El Sleazy one. If you believe a literalist interpretation of Biblical race theory is false… that is one thing… no problem… however, to assert that someone is promoting racism (the Hamite Theory) is quite another. Please try to keep your facts straight as you are all over the place while trying to squirm away from this. My suggestion is you act professionally and publish a retraction of sorts, along with an apology. The retraction would be the professional thing to do, the apology would be the right thing to do.
Amazing stuff:
That would be 'you've been here before'. You've is the contraction for you have. You're is the contraction of you are which would be the incorrect usage of terms. anyway...
Yes, and please, again... simply asserting that I have been refuted doesn't (the contraction for does not BTW) make it so. This isn't (the contrac... never mind)Oz Dorothy. Clicking your (which is not a contraction) 3 times doesn't make things so. Sorry.
Ooh, poor Trinity avoids hard evidence again, going for a grammar transfer, and more inane opinions. Still a loser. Still throwing a childish temper tantrum. Still nothing to refute anybody with a substantial physical evidence based argument.
Okay, fucknozzle, here's one for you: Harping on what the bible says when the topic you yourself introduced is the poster in the "museum." The subject is PZ's claims concerning what the poster says, not what is in the Goatherder's Handbook.
Yeah, assclown, that would be a great idea...for you.
The retraction for libeling PZ and all of us here, and the apology for being a fucknozzle.
Ham is promoting racism. He's peddling the discredited idea that we can trace races to distinct godly separations in roughly 2348BC.
This is not true. That's all you need to know.
Owlmirror wrote:
I’m glad pictures help you… however, you really need to read where the Bible states that it was Ham’s son Canaan, not the ones who migrated to Africa, that was cursed to be a servant. If this poster were promoting Sleazy’s racist theory it would be the Palestinians that would be cursed to serve as slaves, not the Africans. I can recommend some picture Bibles if actually looking up and reading the verses gives you trouble… just let me know.
Hey fuckwit, what part of it is what the Creation Museum says don't you understand. What part of your babble is a pile of bullshit don't you understand? Actually boy, what do you understand? You seem very, very childish and dense. Almost like you don't have an education, and don't understand the concept of bullying isn't done. Gee, no wonder you sound like a two-year-old who isn't getting his way...
Isaac Write:
Isaac… take a deep breath. I was asking for someone (as you obviously don’t have the ability) to refute what I had written. PZ is asserting that the creation museum is promoting something that is not in the Bible… not what is in the Goatherders.... whatever the hell that is/was/or is suppose be. I assuming you are referring to the Bible, but then again, the clarity of your posts have been consistently written as if you were in my 5th period class, which is full of dolts. You’d (contraction for you would) fit right in. lol
Yep, and he has the sign to prove it. Physical evidence, compare to you inane opinion, and the mythical irrelevant babble. Keep harping on these inanities like the idjit you are. You are only showing yourself to be temper tantrum throwing child. I'll have to call you a WAAAHHHHmbulance...
P.Z. wrote:
Sorry mr meyer, I’m not one of you dumican drones on this board that simply opens wide while you ejaculate your half truths. Simply condescending as if your lies are above refutation won’t work. The topic at issue is your assertion that Ham's poster promotes the Hamite Theory. If you disagree with the dispertion of races... thats your buisness and a topic for another day. Again, which one of the 7 above facts in post #155 do you disagree with? The only thing I see as a defense of your assertion is ‘you say so’. Again, you are pathetic and should retract before any creditability you might have is lost. Don’t apologize, I would expect that from you, however, your treatment of opinion as fact was something that I thought you abhorred? I thought you claimed to be a scientist of sorts? Someone bent on pursuing facts… truth? Exposing your hypocrisy is actually quite entertaining… lol
Trinity - I'm not surprised that you don't comprehend the fact that the mythical dispersion of Noah's descendants in the poster includes Ham's descendants settling Africa and thus implicitly promotes at least early Hamitic theory. I'm therefore not surprised that you are ignorant of earlier Hamitic theories. E.g. Egyptians, much to their surprise, being born of a son of Ham (Mizraim) thereby justifying enmity with the Jews.
So in fact, YES FACT, your disconnect occurs between your Fact 4 and Fact 5, that is your transformation of Hamitic theory on African origins from a collection of interpretations of an ancient myth to one specific interpretation. Your time would be better spent critiquing the myth itself, but since you are incapable of doing so, you might as well continue to fuck pigs.
WAAAHH, the crying baby continues his bawling. Can't understand he is wrong being the loser he is. Just knows it isn't what he wants. What a child. The two-year-tantrum and bullying behavior continues unabated....
This "museum" is not only in the US but in the South. Whether the Bible supports the idea of the 'curse of Ham' or not the idea played a large role there. Many people who go to the "museum" are likely going to get the impression that it is supporting the Hamitic theory. If the "museum" doesn't support the idea of the 'curse of Ham' then they should explicitly say so on the poster. Doing otherwise is like carelessly talking about Aryans in Germany (sorry for the Godwin). By leaving the poster as is they are perpetuating the myth.
Petey wrote:
What? What in hell does this have to do with Sleazy asserting the poster is promoting racism? Earlier Hamitic Theory? You do know the difference between Miraim and Canaan don’t you? You know Egypt is in Africa? Canaan is in Palestine?
PZ correctly described the poster. Your interpretation of it doesn't seem to jive with the rest of the world's. At what point in these proceedings will you acknowledge you are wrong, and throwing a childish tantrum? Never, from the stupidity, arrogance, and sheer stubbornness you are showing. What a real boy and real loser...
Feynmaniac, Chimerical Toad wrote:
Couple things about your post… first, the museum sits about 5 miles from the Ohio River. Although Kentucky did allow slavery, where the museum sits I think it can hardly be classified as ‘the south’. Kentucky was a Civil War border state BTW and didn’t take sides (officially) during the war. Anyway… I digress again.
Following your train of logic/thought here, I would expect that you would also want all textbooks illustrating homologous embryologic features, they too should put out a disclaimer that they are not perpetuating Haekle’s recapitulation theory. One has nothing to do with the other.
Now baby boy, when are you going to produce:
Physical evidence that your imaginary deity exists.
Physical evidence your babble isn't mythology/fiction.
Physical evidence you are a mature adult who can take being rebuffed with grace.
Nerd Wrote:
If this is the depth of your rebuttal, please, save us both the embarrassment of addressing it.
Last time...the poster promotes racism by promoting the racist idea that Africans descended from a cursed son of Noah. Although Canaan and his descendants received the curse of servitude, it was Ham who's actions resulted in his being punished via cursing his son Ham. Sins of the father and all that. Mizraim being another son of Ham, and thus being fucked as well in the sight of the Lord's chosen, was supposedly the father of Egypt. That's what early Hamitic theory has to do with promoting racism. It is with these mythical origins that racial enmity has been justified.
Now just stop fucking pigs, admit that these myths are wrong, PZ told no lies, and don't be a douche next time you initiate a divergent conversation here.
The US Census Beaurau disagrees.
In any case, I'm pretty sure a large percentage of their visitors come from the South.
And? As you said, it was a slave state.
Many textbooks do explicitly say that Haeckel's theory was wrong. They realize it's good to clear up common misconceptions.
In the minds of many who might have heard of the racist "theory" and then see an arrow indicating Ham's descendants went to Africa it will.
Petey wrote:
No Petey... Mizraim was not cursed to be a servant of anyone. Here is your's, and evidently PZ's, problem. You are unable to differentiate between what is written in the Bible, how mankind has convoluted the Word, and how people obfuscate (as in this case) with the truth.
I do wish there were something I could do help you... honestly. However, being hopelessly ignornat can't (a contracti... never mind)be un-f#$%ed in one evening.
BTW, I'm thinking your live on a farm. Am I correct?
Fucknozzle is still lying about what his here's poster says.
Hey, fucknozzle, why is it that you christards think it's good in the eyes of your god to lie all the time? Especially when your lies are so obviously lies?
Feynmaniac, Chimerical Toad Wrote:
To be quite honest I, who happens to be enrolled in a Biblical Studies Doctoral Program, had never heard of this theory prior to this issue being raised on a message board I participate on. Now, I’m not trying to promote my understanding of Biblical issues, theories, or exegesis as being superior to P.Z’s by any stretch, however, I have been engaging in this Creation Evolution debate for 15 plus years, am well schooled in the history of the Bible (specifically Genesis), yada yada yada… the point is, I had never heard of this theory before… and I am obsessed with this stuff. How do you think the average everyday evangelical will be aware of it if I’ve never even run across it before?
No baby boy, you save yourself the embarrassment. You haven't had a cogent argument all day. You keep embarrassing yourself with your nonsense. What a loser...
As I said, baby boy loser, no evidence for your imaginary deity or your babble being anything other than mythology. We are waiting for hard core physical evidence, and you keep coming up a guinea (21 shillings) short of a pound (20 shillings)...
It's on wikipedia.
To find out more, google "wikipedia".
Tishiself wrote:
Common retort. Funny how it lacks specifics. Maybe not funny, but predictable none the less.
Specifically… meaning what have I written (jus-in-case your level of reading comprehension is consistent with the scope of your posts)… where have I lied? This is a specific question Einstein. Even a ejaculation swallowing, spoogey lapping, yammering yip, like… well… like yourself… or is it his-self… himself… or whatever… anyway, even a fool, idiot, intellectually challenged dolt (like himself) should understand what I’m asking for here.
Trinity wrote:
If you think there's a debate between creation and evolution then you haven't been paying attention - a debate is when two sides have arguments.
Start with your unevidenced presupposition that your imaginary deity exists. Continue with the unevidenced presupposition that the babble is inerrant. And all that ensues from those fallacious presuppositions.
Still waiting for Trinity to show physical evidence for his imaginary deity, and that his babble is not a book of mythology/fiction. His avoidance of the issues speaks volumes. Not good for Trinity though. Still shows him to be a petulant two-year-old not getting his way...
So, your sample size is n=1?
Look, the "curse of Ham" was a prominent justification for slavery in the US. That sort of thing leaves a mark. Just because you never heard about it doesn't mean others haven't as well.
The average one may not know about it, but there are millions of them out there. Is your ego so large that you won't concede that some in a large population will know something you didn't?
Antiochus Epiphanes Wrote:
The location of Jimmy Hoffa is on wikipedia.
How to build a nuke is on wikipedia.
The meaning of life is on wikipedia.
Just because something, an idea, or a bit of information is publically available does not necessarily mean it is common knowledge. Anyway, just because I had never heard of doesn’t mean it wasn’t there… I’m simply saying this was not something that was commonly known… at least from the perspective of someone who has engaged in the Cre/Evo debate for 15 years.. It very well be an idea perpetuated in atheistic circles… I dunno… however, from where I sit it is not something that should be elevated to a disclaimer on a display at the creation museum.
From the perspective of any well read intelligent person, there should be a disclaimer. You evidently don't understand how ingrained prejudice and the rationalizations are in the minds of a lot of godbots, all fueled by religious indoctrination. The lack of disclaimer yells Ham agrees with the Hamite curse.
Trinity,
the main problem I see is that you seem to think that PZ has mis-characterised some details of a Bronze Age work of fiction, whereas what he actually said was that the fiction had been misused for some very nasty purposes (ie to justify slavery) but was fundamentally just fiction and wrong in all its implication.
He clearly states
The point he is making is that it is all false. The arguments you have presented suggest he accused the Creation Museum of knowing complicity with Hamite theory, when he only accuses them of ignorance, and misinformation.
This is ridiculous. Arguing about Genesis is like arguing about Pokemon. Regardless of who the curse was upon, this part of Genesis has been fertile ground for racist interpretation. I am well aware that Mizraim was not the recipient of the curse from Noah. But Noah punished the father by punishing the son and that concept has been used historically to taint the purported lineage of Ham.
The promotional act of this racist legend (regardless of it's application to non-African Canaanites, African Egyptians, or other Africans) by the Creation Museum is that it states as fact that the dispersion from the Tower of Babel is true (we know it's not)and by implication at least one population of humans bears a curse from god. The poster explicitly directs Ham's descendants to Africa. If you were previously unaware of the Hamitic theory, how could you expound upon it and claim PZ is lying about the poster? That's a total pigfucker move.
If I am unable to differentiate between what is written in the Bible and the interpretation of such, it is because men such as yourselves who claim authority to truth have consistently twisted those myths to your own desires. If the everyday evangelical is not aware of the Hamitic myth, they will be following a visit to the Creation Museum. Pigfucker.
What I don't get is why anything to do with what was on the poster matters. Modern biology shows quite clearly a different path for humanity and that's the only evidence worth considering. Talking otherwise? You might as well be counting angels on pinheads.
This is ridiculous. Arguing about Genesis is like arguing about Pokemon. Regardless of who the curse was upon, this part of Genesis has been fertile ground for racist interpretation. I am well aware that Mizraim was not the recipient of the curse from Noah. But Noah punished the father by punishing the son and that concept has been used historically to taint the purported lineage of Ham.
The promotional act of this racist legend (regardless of it's application to non-African Canaanites, African Egyptians, or other Africans) by the Creation Museum is that the poster states as fact that the dispersion from the Tower of Babel is true (we know it's not)and by implication at least one population of humans bears a curse from god. The poster explicitly directs Ham's descendants to Africa. If you were previously unaware of the Hamitic theory, how could you expound upon it and claim PZ is lying about the poster? That's a total pigfucker move.
If I am unable to differentiate between what is written in the Bible and the interpretation of such, it is because men such as yourselves who claim authority to truth have consistently twisted those myths to your own desires. If the everyday evangelical is not aware of the Hamitic myth, they will be following a visit to the Creation Museum. Pigfucker.
Sorry for the double post.
Kel - you're right this is fruitless. Somewhat like giving medicine to the dead or however that goes.
Really? An idea that helped enslave a people and kept them down for a long time doesn't even merit a disclaimer?
Even when they have a disclaimer saying that riding the dinosaur is for kids only?
QFT
Feynmaniac, Chimerical Toad Wrote:
No. Not by any stretch. All I’m inferring here is that fact that for 15 years I had never heard of this. All I’m saying is that after 15 years, and thousands of objections/topics discussed, I had never heard of, ergo… a disclaimer seems, as with the Haekle Theory, need not be brought up every time it appears.
Still no evidence for his imaginary deity or babble from Trinity. Must not have any. Just his ego.
In terms of evolution / creation, what's on a poster in some ass-backwards biblical fantasyland doesn't actually advance either argument further. Racist? Yes, but the objections to the biblical view are not that it promotes racism. It's that they don't line up with the empirical evidence. And no matter how much apologetics one puts into the argument, quite simply the human journey and the biblical account don't match up at all.
Kel wrote:
Considering the biblical account doesn't match up with itself in some places, that shouldn't be that much of a shock.
Stick with Biblical Studies. This sort of anecdotal evidence doesn't fly elsewhere.
Who's saying every single time? How about just once?
Anyway, why is this sign:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/files/2009/08/img00068…
merited and one condemning racism isn't?
The "Haekle Theory"? Man, we're dealing with a bottom-of-the-barrel cretin here, aren't we?
Definitely not a grade "A" creobot. Or he would realize how inane and antiquated that fallacious argument is.
The fucknozzle, partial from #162:
"...consistently written as if you were in my 5th period class..."
I can't say as I've ever known anyone in a doctoral program refer to their "fifth period class." There's something very junior high about that statement, almost as if Trinity had said "home room." In my days in higher education, we referred to a class by the name of the class or its subject--there were no "periods" as classes could be mornings, evenings, a four hour seminar one day a week, etc. We might say "my 10:00 class" (or just "my 10:00"), but never "my fifth period class." Not after high school.
I'm thinking we have a little kid here with Walter Mitty fantasies and delusions.
"Doctoral program" is probably more like bible study in the church basement where the kids watch Ken Ham and Kent Hovind videos.
It would be a good idea if this "Trinity" dipshit dialed back on the "ejaculation" and "swallow" references until he's wiped the Ken Ham cum off his own chin.
I don't think that the troll has worked out that whatever is written in the babble is completely irrelevant.
What PZ wrote about was the ridiculous display in the "museum".
I also don't think that the troll realises that in order to show that its initial assertion that PZ had lied about the poster, it will have to show that what PZ wrote about the poster is in some way incorrect.
Hm. So it's modern America in question, eh?
Noah's curse: the biblical justification of American slavery
And then there's the Straight Dope, which cites the book above, and the one linked @#123.
Hm.
I get the feeling we're not dealing with a student but a "teacher". Hopefully Trinity teaches P.E. and not science or history.
Lets see here…
#182: Nerd… only more of the same sniveling and calling me a liar, without specifically citing where… nuff said there.
#183: Feynmaniac… again, I agree just because I had never heard of the theory doesn’t mean that it is not some type of popular idea… all I am inferring here is that despite the amount of exposure to this subject, the amount of study I have engaged in, I had never run across it. Reading Sleazy’s rants and disinformation was the first time I ever looked at the theory. Nothing more.
#186: Usagichan… no Sir… Sleazy specifically accuses the museum of promoting the theory… racism. It couldn’t be more plainly written. He’s lying. Period.
#187: Petey… follow this link (http://www.thebricktestament.com/). I simply can’t help you.
#198: Sleazy… I was simply making an analogy. Don’t ejaculate on yourself dude… it was only an example of demonstrating absurdity with absurdity.
#200: Isaac… dude, I’m a history teacher… I am also continuing my education. It just doesn’t get anymore complicated then that. I’m not surprised you couldn’t link the two… like I said, you would fit in well with my 5th period dolts, who need standardized tests to be read to them.
#203: I do hope I have one of your kids in my class :-)
Are you perchance a shill for big-homeschooling?
Ewan... I teach in the public school system. Get over yourself already.
I stand by my accusation, although perhaps a shill for big-private schooling could be more accurate - teachers who refer to their students as "dolts" inspire great confidence. Oh yes.
Trinity, still waiting for your evidence. You have to prove your ideas with evidence. If you aren't a creationist, say so. If you are a creationist, you perforce believe in a deity. Which means you have to show some conclusive physical evidence for one, as parsimony says without evidence, it doesn't exist. So far, I haven't seen anything but a childish temper tantrum.
This case of Trinity just keeps getting more and more sad. Here we have a "teacher" who was not aware of one of the great myths of American history. Who gets into an argument based on his ignorance of the subject. Who gets shown the errors of his assumptions. Who prefers to go by his interpretation of the bible over how millions of people over several centuries acted upon it. Who continues to call people names, people who have shown him to be wrong.
And this fucker teaches children. I feel sorry for the children who have to put up with this joker. And I hope that the smarter students mock this person when away from this joker.
Such a shining example.
Ewan,
Petey obviously has a reading comprehension problem... he would indeed benefit by being in the class as I differentiate the modalities of instruction to ensure all of their learning strengths and styles are maximized. I am, after all, teaching history, not reading. Petey obviously has yet to develop his cognitive processes to a requisite level to engage in these discussions. He just needs some remedial help.
Trinity, you are the one who needs instruction. You have nothing cogent to offer us, as you don't understand science and the need for evidence, nor how science works. Otherwise, you wouldn't be missing the main points of our arguments, and making such a mishmash of yours. Your word salad is unimpressive. Just means you know how to obfuscate.
Trinity, I don't understand what Pete d has to do with anything I said, you responded to Isaac and refer to your students as dolts. This is what I had issue with (far and away not the most important thing to take issue with, but the creationist aspects of your postings appear to be in pretty good hands).
On the subject of reading comprehension however, well played, a rant about reading comprehension inspired entirely by a failure to comprehend something you read.
What is that? Argumentum ad Shoulder Shrug
Teaching history? Yet never heard of the Curse Of Ham used to justify racism and slavery.
Did this joker get it's degree from Patriot University?
Foul Mouth,
Just because I had never heard of the Hamite Theory before does not mean that I was not aware of the previous abuses of the church as it relates to justifying slavery. I only can type so fast... I can only reply to so many of the yammerings posted here... so paaaalease, if you feel it necessary to harp on the finer details of my expressed knowledge base... go ahead. It only makes you look small while you swallow sleazy's crap.
Still no one has yet to disagree/refute my 7 facts in post #155... no... you all continue with the ejaculation guzzling antics of your master sleazy. Lemmings.
The only thing take looks small, asshole, is your fucking brain. This is a preety big detail of American history. Hey, why don't you look up why the Southern Baptists split off.
And, yes, I feel pity for your students, being taught by a small minded jackass.
Mean while, you continue with your mindless cum swallowing jokes. Oh well, you swallowed something toxic sometime in your life and you never bothered to get it treated.
And, yes, people will harp on you when you base an argument on your own ignorance. And you deserve every bit of the criticism.
PZ answered you quite clearly. The fact that you don't get it doesn't mean it wasn't answered. Your ignorance of the Hamite Theory and its usage to justify racism doesn't let you pretend that Ken Ham isn't supporting it. The idea of races descending from Noah IS the Hamite Theory. It is racist.
Alright, show of hands: Who here heard about the Hamitic theory and it's use to justify slavery before PZ mentioned it?
*raises hand*
Foul Mouth wrote:
Sure... but not the 'Hamite Theory'. Does that help you any?
Shit for brains, you keep talking about the lack of reading comprehension. You are the classic case. It is not about how you do not teach about the Curse Of Ham. It is about your lack of knowledge about a major part of American history. It is also about how you base your argument on your own ignorance. It is also about how you cannot and will admit that you are wrong and, instead, keeps calling everybody else names while not having any fucking evidence for what you have been raving about.
This makes me sad that you are a teacher. You are about the opposite of what the persuit of knowledge is.
Feel free to not comprehend what I wrote. I expect nothing more and nothing less from you.
You're right Trinity! My bad...I'll enroll in the Las Vegas Upstairs Bible School right away. Maybe we'll have 5th period together and you can differentiate the modalities of your pigfucking.
Trinity, still playing the ignorant idjit. If you want to be respected, acknowledge your lack of knowledge and move on. Until you do, you are nothing but an ignorant sack of horse manure, and here for our amusment.
re Trinity @ 215:
for someone who never heard of it before, you were pretty certain that the poster at the Creation Museum did not support it.
Trinity @108:
Which is itself factually incorrect as the poster shows Canaan staying in Palestine while there is this huge arrow labelled "Ham" pointing at Africa.
So who here is dishing out lies?
You need the "Hamitic theory" to understand the justification of racism and slavery.
The "logic" was:
"Curse of Ham" + "Hamitic theory (i.e, black people are descendants of Canaan) -> racism and slavery are okay
You may not have known the name, but the idea must have registered. Otherwise, I'd like to hear how you thought the "Curse of Ham" was related to racism and slavery.
For crying out loud, Trinity. Here is the poster again. If you're using Internet Explorer, click on it after it appears, so you can see it in full size. Then try to read the box at the right. Here's what it says, as far as I can tell:
Lack of capitalization in "earth" and two spaces in "different skin" in the original.
Clearly, the Creation "Museum" almost equates the 3 sons of Noah with the Tower of Babel, implying very little time passed between the Flood and the destruction of the Tower. Therefore the descendants of the 3 sons were still distinguishable when the Tower was being built and moved as peoples, as units, when the tower was destroyed. Then came the magic mutations that turned each of these peoples into a race.
The bottom right corner of the picture quotes Acts 17:26: "God has made of one blood all nations". So far, so good, but then read what it says in the bottom left corner for contrast: "By the sons of Noah were the nations divided" (Genesis 10:32).
Then try to read what it says on the map itself. "Descendants of Ham", "Descendants of Shem", and "Descendants of Japheth" is impossible to overlook, even though you have tried remarkably hard. But it goes on. It's not finished yet:
The Creation "Museum" equates both the 3 sons of Noah and the destruction of the Tower of Babel with the origin and dispersal of the races as they try to interpret them into human diversity.
They don't mention slavery or the curse. But it's right-wing America – as has been pointed out several times in this thread, they don't need to. It will be understood all by itself.
They don't mention slavery or the curse. But it's right-wing America – as has been pointed out several times in this thread, they don't need to. It will be understood all by itself.
Kind of how Ronald Reagan opened his run for Presidency in 1980 by making an announcement in Philadelphia, Mississippi.
Heh. The ScienceBorg software unsurprisingly filtered that out. I should have used <nbsp>.
Me too, and I don't even live in the USA. A few months on the Internet were enough to find out about it.
*Sigh*
The issue was your insistence that the museum's poster carry a disclaimer stating that it did not support the Hamite Theory. My response dealt with the fact that I had never heard of the Hamite Theory before. The idea that I did not know that the Curse of Ham had been used as a justification for racism and slavery is simply ridiculous... idiotic... and a desperate attempt to derail this discussion. If you are unable to refute the facts from post #155, then I guess I have made my point that all of you simply open wide every time Sleazy decides he needs to feel some sense of empowerment by lying about others and lets go another one of his ejaculations. If you want to believe it, that is your business, but ALL of you know, deep down the man is lying and all of these non-issues you keep hurling up aren't going to dissuade me from ensuring that this point is made. The name calling is entertaining though… perhaps in my 5th period anyway.
So, unless anyone has a refutation for any of those facts in post #155, I guess we must be done here. Yes? No? Refutation… or are we going to continue with H1N1 contracting activities of the lil Peter.
Alright, I should have been more clear and said that they should say that they did not advocate 'Hamitic Theory + Curse of Ham -> racism/slavery'.
The Curse of Ham as justification for racism/slavery only works if Africans are the descendants of Canaan. Even if you've never heard the term "Hamitic theory" you were then familiar with the idea, which completely undermines your weak argument of "I never heard about it".
Lying pigfucker
which you attempted to refute with
which does not address anything I stated. Also, David Marjanović details the specifics of the poster and rightly concludes that though the Hamitic theory of African origins is not explicitly named, it is explicitly described.
Let me know how that Doctorate in Pokemon Studies turns out for you.
Raising mine as well.
It's scary as hell if this pantload actually does teach, as he so arrogantly claims. All we have is his claim that he does, but the preponderance of the evidence points to Trinity getting on the short bus every morning along with the other dolts. I stand by my estimation of the level of the pig fucker's academic achievement, as evidenced by the low intellectual and logical quality of his rantings.
Trinity has nothing to teach, knowing nothing about anything but pigfucking and trumpeting his ignorance as a virtue. If I ever have a need to learn how to fuck a pig, I know now know which expert to consult.
Lil Peter:
and that convoluted mess of a post said that the theory changed... good. Good answer. However it was not an answer or refutation of the point I had made.... which was #4 that three people groups, the descendants of Noah dispersed from the tower, and #5 which dealt with the Sleaze monster's assertion that the Hamite Theory was both Biblically and historically incorrect.
So, again, where in your post are these two facts refuted?
You want the answer, or can you figure that one out for yourself porky? You didn’t refute dink.. if you did, please, specifically point it out to me.
Yup. Genesis 10:2.
Magog, and Tiras. Same verse as above.
It might be "Iavan" -- but that's just a different transliteration. "Yavan" also works, of course. Same verse -- Gen 10:2.
Also in Modern Hebrew -- "יון" does indeed mean Greece.
Trinity, your attitude and testament are worthless. So you have nothing left but stubbornness. All that shows is you can't acknowledge your errors. Not good for someone trying to convince an evidence based blog they are anything other than a tantrum throwing two-year-old.
Nerd:
Right... um... Ok.
Which I'm sure you'll be more than happy to point out in your next post; not. Do you have any specifics sir? OR is this just more of the same blathering?
Oh, I see. When I cite specifics, pointing at direct quotes of Sleazy’s, explain (so even a two year old can understand it) how he is lying about it, while citing Biblical verses refuting it... it is a tantrum?
Arguing with idiots 101. Well done sir. I don’t think you could have made the point better!
Swallow. Swallow. Swallow. :-) lol
What.the.fuck.
I was showing you how your misunderstanding of PZ's characterization of the poster results from you narrowing the Hamitic theory of African origin (of which you were admittedly ignorant) down to a specific one used to justify the enslavement of Africans. By doing so, you choose to ignore all the other racist implications of the Hamitic theory that accompanies the dispersion of people from the Tower of Babel. PZ uses the enslavement of Africans as an example of the racism inherent in the biblical story, that is those from a cursed lineage are considered inferior and worthy of persecution.
I'll try and put this in words with which you might be more familiar:
oink grunt oink grunt oink grunt soooowhhheeeee
Oooh, this one's feisty, ain't he?
Ah, the old argument from personal pomposity.
Mr Trinity - if that is your real name - no one here gives a fairy's fingernail for the ordered sequence of your satements, or any possible connection between them.
The whole lot is just meaningless waffle. And then you say that you didn't realise that the myth of Noachian human origin had been used to justify slavery? Oh, wait, you did, but didn't think that it could be called "Hamitic Theory"?
Not up to much as a historian, are you bible-study boy?
Though what offends me - well actually it doesn't, as your stupidity and arrongance are being so ably ripped apart here - is that as a teacher, you have so little respect for your students.
Is it just me, or does anyone wonder whether the "dolts" in his class see through him and give him a thoroughly hard time? I kind of hope so...it would certainly explain a lot.
Have you tried prayer? Jesus loves you, remember!
Lil Peter:
Oh… I see now how this game is played. You can make the theory state anything you want it to, and then cluck like a chicken with a corn cob up its ass that I was wrong. O-tay buckwheat.
No. Not true. I pointed out specifically what the Bible stated. I pointed out specifically where Sleazy lied about the dispersion (remember petey… Canaan is in Palestine… not Africa). I also pointed out that Sleazy said that the museum was promoting the Hamite Theory… which they clearly were not. Which is the lie you are swallowing.
OK.. he uses the Hamite Theory as an example for the justification for slavery…got it. If you ever get around to paying attention… please know that the Bible states that Canaan, the one who was cursed did not go to Africa. He therefore did not take this curse with him. Therefore, to state that the poster at the museum promotes the theory, which it clearly contradicts…, is a lie.
Again, no one seems interested in the facts from post #155. Why am I not surprised?
Ah, still touting your book of mythology as being inerrant. We know better. That is your main problem, and where your lies start. If you believe in things that are not true, you have troubles eventually with reality. Reality is not friendly to your babble.
Seems to me that Anthony K’s only experience with education doesn't extend much further than the 8th grade that he never finished. But hey, it is always easier to tell teachers what to do, after, Anthony was in school once (or twice) and he knows precisely how teachers feel about their students… and how to better do their jobs… right Anthony?
Anyway, this is yet another attempt at a derail... sorry. Post #155... any of my facts incorrect? or are you only worried that I initially didn't know what a certain term meant? Seems strange that you're more concerned about that than Sleazy's lies. No... maybe not strange... if someone swallows.
Nerd:
Nerd… did I write that the Bible was inerrant?
Where did I lie?
Thanks you in advance for failing to yet again to answer seemingly simple questions… unless of course you are now ready to spit out some of Sleazy’s ejaculation?
Translation: Why, yes, I am actually a racist.
Translation: I deny that the museum was supporting what they clearly were supporting.
Translation: I ignore the simple fact that the poster does not contradict the Hamite theory, and actively supports it !!
Translation: I have conveniently forgotten my Fact #3 in post #155 which acknowledges that the poster was indeed promoting the Hamite theory.
Troll,
I'll try to make this so simple that even you can understand it.
Which is thoroughly irrelevant, since PZ was talking about what was on display at the "museum".
Also irrelevant, for the same reason.
One more time; PZ was not critiquing the bible. He was talking about what was on the poster.
Trinity,
Reading for comprehension: You're doing it wrong.
Malcom:
Which is thoroughly irrelevant, since PZ was talking about what was on display at the "museum".
and you point? Does the poster display anything that is NOT in the Bible. This makes absolutely no sense.
One more time; PZ was not critiquing the bible. He was talking about what was on the poster.
There is no dif here... unless of course you can point it out? The poster indicates that Canaan, the one who received the curse, statyed in Palestine. He, along with the curse, did not go to Africa which the Hamite Theory perpetuates. Sleazy insists that the poster does indicate this... which it doesn't. He is therefore a liar.
Please, for the love of life, someone, anyone, refute this... and I'll go away.
Hey ignoramous, you have implied it throughout, as you wouldn't throw such a two-year-old temper tantrum for a meaningless book. So if you do believe that the babble is inerrant, you are a liar. It is nothing but a book of mythology. Demonstrate otherwise with solid scientific evidence. Welcome to the real world of college educated folks who know more and understand implications much better than your meager and totally lacking ability to do so. Why don't you get an education. Sixth grade would be an improvement for you. You might actually respect those who know more than you do.
Once more, with feeling:
The content of the poster, which asserts that the descendants of Ham, by ANY of his children, are the ancestors of modern Africans, is a direct reference to centuries of racist thought.
I don't care what the Bible actually says. The multiple-centuries-worth of racists didn't care what the Bible actually says. To reiterate, without critique, the racially-based arguments of those multiple-centuries-worth of racists is in and of itself a reprehensible thing, and it's quite justified to call it out as such.
Nerd:
Sorry, that is no how the game is played. You simply can't make crap up and not expect me to respond by asking for you to cite.
I know I have no addressed this issue as it is irrelevant to the discussion. It is another example of your inability to stay on topic. I realize that you would like to shift the issue being discussed as your hero has had his ass handed to him and would somehow like a little redemption for him... sorry... just ain't going to happen. Try staying on topic.
Also, you ended up spelling ignoramus wrong. You of should of stuck with the simpleton retorts that are only two syllables. It would have kept you from looking like a complete idiot.
Liar. You've been as refuted as "refuted" gets, multiple times by multiple people. Yet here you remain, still obnoxious, still lying your lying ass off, still as obtuse and obnoxious as ever, and still fixated on swallowing man juice.
Interestingly there appear to be two variations of the Hamitic theory - both repugnant, one slightly moreso than the other (or maybe not).
The first, and most ancient (and therefore probably more in line with biblical thinking, if not the actual text of the bible) is that Ham and his sons all wandered off and populated Africa - and that by virtue of gods curse all had black skin (regardless of the fact the curse was laid on Canaan, who apparently stayed in Palestine (justifying the wholesale murder of the peoples inhabiting the promised land)) - apparently, and here I'm referencing wikipedia, which as everyone knows is always true, the Talmud (6th century babylonian...) states "the descendants of Ham are cursed by being Black and are sinful with a degenerate progeny" - which implies all Hams descendants were hit with the same curse.
The second, more modern version, argues that the Hamitic peoples of Northern Africa are responsible for all vestiges of 'civilization' discovered in Africa (which to the 19th century mindset would seem obvious - the whiter you are the mroe civilized you are, what better way to explain civilization in areas with a black population than to postulate that whites brought it there) - in this case Hams descendants are not black, but the racial undertone (if it can even be called that) is still that black Africans are primitive and uncivilized (this version is then linked to such awesome acts in human history as the Rwandan and Burundi genocides - at least in terms of setting up the conditions for the genocides to occur)
Either way the Hamitic theory is an obnoxious doctrine which should be annihilated from anything other than the pages of history dealing with "dumb shit people believed in before realizing that fairy tales do not offer a good way to look at history" as in both versions Black africans are cast as inferior.
(apologies if this was already covered upthread, I do have to get a little work done today.... =p)
*taps microphone*
Is this thing on?
Fayne:
Then you must not be interested in the facts then.
The multiple-centuries-worth of racists didn't care what the Bible actually says. To reiterate, without critique, the racially-based arguments of those multiple-centuries-worth of racists is in and of itself a reprehensible thing, and it's quite justified to call it out as such.
Right… I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with, and would think someone else would have a problem with, is the fact that the poster is in fact Biblically accurate, a fact that does not perpetuate the Hamite Theory, a fact that demonstrates that the curse NEVER migrated to Africa, the fact that Sleazy said the poster did promote… which, according to the Bible, that you don’t care what it says, is factually wrong.
You can’t have it both ways and expect to maintain any consistency here. If Sleazy’s attempt to assert that the museum’s poster promoted this theory, then we would see on the poster the descendents of those who were actually cursed to be servants migrating to Africa. The fact is we don’t. The fact is that the poster is Biblically accurate and does not promote this theory. Therefore, Sleazy lied. A simple retraction would be the professional and ethical thing to do… but I’m not holding my breath.
Assuming, for the sake of arguement, that you are correct
Perhaps PZ will offer up that retraction.
After the Creation Museum retracts itself.
I mean it would be the professional and ethical thing to do after lying right? (again, and again, and again, about pretty much everything contained within its doors)
Isaac:
Isaac, all you have to do is reference the post number, explain is just a few short sentences how it refutes post #155... and we'll be done. If not, calling me every name under the sun ain't going to make the facts go away.
Please, for the millionth time, please feel free to cite a way.
ThX!
No, I'm a teacher with a college degree. Some of my students can be slow on the uptake but that's a matter of variable abilities or, possibly, that I'm not teaching them well enough. I don't insult them because we treat each other with respect.
I bet your students think you're a complete dick.
Should "of" - as in "ignorant of grammar"?
Boilerplate fuckwit, really. Religiously motivated, produces no argument whatever - hint, an argument is more than a succesion of numbered statements - and absurdly self-important.
Essentially one of those sort of people one sees in the street, you know, a "self arguer."
Alan Clarke? Graham Bird?
It's kinda fun to see them get so angry, and so reamed...
*Snort* What do we think - will he?
AnthonyK:
Right... and AnthonyK has never ever vented about his students... seems a bit of a far fetched assertion to me, but hey, if AnthonyK says so... I guess it must be really true.
Anyway, post #155? Refutation?
Ewan:
Lets say for the sake of argument that I am not correct.... which part would that be?
Why should I? So you can ignore it yet again, as you have all the other times it has already been done?
I am not going to do your homework for you. As I said, you have already been as refuted as it gets. The only reason you could possibly be asking is that, with your fascination with male ejaculate, you get off watching guys masturbate, and masturbating is all I'd be doing if I complied with your ridiculous demands.
Maybe he has, but I'll bet he has never displayed the complete lack of class it takes to do it on the internet in front of total strangers. Besides, you were not venting, you were feebly attempting to insult me. You are not fit to teach anybody anything, anywhere, except maybe the finer points of pigfucking.
Why do you waste your time here? What do you hope to accomplish here? If you wanted to offer your services as a chew toy, you've been wildly successful. Congratulations. That's all you've managed in your time here.
Isaac:
Fine. I'll take that as a no.
What names do you have in mind for me now?
Small minds do indeed breed small ideas.
Oh yes, I do vent about my students - but calling them stupid? No. I reserve that for people who are ignorant and proud of it, such as....
(quoted for incoherence)
Listen, you dolt, Noah, Ham, and Canaan were not real people - they never actually existed, so whatever is asserted about them by you or anyone else is quite meaningless. That their story was used to promote racism and slavery would appear to be a deplorable fact.
And remember, the whole of the Creation Museum is an international joke: the fact that the view of biblical inerrancy it espouses was used to justify the oppression of an outgroup - such as women, in passing - is simply par for the course.
But the rest of your "argument" is mere babble too: so far as I can understand it amounts to "Atheism is stupid and arrogant, you've misunderstood the message of one tiny part of the creation museum, I'm a christian apologist who thinks he knows something about the bible, a teacher who thinks his students are dumb, and, probably, drunk."
But your "argument", such as it is, has been taken apart above.
The fact that you keep hysterically referring to it as if were anything other than a stupid rant - with numbers! - and carry on posting on a blog with a post-based-low-IQ intolerance, and getting entertainingly kicked around, shows you have about as much self-awareness as a rabid dog, and are somewhat less charming, or welcome.
Ooh! I know this one! The part where you contradict yourself by agreeing that the poster does support the Hamite Theory and then later asserting that it does not support it despite the fact that it clearly does!
For one thing, dolt, I happen to know that Owlmirror, above, is something of a biblical expert. I have never seen him (or her?) argue from personal authority, as you do.
(I think he's drunk Owly; unfortunately, however, he'll still be stupid in the morning.)
That’s the spirt lol
Here you are simply wrong and refuse to admit it. Whether or not they factually existed is irrelevant… that much is true, however, when we are discussing events caused by a narrative/myth/fairytale or whatever characterization you want to wrap it up in is completely relevant. Africans were sold into slavery because the idea of being Biblically justified was incorrectly perpetuated. Sleazy is asserting that the museum is promoting this fallacy with its poster... which it is not. Do you agree? Yes or no?
Ok mr teacher man… you wouldn’t dare grade someone’s paper and state that their argument is mere babble without providing examples, citing where… funny how you can’t/won’t/or are actually too incompetent to do here.
Quotation marks? A quote? Did you make it up or did someone write it for you? lol
Tell you what, I’ll make it easy for you… all you have to do is reference the post number… I’d be interested in reading it. If not, your post has about the same amount of veracity as Isaac's. (is-not-ism lol)
Perspective is everything. I suppose you might be right if we were grading for insults, name calling, or imaginative language. However, when we grade on content, argumentative coherency, and facts… um… one side of the argument has yet to point out a specific flaw in my argument. The only remarks that I receive are childish remarks about bestiality, incessant ‘is-not-ism, all supported by zero facts. The amusement of getting ‘kicked around’ is all mine sir. Your reply is only a prize example of this. You spend the all of your post referring to some mythological refutation, without ever getting around to specifically pointing it out for everyone else to read. It truly is halarious. As from a purely intellectual perspective you people are only making yourselves out to be incompetent ejaculation swallowing lemmings.
Try some original argument or thought dude… you’re a teacher… you can do it. Remember Blooms… synthesize… evaluate… lol
Owl:
Post Number? Or are you like everyone else around here that makes facts up on the fly without support?
Wrong, it means a lot. Truth versus fantasy. You have problems with reality.
With anything your idiocy says, no. You are a delusional fool, and not very educated.
Why? If the paper is totally incoherent, make the "F", and tell them they babbled. If they decide to ask about it (unlikely), go into more detail. An allegedly smart person like yourself should know when you babble, and correct it before you post. Oops, doesn't seem to be the case.
Nope, lots of facts which you can't acknowledge since they destroy your idiotic premise. That says a lot about your maturity, or rather lack thereof.
What intellectual perspective from you? The concept you can be and are wrong must be present for that to happen. Guess what? You fail that simple test, so you aren't intellectual. Still batting 0.000
Nerd:
Um... was that 0.000 the post number that has refuted my points? The odd thing is it doesn't exist mr nerd. Are you ever going to get around to answer what we both would classify as a seemingly simple question and cite the post number?
Africans were sold into slavery because the idea of being Biblically justified was incorrectly perpetuated. Sleazy is asserting that the museum is promoting this fallacy with its poster... which it is not. -Trinity
On the contrary, it quite clearly is. The poster has a whacking great arrow showing the descendants of Ham migrating into Africa. The idea that Africans are descendants of Ham is a key part of the justification long used by white racists for their bigotry. To many white racists, the poster will therefore be perceived as indicating that those responsible for the display agree with them, and are providing the clearest hint they can without displaying overt racism.
BTW, Trinity, for all our sakes, go and suck a few cocks - your obsession with semen is painfully obvious. It's nothing to be ashamed of, but constantly parading it as you do makes people embarrassed for you.
Knockgoats:
Hmmm... perhaps you can recognize your error by simply answer few quick questions:
1. Who specifically was cursed?
2. Where specifically did that people group go?
3. If the answer to questions 1 and 2 never make it to Africa, how can Africans therefore be cursed to be servants?
I'm not the one who has been frequenting a board all this time that purports to ejaculate on its readers. Perhaps the obsession is yours sir?
What points? All I recall, is "Sleazy is wrong, even though everybody showed what he said was correct". WAAHHHHH. Guess what Trinity, anytime you want, you can leave. But nobody is agreeing with your inane and idiotic presumptions. And you still no evidence for your deity existing, or your babble not being fiction/mythology. You don't define the rules of argument at this site. We do. And you fail our rules, which requires you to pony up real physical evidence for the babble being anything other than mythology when asked, since you are using it in an argument. You brought the babble up first, trying to show PZ was wrong...So you are stuck trying to prove it...
Nerd... post number please.
Just one?
What about that one?
Noah, you know, the man who put the entire fucking world into a boat, fucked his kids and thus regenerated the whole human race, the fact that that Noah never existed, is irrelevant?
That the whole flood myth never...actually...happened - and that the creation museum asserts that it did, and then dodges the implications that subsequent Christians put on the narrative, thus justifying slavery - but, in a cowardly way, now denying it - that isn't relevant?
Plus, dolt, (boy, if you really are a teacher, depend upon it, your kids would love to see the mauling you are getting here!) the fact that, though you refuse to admit it, you think the world really is just 6000 years old and the bible is inerrant, even the stupid, evil bits -it does support slavery, you know - show that you are not only a disgrace to education but also a fuckwitted hypocrite of the highest order.
Trinity wrote:
Feel free to cite where it the ejaculate in question is specified as resulting in something being on someone - as opposed to what you're fantasising about and projecting.
You do realise there are definitions of the word 'ejaculate' that don't have anything to do with semen, don't you? Then again, considering your ignorance of the area you profess to be an expert in, your being clueless about the finer points of the English language isn't exactly a shock.
Pick any one. You were never right. Just ignorant and stubborn. And still are. What a loser. By the way, still no evidence for your imaginary deity or mythical babbble. Just saying, since you brought the latter up, and must prove the former to make the latter anything other than fiction. And it is up to you to prove yourself right...We are waiting...
Heh, a true specimen.
Indeed, Trinity, and you're currently engaging in intercourse! ;)
Truly, he is a wanker.
Oh, and on Christian hypocrisy - what happened to the man in the bible who denied Christ?
Something about founding a church? No, it's gone.
AnthonyK:
Relavancey as it pertains to the fact that Sleazy is lying… no, sorry.
Flood myth…. Creation museum assets it happened… as it pertains to Sleazy lying about the poster. No. Sorry. Not relevant.
Um… dolt boy… teaching questioned… again…. Ah…. Biblical inerrancy… erm… anther insult… no refutation of Sleazy lying about the poster. Hmmmmm… quick scan… anything else? Um… Nope… sorry Einstein, today just appears to not be your day.
Weird how difficult this simple question is for you all.
Which he isn't, which means you are.
No, weird how you can't prove your imaginary deity and mythical babble to back up your wrong and inane argument...We are waiting for real scientific evidence of your deity/babble...
Ah, Trinity the ellipsis-ejaculator.
Sins of omission. :)
Oh my goodness - this is still going on? Trinity just doesn't know when it's been licked (not ejaculated on), does it?
Waves hi to sane Pharyngulites, sticks tongue out at Biblemess.
Nerdy one.... post number please....
re 245:
PZ is talking about the poster, not the bible as you say. Yet the poster says nothing about the curse of Ham, nor that Canaan was the one cursed. That is in the Bible, which PZ was not discussing.
"The poster indicates that Canaan, the one who received the curse, statyed[sic] in Palestine." [for someone who keeps ragging on other's typographical errors, you should be damn sure to not have any yourself] So here is your lie, because the poster does not indicate that Canaan recieved the curse.
The poster clearly shows Ham and his descendants going to Africa. The Hamite Theory is that Africans are cursed, being the descendants of Ham. The poster reinforces the assertion that Africans are the descendants of Ham. Therefore it reinforces the Hamite Theory.
Now go away.
Are you guys serious? I mean... come on. You aren't going to let some fundy come in here and insult your hero without thoroughly refuting his argument that P.Z. Meyer is a liar.
Please say you are all are not that intellectually shallow. Please at least keep your dignity and refute one of the 7 facts in post #155
The "simple question" has been answered.
You, sir, are a fucking moron, arguing with yourself.
I assume, by "Sleazy" you are referring to PZ? He's not a liar, though he may sometimes be wrong. But if you don't like his blog...I really don't know what to suggest.
Oh wait, why don't you just set down the whiskey bottle, bring yourself manually to climax - as opposed to "intelectual" stimulation - and go to bed?
Trinity
#61
#68
#78
#101
#108
#112
#126
#138
#155
#164
#180
#204
#215
#241
#262
I don't even think PZ's wife thinks about his ejaculations this much.
Trinity, either show some scientific evidence for your babble, or it is book of fiction and it doesn't matter what PZ says, making him right. He is only wrong if the babble is inerrant. We are waiting for your evidence on inerrancy, which appears to be not forthcoming, making you a total lair and bullshitter. Welcome to real science. Nothing you say is relevant without evidence, which is not your friend...
Ummm, no, pigfucker. The Hamitic theory has made the rounds from the Hamitic origin of certain Africans (and enmity between Jews and Egyptians) to "Hamitic" African interbreeding with Canaanites (and enmity between so-called Hamitic peoples and Jews) to the superiority of "Hamitic" Africans over other Africans. It's not my fault you have never heard of these theories and are ignorant of the history of the interpretation of this particular fable. Good thing you're not a history teacher or biblical scholar or...oh wait...shit, maybe it would be better if you just keep fucking those pigs.
There was no global flood.
The entire human population was not and could not be built from the spawn of 8 people in 4,000 years.
The root stock of all modern humans was not Middle Eastern - it was African.
The pattern of migrations shown in Ken Ham's diagram is completely false.
His entire rationale for the origin of modern races is built on false premises.
My description of his diagram was accurate and backed up by photographs of the display.
Ham is promoting racism because, and I will quote Answers in Genesis itself, "False beliefs about the origin of races have led to widespread problems worldwide." Ham is promoting false beliefs. False beliefs lead to racism. QED.
Feymaniac - I think you need to wash your hands now.
It's pointless. Trinity knows what PZ is arguing and just pretends that the poster doesn't show the Hamitic Theory because the words aren't on the poster.
PZ has even shown the quote in the bible. AIG supports the idea that everyone is descended from Noah and his three sons. Including that the descendants of Ham went to Africa.
Sure you can argue that Ken Ham supports the Curse of Ham and the movements of Noah's sons but not the actual "curse" and the servants part... that it just explains why races are located where they are now. But you have to believe that everyone else who reads the bible ignores the curse and the past justified enslavement of blacks as servants too.
You also have to ignore the fact that science has shown that the whole idea is complete bullshit.
'Nuff said
I need some shampoo. They're hairy.
Trinity wrote:
That may be the case - but who is this 'P.Z. Meyer'? I've never heard of him. Why are you here to tell us that some random person is a liar?
I think you should have put that post in as a "sticky", PZ.
I find it hilarious that you brought up his ejaculations 15 times on this thread and you can't get his last name right.
PZ's coming to get you...
The Sleaze Master Wrote:
Fine, if you say so. However, it has nothing to do with your comments about the poster.
Okay… I’m not going to argue that here. For arguments sake it can't happen. Fine…
Again… it is not relevant about what you wrote about the museum… typical red-herrings… I’ve grown to expect as much from your ilk.
That is fine to think also. However, what you asserted was that it promoted the Hamite Theory… which it did not. The poster clearly has the one who was cursed, Canaan, sitting in Palestine. The Hamite Theory has the cursed people migrating to Africa, which the poster does not demonstrate. You lied about it. It is unprofessional as the day is long to do this… and you damn well know it. If this is how you get people to flock to your ideology… through lies and obfuscation… it only demonstrates the content of your character… or lack thereof.
The hell it was. Please, tell me… where in the Hamite Theory does the curse to be a servant stay in Palestine? It doesn’t. It migrates to Africa… but you know this… don’t you?
Oh… so the ends justify the means… you sir are pathetic.
They sure do…
They sure do…
I'm thinking you ought to be in my 5th period class too. lol
We've not only said it; we've shown it. You just are not intellectually honest enough to admit it.
That stupidity has been refuted to death but you are too intellectually feeble and dishonest to admit it.
There's no point in continuing your foolishness. You are dismissed and there are no lovely parting gifts.
But on the plus side you can stop off and drown your sorrows at the sperm bank on your way home.
Unfortunately Trinity failed to understand the difference between the actual criticism of the poster (that it is inherently untrue, a work of fiction that can, and often is/ has been interpreted in such a way as to justify racism) and his imagined criticism (that it misrepresented a detail of the fiction).
Rather like a complaining that someone is criticising a poster offering cruises on the Titanic because of a misinterpretation of the arrangement of deckchairs when the criticism is actually that the damned ship is at the bottom of the sea!
THE POSTER ARROW GOES TO AFRICA YOU LYING SHIT.
Keep ignoring it. Egypt is in Africa genius. The arrow crosses the Nile river delta. It doesn't stop in Palestine.
For Trinity, it's very handy.
Trinity wrote:
Isaac then responded with:
LMAO... ya think Isaac? lol
Damn those serial lollers are annoying...
Trinity, with all the weight and substance of the intellectual arguments he has used to defend his position, wrote:
Says it all, really.
Trinny - I posted a way back about multiple different Hamite theories of African shindiggery.
Lets concede that the poster doesn't show Canaan going to Africa. That's fine. It doesn't need to. The theory is the Hamite theory, not the Canaanite theory. The more recent Hamite theory (of the two variations I highlighted) is still completely racist in its general gist (as well as being utterly false in terms of human migrations) and categorically IS supported by the poster in question - regardless of how you look at it - Ham, and his descendants, move into Africa - that Canaan stayed put in Palestine is neither here nor there, neither is the fact that in the bible Canaan is the guy cursed - the Hamite theory (one version of it...) revolves around Ham and descendants moving out of one area, and populating Africa - this is a bullshit interpretation of human population movements and is what the poster is supporting - the same theory is completely racist. Therefore the poster supports a completely racist theory.
Now, are you going to go ask the Creation museum to apologise to the world for lying on a far grander scale than pointing out something on a poster, or is it just PZ who you hold to this high standard (and wrongly, as just pointed out)
Damn, I love the smell of Pharygulapalm in the morning.
Duh dud de duh duh, dud de duuuh!
Steveinsomecity wrote:
It sure does. I haven't stated that it did. Can you please cite which post in which I wrote that it didn't? If you can't, then perhaps someone else is a lying shit?
I think what you keep ignoring is that spot towards the center of the map labeled Canaan, you know, the one that never made it to Africa... the one who stayed in Palestine... the one that was actually cursed. Duh!
You all are just way to amusing... lol.
Sorry, missing "n" as in "Triity is a kownothing igoramus."
Does anyone not in love with their own opinions know how to easily spellcheck posts?
Steveinsomecity wrote:
It sure does. I haven't stated that it did. Can you please cite which post in which I wrote that it didn't go to Africa? If you can't, then perhaps someone else is a lying shit? You all never cease to amaze me on how absolutely deceitful your arguments are.
I think what you keep ignoring is that spot towards the center of the map labeled Canaan, you know, the one that never made it to Africa... the one who stayed in Palestine... the one that was actually cursed. Duh!
You all are just way to amusing... lol.
PZ
Dipshit
You are only right if your babble is inerrant. PZ said it wasn't, and you have presented no evidence otherwise. Loser...
But that is what you are implying with your inane testament, that it can happen. Show the evidence, or shut the fuck up...
There you go describing yourself, and your inane arguments...
Try being in one of my lectures, solid "F" candidate...
Still no evidence for your imaginary deity or mythical babble...
Trinity's LOLing is, of course, intended to be sardonic, just as its overuse of ellipses is meant to indicate omitted (yet devastating) argumentation.
Amusing, really.
Expressiveness is not its forte.
Trinity wrote:
More of the intellectually heavy-hitting with Trinity the expert communicator. We are the way to amusing, or we are way too amusing?
No wonder your students mock you.
And you're ignoring the big fucking type that says Descendants of Ham. That's the Hamite Theory. You know the one that says Ham's descendant's ended up in Africa. Ken Ham claims this is how the races spread throughout the world within 4,000 years. That he doesn't include the curse on the poster is irrelevant.
Asshole.
Ewan wrote:
The one who was actually cursed to be a servant... OK. I'll accept that concession.
Yes, the one that would have Cannan going to Africa... or at least the curse to be servants.
and you will not get a smidge of disagreement from me... yes. I do agree. However, I will point out it is not Biblical, not is it was is displayed in the poster.
I disagree. It is completely relevant as it is precisley where Sleazy begins his obfuscation and lie. The poster has Ham’s other sons, the ones who were not cursed to be servants, migrating to Africa… it does not illustrate the curse migrating to Africa. This is where Sleazy plays loose with facts and starts to spin his lies.
No. It is indeed in the Bible.
Gensesis 10:24:
Canaan is the one who received the curse… not Ham, or any other of Ham’s sons.
Whether or not that it actually happened is another thing, the fact that the Biblical account does not have the curse, despite your unsupported insistence, moving to Africa is the key issue here.
The Hamite Theory, which is a convoluted interpretation of curse migrating to Africa, is not supported by the Bible and is not illustrated in the poster at the museum. PZ Sleazy asserted that it did. He knows, I know, and now hopefully you know, that is simply not true. It is a lie.
Trinity (my emphasis):
I know what you meant to express, but what you have expressed (by ordinary rules of language¹) is highlighted in my emphasis.
Heh.
¹ cf. the grammatical constituent about which something is predicated.
It's the theory that the people of africa are descended from Ham.
It's called the Curse of Ham. People have abused the bible in many ways but it also has racism in it and it allows for slavery. That people have used the bible to justify racism and slavery is a fact.
You may disagree with them and argue that it's not in the bible, whichever interpretation you pick, the poster is wrong and people have used this very idea to justify racism and slavery in the past.
You can't ignore it and it's past usage.
So fucking what? You are a liar and bullshitter.
*Flip Wilson voice*Here com' da quotes.*/FWV*
Still no evidence for your mythical babble, which should not be cited until inerrancy is proven. Still nothing cogent. Wasted post by the loser idjit...
Steveinacity wrote:
No... I'm not ignoring that. That is exactly what it indicates. You, on the other hand, are ignoring the fact that Canaan, you know - the one who was actually cursed to be a servant, never seems to make it to Africa.
Yes... the one that has the curse of Canaan migrating to Africa. However, that is not what the Bible, nor the poster indicates. It is what Sleazy says the poster promotes, which is not true.
No... the fact that the curse does not migrate to Africa, according to the Bible, the poster, and Ken Ham is completely relevant as that is the fact that Sleazy is lying about.
One who points out lies is an asshole on this website. Well, swallow swallow swallow away. Its your choice and I'm not going to stop you.
"You're in more dire need of a blow job than any white man in history." - Good Morning, Vietnam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamitic#Curse_of_Ham
The term Hamitic originally referred to the peoples believed to have been descended from the biblical Ham, one of the Sons of Noah. When Ham dishonors his father, Noah pronounces a curse on him, stating that the descendents of his son Canaan will be "servants of servants". Of Ham's four sons, Canaan fathered the Canaanites, while Mizraim fathered the Egyptians, Cush the Cushites and Phut the Libyans.[1]
During the Middle Ages, this was interpreted to define Ham as the ancestor of all Africans. The curse was regularly interpreted as having created visible racial characteristics in Ham's offspring, notably black skin. According to Bernard Lewis, the sixth-century Babylonian Talmud states that "the descendants of Ham are cursed by being Black and are sinful with a degenerate progeny."[2] Both Arab and later European and American slave traders used this story to justify African slavery.[3][4]
In fact, the Bible restricts the curse to the offspring of Ham's son Canaan, who occupied the Levant, not to his other sons who are supposed to have populated Africa. According to Edith Sanders, this restriction was increasingly emphasised by 19th century theologians, who rejected the curse as a justification for slavery.[4]
You are a fucktard.
NO! PZ described the poster accurately. The babble is in error until you can show scientific inerrancy. We are waiting for your evidence. Evidently, you don't have any, so the fictional babble is irrelevant to the discussion. And you are still lying by pretending your diety exists, and your babble means something...
I haven't seen you insult Batman once.
Steveinthecity... can you follow the thread?
Cutting and pasting from wikipedia does nothing to advance your point. It actually diminishes it.
That isn't citing Wiki, but rather your miserable failure to prove inerrancy for your mythical babble. It gives you nothing solid to work with. Makes you sound illiterate and stoopid.
Trinity is obsessive and boring. Read this. There is a dungeon cell awaiting him if he keeps this nonsense up.
Wow, I never thought that one could be so passionate in arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
When the scientific evidence for the origins of our species differs from the biblical account, why is one arguing so hard over what it says in the bible? It simply doesn't matter. One shouldn't interpret myth as history, otherwise you spend your time obsessively arguing over the implications of said myth instead of going where the evidence takes you.
If indeed the Curse of Ham follows from the biblical account, it's the least of creationist problems. 10,000 years ago, the population of cheetahs crashed. As few as 7 survived, and all cheetahs alive today descended from them. This bottleneck in cheetah populations is seen in the genetic record... now if the biblical account of anything to do with racial divergence came from just 3 sets of individuals, then we should see that bottleneck and dispersion in the genetic record. We don't - the genetic lineage shows a completely different story.
But the Noah's Ark story was never meant to be a literal account, it's a mythic tale taking a localised flood that caused much destruction and placing it in the context of humanity's relationship with God. No dispersion of life, no volcanoes shooting marsupials to Australia, no slintered migratory paths, no genetic bottlenecks (in our species, let alone all species on the planet); the myth doesn't work as a historical narrative. It's a mythic narrative and that cannot be stressed enough. One peoples' (well, several) account of their relationship to God. That's all their is to it, try to take something more and you're counting pin-dancing angels.
Sleazy writes:
Are you kidding? I'm only asking you to justify the lie you are perpetuating. You asserted that the Babel Dispersion poster at the creation museum promotes the Hamite Theory. I have pointed out that it doesn't. Now, you want to censure me?
Priceless. I guess this is what happens when people point out what a lying fool you are... they get the good ole Gobbles’ treatment. I really do wish pointing out your hypocrisy was more difficult... but you seem to make it too easy... even for a... um... fucknozzle, pigfucker, and whatever aspersion your minions of ignorant lemmings want throw out. It truly is amusing. Please, fire for effect gunfighter, I'll just post it as a feather in my hat all the while demonstrating that not one of your idiotic sycophants is able to refute the facts surrounding your cheap attempt to disparage a display at the creation museum.
You are smaller than I thought you were… lol
The Babel Dispersion poster and the Hamite Theory are the same thing! The Hamite Theory claims the descendants of Ham populated Africa.
Show me I'm wrong.
If you present that poster as the explanation for the races, and it does, you are lying. Ken Ham is lying. He is using a biblical explanation which has been refuted. He is the one using the bible to explain why African people are where they are and look the way they do.
idiotic sycophants
someone didn't check out the video games as art post
Trinity:
Concomitantly, you are every bit as clueless as I thought you were. PZ doesn't issue idle warnings.
Apparently, being banned as an inane troll is a "feather in [your] hat"¹. You're working hard for it, may you reap your (well-deserved) reward.
--
¹ The idiom is actually "Feather in Your Cap", but your general ignorance is a given.
So of course the dumbfuck simply *must* immediately follow with some extreme assholery:
Etc.
Trinity, don't let the dungeon door hit you on the ass on the way in.
No, the only lies are your deity existing and your babble being inerrant, inspite of the total and utter lack of evidence presented. As expected from a total loser like you. A two-year-old throwing a temper tantrum. Still throwing the tantrum, as you aren't getting your way. Not a mature, intelligent adult. Time for your cell boy...
Gobbles' treatment? What is that, some kind of turkey reference?
If so I guess we can add 'humour' to the list of things we hope you aren't teaching in your fifth period class - along with history, bible studies, anthropology, archaeology, psychology, communications and English.
Hint: it's not because you disagree with him.
Though honestly speaking, what does it matter whether the poster is an explicit endorsement of Hamite theory or a mere coincidence? Either way it's empirically wrong. The biblical account doesn't match the scientific evidence. The best you get out of this is "I was wrong about the poster" which has 0 bearing on the facts of human history and distribution. Stop counting angels already...
Trinity, address my refutation in 280. You keep harping on the biblical detail that Canaan received the curse of Ham, but that is not on the poster. The poster is what is described by PZ, not what is in the Bible, which you agreed with. Looking at the poster there is no indication that "Canaan" on the map indicates a son of Ham or just the geographical region. There is no indication that Canaan is cursed. The curse is known as "The Curse of Ham", the poster shows Ham migrating to Africa, the implication is that Africans received the curse of Ham. Everything PZ said about the poster is accurate and truthful. You are refuted. Go away like you promised.
#155 and #238
I'm glad that you agree that you make up facts on the fly without support. So will you leave, or did you make that "fact" up too?
The "Hamite Theory" has the children of Ham migrating to Africa.
The exegetical invention of the Curse of Ham has those children being cursed.
But you can't have the latter without the former.
The poster does indeed demonstrate the "Hamite Theory".
Nah, you're the liar.
Sure it does. It follows the bible regarding locations.
Except the Hamite Theory is about the migration to Africa of the children of Ham, which is indeed illustrated in the poster.
Since the poster says nothing about the curse one way or the other, it shows what racists who believe in the Curse of Ham believe about the migration of those who were cursed.
Nope.
You've been claiming that it doesn't when it clearly does.
Yeah, that makes you look real smart.
We have been censuring you throughout: we are scornful and critical of your beligerent ignorance. We also admonish, berate, blame, carp at, castigate, cavil, chastise, chide, condemn, denigrate, denounce, deprecate, disapprove, disparage, find fault with, judge, knock, lecture, look askance, pick apart, pull apart, rebuff, rebuke, remonstrate, reprehend, reprimand, reproach, reprove, scold, take to task, tear apart, tell off, and upbraid you - if nothing else for your poor English skills, showing deficiencies in both grammar and vocabulary.
You haven't been censored - you've had your say. However, if you continue to be repetitive, obtuse, and boring you won't be able to comment here again.
Is that clear?
Steveinthecity wrote:
Sure… look at the Babel Dispersion poster. According to the Bible, Canaan is the son who receives the curse. Is Canaan on the poster? Yes he is. Is Canaan in Africa? No he is not, he is in Palestine. So, the poster is consistent with the Bible.
Now, the Hamite Theory. Canaan receives the curse. Does Canaan go to Africa? According to the theory the curse is placed upon those who migrated there… Ham's sons. So, the poster, that has Hams sons that are not cursed to be servants, is not consistent with the theory. The curse of servitude, according to the poster and the Bible never goes to Africa. According to the theory it does.
Yawn Trinity, boring idjit. You still haven't shown the babble is inerrant. You haven't shown your translation of the babble is inerrant. You haven't shown diddly squat. Oh, and to show the babble as the word of your deity, you must first prove your deity. Not doing anything about your shortcomings in logic and evidence I see. What a loser. Keep showing us you loserness by not dropping your inane allegation until you cough up the proper evidence first...
Steven wrote in post #280: (his refutation)
The poster is a correct illustration of what the Bible states. It has Canaan, the one who was cursed to servitude staying in Palestine. The Hamite Theory has the curse going to Africa. You are correct is stating that the poster does not mention the curse of Ham, however it is consistent with what the Bible states and is not consistent with the Hamite Theory which Sleazy says it promotes. If Canaan was not listed on the map in Palestine, then perhaps if Sleazy was trying to stretch the facts he might have a point. However, Canaan is on the poster, in Palestine, and the Sleaze bag lied about it.
I never said the poster did indicate that Canaan received the curse. I said the poster was consistent with the Biblical narrative of Canaan staying in Palestine. Sleazy is the one who made the inference. So, if you want to infer the curse of Ham, then, then…. you would then check to se if the poster allows that interpretation. It does not. The poster, either way is not promoting the Hamite Theory. Sleaze mister knows this.
It sure does.
True enough..
Only if you want to ignore the FACT that the curse was placed on Canaan!!!! If you ignore that fact, yes, your illustration works. But the fact is that the poster does list Canaan, the one who received the curse, as NEVER GOING TO AFRICA!!!!
Sorry... your refutaion does not work.
One version of the Hamite theory has the curse going to Africa. This was widely accepted based on the biblical story, despite the biblical story saying canaan stayed in Palestine.
Another version of the Hamite theory is that Hams descendants (excluding Canaan) go to Africa, build everything that is good there, sets up animosities which exist to this day in Africa, and sets up black Africans as inferior. (this is important, because it is still Hamite theory, still propagated racism on a grand scale, and still based this racism on Biblical error - yet is completely removed from Canaan being cursed or not)
Other versions insist that ALL Ham's descendants were cursed, going black, and being generally degenerate - widely accepted during the middle ages etc.
So frankly, it doesn't matter if the story has Canaan staying in Palestine or not, or if the poster does. The fact is that the poster represents a fictional migration which has been used to promote racist ideas for centuries and promotes it as factual (again, if you are so angry about PZ lying about one pissy little poster how is it you are not absolutely apoplectic about a museum set up to push the truth of fairy tales over the far more interesting and scientifically backed history which actually occured - as a teacher of history I would imagine this would be pretty upsetting).
I think you also need to be a tad careful in throwing around the word fact without qualifying it. The fact is that in the story the curse was placed on Canaan (provable, unlike the assertion that it is a fact the curse was placed on Canaan)
re 338:
In #245 you said, "One more time; PZ was not critiquing the bible. He was talking about what was on the poster."
in #338 you say,"I never said the poster did indicate that Canaan received the curse."
You keep saying "Canaan, who received the curse", but that is not on the poster. PZ was discussing the poster, not your obscure bit of biblical trivia that 99% of the visitors to the Creation Museum have probably never heard of. The poster shows Ham's descendants going to Africa. The common understanding of the curse is that it was on Ham's descendants, not just Canaan. And whether PZ also knows that obscure bit of trivia in no way lessens the fact that by showing the biblical myth of Ham's descendants populating Africa, it is promoting the idea that Africans received the curse of Ham. This is what PZ origianlly stated. Where is the lie?
Oh here it is, it is yours:
in 155:
PZ did not say that Canaan was not on the poster. He said the poster does not point out that Canaan received the curse.
Oh here's another lie: @336:
The poster does not say anything about the curse of servitude. It does not identify Canaan as the recipient of the curse. The poster does not say the curse does not go to Africa. It does say the descendants of Ham go to Africa. The curse is known as Ham's. Few visitors to the "Museum" will be that only Canaan received the curse, while most willl be well aware of the phrase if not the details.
and finally in 155, your whole "proof" that PZ lied rests in:
PZ's point is not what the poster tells himself about the Bible and human dispersion but about what it tells the public, the average visitor to the Creation Museum. People who are unlikely to be biblical scholars, people who know most of the Bible 2nd hand and barely know whether Cain or Abel was the farmer. PZ is describing what effect the poster has on them. And how is it "clearly not the intent" of the Museum? It is clearly the intent to promote the biblical account that Africa was populated by the descendants of Ham. It is well known that Ham was cursed. It is not well known that the curse was laid on Canaan only and not all his descendants. It is well known that this account of the dispersion of Noah's sons was used to promote racism. By promoting this account of human migration this poster continues to promote that racist theory.
Steven M Wrote:
Sure, he was discussing the poster. He also said that the poster promotes the Hamite Theory… which I have repeatedly explained how and why it can’t…
That the museum was promoting the Hamite Theory which is Sleazy’s convoluted interpretation of the poster… not the museum’s.
If you go back and read his article he accuses the museum for promoting the Hamite Theory… which is an obvious misrepresentation of the message of the poster. Sleazy knew, when he wrote the article, that the information he was presenting was not consistent with poster… yet he still posted it.
Now you are being inconsistent. The curse of Ham is the curse of servitude. Above you stated that since it was Ham’s descendants going to Africa, the curse goes with them… It either says or implies or states it. Which one is it?
Either was the issue is Sleazy asserting that the museum was promoting racism/the Hamite Theory. Which they were not.
The average visitor to the museum wouldn’t be thinking about the curse of Ham when looking at this poster… they would be following the message it was INTENDED to convey: The Babel Dispersion of Mankind. Sleazy wrote his article to purposely disparage or mischaracterize the intent of the poster. He knew he was lying and misrepresenting the intent of the poster.
Let me get this straight… 99% of those people who go to the museum have no idea where the descendents of Ham went, but….but… they do know they were cursed to be servants? Right… only if you want to cut Sleazy some slack and let him get away with lying about the museum’s intent of the poster. Believe what you want… but common sense, the evidence and facts are not working out in your favor.
Christ on a dildo are you still here?
No? Hey, you're the religious nutcase who thinks the earth is 6000 years old and that it once all piled into a teensy weensy little boat while god had a tantrum.
The evidence, and the facts, are on our side.
As for your ridiculous assertion that PZ has somehow impugned the "integrity" of the creation museum - it has none.
And we don't accept the argumentum ad Narnium. Try as you might you are arguing about the details of a stupid fairy story. PZ's quite right to point out that the creation museum peddles the same nonsense that has been used to justify racism and slavery for years, and no one - except you - gives a fuck whether it was "Canaan" or "Ham" - fictious characters both - who carried an entirely fictional (bot socially useful) "curse of servitude".
The creation museum, and you, are wrong about everything important.
What a sad waste of consciousness you are.
Still no evidence for your imaginary deity Trinity. Still no evidence your babble means anything factual, and can be cited as a reference. Still NOTHING. I foresee a plonking in your future Trinity. You are too dumb and too religious to do what is necessary. That is shut up, and quit throwing your temper tantrum like a true adult would.
*throws imaginary glass of water in Trinity's face*
Technically if you go back and read the original which you yourself quoted up in comment #108
Quit grasping at straws. He's saying the poster promoted the Hamitic theory even though the museum was unaware of it.
Whether the Hamitic theory is valid or not to biblical literalists has nothing to do with the way it has been used. It does promote it. The idea that the children of Ham populated Africa is a fairy tale regardless of the accuracy to the bible. That's part of the point to the whole thing.
It was the racists of yore who used it despite some inaccuracies to the words written in the bible.
Continuing to claim that Ham's children populated Africa is bullshit on it's own. And continuing to prop up that factually wrong claim lends credence to the liberties people take with the fairy tale as it has been historically used.
re 341:
Which depends on knowledge of an obscure bit of biblical trivia. If it was well known that only Canaan was cursed, you might have a point. But it is not well known. It is well known that the curse of Ham was used for centuries to justify slavery and subjugation of the the African people.
This is a lie. That is not what I said. I said most are probably not aware that the curse of Ham was only on Canaan. ("It is not well known that the curse was laid on Canaan only and not all his descendants.")
Where am I being inconsistent? The poster does not say anything about the curse, specifically, at all. It does not say Canaan was cursed. I have never said nor implied otherwise.
No, but they are probably aware of the Curse and that it was on his descendants. This will reinforce the notion that Africans are cursed by their descent from Ham.
Now you are just projecting.
Sleazy Wrote:
To which Chimp responded:
Do really think this is true? Do you actually believe people at the creation museum have no idea of the abuses of this part of the Bible? People who have devoted their lives to the study of that book? You might disagree with them, but this out right open hostility... How pathetically arrogant.
So I guess that provides all the justification one needs to liable someone else. Well, at least we know what your standards are. Don’t we? I mean, we shouldn't lie about anyone, unless of course they are religous fundies (today). Tomorrow where will your standard be, those who don't share your political views? How about next week? Will be allowed to libel anyone who has facial hair?
Shallow... very shallow.
It's not beyond the bounds of possibility - these self same people who have devoted their lives to the study of the book appear to have no idea that it is not an historically accurate document concerning such things as the age of the Earth, why'd they be any more informed about the particular social consequences of a small snippet of the same book? beyond reading it, and assuming it is all completely true, I don't really expect much more of them.
Yawn, still temper tantrum from Trannie. Here's when you become an adult again Trannie. You start spelling PZ's initials and his name correctly. As long as you don't, you are a ignorant temper-trantrum throwing BOY. Boy Trannie, get your act together and realize you are a delusional fool, who believes in imaginary deities and mythical/fictional holybooks. Your evidence to date showing you aren't delusional fool wouldn't even fill a microliter pipet.
Yes, I do. The bible is read selectively by any religious group, especially those with the pathetic fallacy that it's literally true. The bible is still used to promote sexism, homophobia, and hatred towards others (particularly, of course, other Christians).
It was a justification of slavery for nearly two thousand years - funny, isn't it, how it's only recently that we have thought slavery is wrong...
And as regards our "intolerance" - we (insofar as there is a "we" here) all believe in free speech, and, indeed, freedom of religion.
Not one person on this board wishes to curtail your right to pray, read the bible, or even spout aggressive nonsense about the elves of fairyland: we are entitiled however to point that the creation museum is a ridiculous monument to religious stupidity, and that religious stupidity (from which you suffer) can be, and has been dangerous.
Why don't you stop "arguing" here and go off and pray, or even just have that wank you so obviously need? If god told you to come here and get angry, he's just messing with your head - and that was clearly a sub-standard location to begin with.
re 349:
Yes, I do. The bible is read selectively by any religious group, especially those with the pathetic fallacy that it's literally true.
Try asking any of them to list the 10 commandments, probably the most discussed topic from the bible (upon which our whole civilization is based according to them) and few, if any, can get past: 1) thou shalt not kill and 2) thou shalt not have gay sex.
And Trinity expects them all to know that the Curse of Ham was levied on Canaan.
Jayzus, is fucknozzle still pretending that PZ lied about what Ken "Pigraper" Ham's poster explicitly says?
I asked you before, fucknozzle, and you blew me off by pretending you didn't lie, why do you creotards always fucking lie? Don't you know The Big Guy In
The Sky frowns on lying? So why do you creotards in general and you, fucknozzle, in particular, lie? Does it have to do with your fascination with ejaculations?
Funny how believers like Trannie think we don't know the babble. A lot of us have read more than he has, since we read it cover to cover without those little lesson plans. Or that reading the babble in toto is the gateway to atheism. Yahweh is one sick puppy, and his alleged son isn't much better. The less said about Paul, the better.
Anthony K wrote:
Then you sir are an idiot. To think that you know, or Sleazy knows more about the Bible... its history, or essentially what it says simply becuase you disagree with their interpretations of it... I think there won't much disagreement here if I were to place you in the dumbass corner of the room.
Now guys - tsk tsk - tone remember?
Carry on ;-)
Trannie
Whoa whoa whoa whoa fucking whoa!
Hmmm, kinda funny you would play that card after you, history teacher and biblical student extra-super well versed admitted upfront you had never heard of it...
I don't claim to be, in any sense, a biblical expert. I am merely claiming that, because of a necessarily biased reading of the bible, and a wholly wrong view of the real history of the world, most of the people who go to the creation museum are unaware of the malign uses to which it's been put.
There are people on this board who have read it and, I have no doubt, know far more about than you.(Some of them ex-fundies, who finally saw through the whole religious delusion).
The bible-believing Christians who go the Creation Museum are, unfortunately, profoundly ignorant (which is different from, but often connected to stupidity).
I would suggest that the other posters on Pharyngula do not see me as standing in the stupid corner - but your're there: am I next to you?
(The other thing of which you are clearly ignorant is that troll-baiting is one of our favourite passtimes. We're playing with you, fuckwit, as we have with many before, and we're beating you with wit, intellect, and indeed rectitude. And abuse, of course.)
and we're beating you with wit, intellect, and indeed rectitude. And abuse, of course.
amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as wit, intellect... and a fanatical devotion to ... oh, wait a minute...
Here's what's funny about the whole thing:
A creotard with a creepy ejaculation fascination invades a thread set up to mock creotards...
Picks a completely pointless and stupid fight with PZ and everyone here...
...about a relatively minor issue that PZ raised months ago...
...and gets what PZ actually said completely wrong...
Claims the poster he's arguing about doesn't say what it clearly says, even after a link to the poster is presented several times...
Admits that one of the most important aspects of the fight he picked was something he hadn't known before he came here...
Continues to argue anyway, demanding to be refuted even though he was refuted right out of the starting gate...
Claims he's in the doctoral program at a clown college...
...and this future Doctor of Clownology insists on being treated here with respect.
Oops. I meant AssClownology.
I regret the error.
Trinity wrote:
Irony meter go boom. This almost has to end up on FSTDT.
Dude, you're a Christian. Your religion only exists because people who lack common sense convince themselves they can believe in something that doesn't require evidence or need the facts to work out in their favour; in fact, most of you pride yourself in believing in spite of those things.
And you're trying to pull that here? On an atheist site? Run by a scientist?
I notice comment 225 has not been addressed at all. Especially its last paragraph, which comment 266 explains more clearly.
In the original Latin, eiaculare just means "to repeatedly throw out".
To squirt semen around is just one of its meanings. (Compare "intercourse", courtesy of comment 273.)
<taken aback>
You teach???
America is a scary place.
(...pssst... relevancy.)
Why don't you address the Wikipedia article instead of making an ad-hominem argument?
I hope you'll address comment 350...
What part of we are learned and smart people don't you understand Trannie? Just because you go for the easy road of believing idjit priests and ministers tell you without question, doesn't mean those of us here do. We also look at the history of how the babble was put together, and where the myths were stolen/adapted from. All without believing in your imaginary deity, since the babble is obviously a book of mythology. It's amazing how many babble lessons that True Believers™ learn here, including you.
I believe I am giving Trannie a hard lesson from the Sermon on the Mount. Jebus' golden rule. Since he deliberately mangles PZ's initials and name, he deserves the same treatment. And I will continue until Trannie stops. I suggest we all join in until the proper name is used by Trannie. Using PZ's title will garner him bonus points.
You teach???
America is a scary place.
Shit, that's the least of it. After presuming to take someone to task for the misuse of a contraction, he wrote "should of" for "should've," and the misspellings (not just typos) are legion, including this gem: "So I guess that provides all the justification one needs to liable someone else."
He's an illiterate douchebag, or, put another way, he's a creationist.
You claimed you didn't.
Isaac Wrote:
Lil man, I’m not exactly sure how long the integrity of others on this board will not raise a finger to your blatant lies…
But then again, that would require others on this board to have some too I reakeon.
Hey, just for ole times sake… you remember this when I wrote:
Please say you are all are not that intellectually shallow.
And you replied… We've not only said it; we've shown it. You just are not intellectually honest enough to admit it.
Um… I can’t see anyone here taking you seriously… ever.
But, I’m sure you’ll navigate on over to insultsareus.com to fetch some new name for me… without ever bothering to contribute anything substantive in the process.
5th period begins at 12:15 BTW.
How is it liable if he's claiming they are doing it unwittingly?
Your grasp here? Yes, very.
And Nerd
Trannie?
Really?
Nerd, I'm pretty sure we can figure out an insult to turn Trinity's name into that is actually, y'know, an insult. Not a slur. That shouldn't have been presented as analogous to an insult in the first place. Because, damn.
re 367:
not a word
teach?
Projecting again.
Trinity wrote:
You do realise that - despite your bible's claims to the contrary - Earth is (roughly) spherical, don't you? And that means that many of us are in completely different timezones from you?
Again, if you don't realise this I'm not going to be surprised; your continued insistence on demonstrating an astonishing level of ignorance is the only reason why anyone is still paying attention to you.
Dance, monkey!
Rev. BDC, Falyne, I'm open to suggestions.
That was the best I could do between babysitting my reactions today.
That's describing yourself. Any hopes of being an authority on anything evaporated days ago BOY due to your lies, and inability to defend your position of a True Believer™ with hard evidence.
re 367:
not a word
not a sentence.
Again, you teach?
Projecting again.
SteveM asked (of Trinity):
If he does I suspect it'd be at something like a Clown, Bible and Snakehandlers College - no doubt located in a cosmopolitan metropolis hog-slaughtering district somewhere along the lines of Fyffe, Alabama.
His qualifications? His own bible and the demonstrated ability to wear a belt that's not a piece of rope.
Wowbagger wrote:
Well aren’t you just the brilliant one. What a profound observation. I’m wondering when formulating this statement if you considered the lives of ANY of the following people who, according to you… lacked common sense:
Nicholas Copernicus, Nicolas Steno , Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, William Kelvin, Louis Pasteur, Francis Collins, Max Planck, et. al.
Another lemming who engages in the me-too-ism so often found on boards that do not allow dissent. Quite the gulag and group of well educated comrades you have here Sleazy. :-)
Steven/Wowbagger:
I teach American History... I thought I had already mentioned that... maybe not... or maybe 200 posts ago.
I have a B.S. in history and a M.Ed.
Do you have a point?
if you considered the lives of ANY of the following people who, according to you… lacked common sense:.
Yes. Especially Francis Collins. You asked for it--you got it.
As it is, congratulations on the fallacy of argument from authority. The problem with your thoroughly ignorant line of reasoning is that it doesn't matter who believes something or even how many of them believe it--it has zero bearing on whether or not what they believe is true.
To the sane and intelligent: I wouldn't be so sure this waste of oxygen teaches only at some wackaloon funditard excuse for an institution. There are plenty of moronic teachers out there. Yes, as dumb as this one. And they're not all in Texas!
AnthonyK:
Ohh. Silly me. I didn't realize this was a game. I mean, that would really explain a lot of things. The entire time I have been assuming (Ass-u-me, yup) that we were actually trying to refute each others positions with facts and evidence. Well, this most certainly changes a lot of things. I mean, shucks, perhaps someone ought to let me in on these rules... obviously I'm going to be real excited about the making shit up as we go along standard, and I'm really looking forward to try to the ignore the content and substance of the post clause.
Gee whiz... this is going to be some much more funner-er.
According to my FIL, who was a teacher, a M.Ed is a worthless degree given for sitting in continuing education classes.
Almost all of us have a college degree. Some more than one. You aren't talking to the ignorant. Which is why you seem ignorant...
Trinity bleated:
If they believed in the imaginary and adhered to any of the nonsensical practices derived from the folk stories of bronze-age goatherders then they did indeed lack common sense.
And Galileo? Yeah, he got on real well with the church - you fucking idiot. And you teach history? You're barely qualified to say the word.
Unless you can show that any of those people had evidence or a compelling argument for why they held emotionally-based beliefs then that will be relevant you're indulging in the fallcy of argument from authority
From where? Liberty U? Bob Jones? Patriot? Las Vegas Upstairs College?
That you're a clueless, sloppy-thinking, intellectually dishonest, slack-jawed moron who shouldn't be let near anyone with a genuine need to learn anything beyond Lying For Jesus™ 101 and Introduction to Being a Pissant Clown Shoe.
Nerd... a question was asked, I answerd it. Get over yourself for Pete's sake.
Well, there are, and have been, some Christians I admire, some of them amongst the names you mention. So, personally, I don't think Christians all lack common sense; unless, that is, in the present day, knowing what we do about the wonders of the universe, they believe in the dumbest form of creationism, as you do.
We allow dissent: but fuckwits are mocked. As you can personally testify. Hey, you aren't banned yet, are you?
And we mock you as a teacher because of your apalling grasp of argument, poor use of the English language, disparagement of your students, ridiculous, self-righteous, self-important, arrogance, and the fact that you believe in fairies.
Dance, fool, dance.
Trinity wrote:
As I've already noted, you don't hold your position because of facts and evidence; you hold it despite a lack of facts and evidence to support it and - even more hilariously - in spite of myriad facts and evidence against it.
You weren't reasoned into your position; hence we doubt you can be reasoned out of it and are now just amusing ourselves my mocking and insulting you.
It's all you're good for.
Aquaria wrote:
Um… fine. I pointed out the same thing… just a different way. You insist that it is ignorant… why? Wowbagger laid out a criterion to be a Christian… a lack of common sense… and only demonstrated how absurd such a claim was. You folks are lemmings. You fail to engage in even the most rudimentary levels of critical thinking. You seem to believe that if everyone doesn’t think or believe exactly what you do… well their just… um… what did you call me this time…oh… here it is:
Let me add predictable to the lemmings characterization.
Nope, and it was your fault. Failure to put up evidence your imaginary deity exists, and that your holy book, which you trying to pretend was inerrant, wasn't mythology. What we were doing evidence based. You were trying an argument from authority (with you the authority), authority which we knew you didn't have. Welcome to science, were you must show your work...And you didn't...
AnthonyK:
Well hey, way to demnostrate your moral courage by challenging Wowbaggers point. *rolls-eyes*
Still counting pin-dancing angels I see. I guess that's all you can do when the genetic, geographic, fossil, archaeological and anthropology (i.e. evidence) is all against you. Take outrage, call the opposition a liar (it's only lying if it's intentional misrepresentation but that's another story) and then you have the moral highground. The empirical evidence is still against any of this though, but don't let that get in the way of dozens of posts of arguing over a trivial misrepresentation...
I notice you are a craven coward since you won't put any evidence forward for your diety or babble. Still want to play Trannie? We're here all week...
Trinity, are you a creationist? If so, then why?
Trinity wrote:
For someone who (laughably) insists they are using critical thought while we aren't, you really aren't very perceptive, are you?
Here's the difference, genius: we don't agree with the people because they've demonstrated they have a profound understanding of a wholly unrelated topic, we agree with them when they demonstrate how the position they hold makes sense, preferably by presenting evidence and/or compelling argument for it.
The amount of evidence and reasoning Isaac Newton provided for his mathematics and physics? Lots. For his religion? None.
The amount of evidence and reasoning Louis Pasteur provided for his medicine? Lots. For his religion? None.
The amount of evidence and reasoning Francis Collins provided for his genetics? Lots. For his religion? None.
You seeing a pattern yet?
You did no such thing. How does being a genius in one field prevent that person from lacking common sense?
Please stop using an expression you clearly don't understand the meaning of.
Do you believe 2+2=4? If so, does that make you a 'lemming'? If not, why not?
I stand by what the fucknozzle called lies in #367. There is too much documentation to back me up. If I'm lying, he'll have to show they are lies, not just say they're lies.
Wowbagger:
Bingo.
"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." Hubert H. Humphrey
Fucknozzle doesn't even have the inherent right to be heard here; he only stays at the pleasure of PZ. And PZ made it clear yesterday that he is not pleased.
Plonking should be imminent, but in the meantime, the rest of us should go ahead and smack this dope around until then.
Wowbagger:
I don’t think the subject dealt with how he got along with the Catholic Church… it dealt with whether or not he met your criteria for possessing common sense. He was a Christian, despite how the Church itself treated him, so you apparently insist he does not have any common sense. So, mr Wowbagger… do you think Galileo had any common sense or not? How about Pasture? Mendel? Newton? I mean, according to your sound logic and reasoning here, they all would have had a tough time dealing with your brilliance.
On a side note, if you don’t mind, I’d really like to ask you a question of a personal nature. I think that we have really reached a semi-convoluted bond here and I’m somewhat deserving of an answer. Anyway, I’m curious to know that if you're intentionally making yourself out to be a dumb ass just to help me because you kinda feel sorry for me? Seriously, you can confess… I won’t tell anyone. Just an observation, you don't have to reply if you feel it is too personal.
With regard to science yes. With regard to religion, no. Just like you. Losers in that area. Still waiting for your evidence, which you don't appear to have, making you a delusional fool.
The only dumbass here is you, but you are too stoopid to notice that. Trannie the loser...
Newton was also an alchemist, devoted much more time to alchemy than science. Does that mean alchemy has any validity?
Newton is remembered not for his work on alchemy and religion but his science and mathematics. Some 300 years later I was still studying Newtonian physics at high school and university. And around all that was calculus. Yet no turning lead into gold.
AnthonyK wrote:
I think it's probably fairer to say I believe Christians choose not to apply common sense to their religious beliefs rather than they lack common sense per se.
Which of course also applies to Trinity's laundry list of authorities provided as part of his fallacious reasoning - especially considering most of them were brought up in a period where not adhering to Christianity wasn't an option.
AHAHAHAHAHA!!!! More ignorance from pigfucker. You mean this Max Planck?
Even though Planck called himself a Christian, his was far from a personal Christ.
Compartmentalization.
And I think it's rational thought, reason and logic rather than common sense.
And ain't it a shame that when someone discovers Pharyngula for the first time, rather than reading it, seeing how things work, and then, after quite a long time, making a post - as I guess all of us here did - with one egregious exception - that he doesn't learn the rules first?
Now that's stupidity.
On a post called "poke fun at creationists.."
Hey, one great contemporary Christian, with common sense, and not a creationist - as far as I know - Bishop Desmond Tutu.
He's one of my personal heroes.
Please don't tell me he's a creationist...
Trinity wrote:
See my response to AnthonyK in #396 and let me know if any of the words need defining.
Obviously, in their fields, all these people were brilliant. They could have applied this genius to their religious beliefs but chose, for whatever reasons - emotional, cultural, simple self-preservation (since, you know, Christians tend to kill non-Christians and different types of Christians when they can get away with it) - not to do so.
Comparmentalisation, as The Rev. BDC noted.
Dumbass is one word - dumbass.
And you won't 'tell anyone'? This is a blog, you dimwit; any response I write is going to be seen by anyone reading this thread.
Really, as long as you're here I couldn't write anything that would make me seem stupider than you, even if I tried. Upthread you wrote 'Goebbels' as 'Gobbles' for crying out loud. You'll be remembered as one of the stupidest posters who's ever been slaughtered here.
And you still haven't answered my question from #391: Do you believe 2+2=4? If so, does that make you a 'lemming'? If not, why not?
But you're right when you suspect I feel sorry for you - because I do. For any number of reasons you choose to live your life shackled to a delusion - and no-one should waste their life clinging to the kind of superstitious antirationalism that religion demands and wasting their time trying to work out how to please a nonexistent monster god.
My pity, however, doesn't stop me from calling you out as a lying, dishonest fool. And if you're helping indoctrinate people into your idiot faith then I don't just pity you - I also despise you.
Lie to yourself all you want - just stop lying to others.
Anthony K:
Yeah, I caught that too. Apparently the assclown didn't.
And just why would you assume that in a thread titled "Poke fun at some creationists?"
Of course there is refuting going on, but pathetically, none of it is coming from your direction. And it is making the fun poking lots of fun and easy as hell.
Nerd wrote opining about the common sense of Galileo, Mendel, Pasture, Newton, et. al.:
Um… common sense Nerd. Common sense, from what I understand, is not compartmentalized into science and religious thought. Am I wrong about this?
Trinity wrote:
Maybe you should go look for a universally-accepted definition of common sense and get back to us when you find one.
Trinity:
Your repeated posts in this thread belie the description "boards that do not allow dissent" as fitting this blog.
And, dude, my eyes widened back in 1970 when I first read Gene Stratton Porter's 1909 A Girl of the Limberlost: "As Polly panted these disjointed ejaculations, Tom Levering began to grow angry on her account." and "Well, bless my soul!" softly ejaculated the astounded Mrs. Comstock." At 14 (probably near the age of your students), I got over it in about 10 seconds as context made the usage clear.
And Trinity? It's Pasteur, not Pasture. Get it right for fuck's sake.
What aren't you wrong about, being the idjit you are? Religion is not common sensical, which implies some form of intelligence and even meager evidence. Religion is all about believing without evidence. The same evidence you keep failing to produce, because it isn't there. By parsimony (common sense), religion is bogus. Show me otherwise with hard physical evidence. An eternally burning bush would be nice...
It can't be that multiple people all generally agree on an issue without them being lemmings? The whole "me-too-ism" accusation would be cute if it weren't pulled out anytime one comes on advocating a contrarian position. Take the following logical statement:
. Now if 100 people all agreed that the statement logically follows would that 99 of them lemmings? Of course not.
There's a music forum I frequent, and on one thread someone tried to argue that a particular band used a particular piece of equipment. Immediately several people jumped in to tell him he was wrong. It was not because all but one were lemmings, but because he said something incorrect.
Your accusations of lemmings on this blog is again nothing more than an evasion from the real issue at hand: that the scientific evidence grossly contradicts the biblical account your activating. Instead of addressing the empirical concerns, you're engaging in ad hominem attacks as if somehow that's going to negate the fact that your position grossly contradicts all empirical evidence. It's quite sad really.
Wowbag:
Sir Brilliance, did you know that Newton wrote way more about religion and his personal beliefs in God than science? Whether or not you feel it reached the level of evidence is pretty much irrelevant... but it is what he was more concerned with.
One thing I am wondering... do you feel you are more intelligent than him? I mean, you obviously have some disagreements with the man's common sense... does this mean you have more than him? Or do you think you have more than him?
This is just a little too much fun. Lemmings don’t even know their lemmings… kinda like people who are clinically defined as ‘crazy’ IAW DSM IV.. don’t know their crazy.
Wowbag… have you ever seen that movie the 6th sense… or was it the 7th… anyway… the most popular line was “I see dead people, they don’t even know their dead”. It kinda applies here. I see stupid people, they don’t even know their stupid. They just walk around not realizing that they are stupid and accuse others of what they are.
Someone ought to thank the Sleazy one for providing the venue of entertainment for a bored Christian Fundy.
sigh
I take it you're referring to Lewis Pasture, the discoverer of milk and other dairy products.
Fucknozzle, your degrees are obviously not in spelling.
Irrelevant factoid, as we remember his scientific writing, and dismiss his religious bunkum. That statement shows you aren't really there in the evidence department.
As far as appropriate skepticism toward religion, definitely. Your attempted argument from authority failed again. Just like your other loser arguments. Which is anything other than solid physical evidence.
You're the lemming. You believe and follow without questions. Just like your belief in a deity. We question. We seek real answers with the evidence. And your deity and babble come up short on the evidence. We're still waiting for you to provide conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity...
You must be looking in the mirror and see yourself. We are far, far smarter than you. We see the real physical evidence you can't see due to your blinders of religious belief. That makes us smarter than you, Trannie the loser, since we don't have those illogical blinders on. We see the world the way it is. Godless.
And another irony meter goes BOOM!
Are you a poe?
um
Now you're just boring and repetitive.
Just curious Trinity. How old do you think the earth is? Do you accept Ken Ham's version of descent or the theory of evolution?
Did man ride dinosaurs and use them to farm?
Were Adam and Eve real? Did the tree of knowledge actually exist?
So what, pigfucker? Linus Pauling wrote a shit-ton about Vitamin C. Does that mean he had a lot of common sense about that? There are many examples of brilliant people convincing themselves (or being convinced) of shit that isn't true. Like Francis Collins!
Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Newton also fancied himself a bit of a prophet and did not believe in the trinity. Do you agree with Newton? If not, are you more intelligent than he? See how that works?
Well, if not books, at least you can read a t-shirt.
Tri-illiterate-ninny wrote:
It's "they're", dumbass, a contraction for "they are". For making such a big fucking deal about ridiculing someone for a typo of "you're" for "you've" you sure are an illiterate fuckwad.
Trinity wrote:
L Ron Hubbard wrote a lot about Scientology - does that make it real? Here's another hint for you: volume of work ≠ compelling argument.
But I'm intrigued, especially because no-one's ever cited an argument of Newton's as a reason to accept Christianity. Precisely which of Newton's writings provides the most compelling argument to support his beliefs? Can you summarise the most significant, the 'knockout blow' for us here?
Or are you just continuing the already-demonstrated-to-be-fallacious argument from authority?
Read comments #396, #401 and #404 and either respond to what I've written there or drop the subject of common sense. I've demonstrated what I meant; you are hiding from it.
So says a masochist getting the shit kicked out of him.
Do you mean lemmings don't recognise 'their' lemmings - or do you mean lemmings don't know they are lemmings?
But that's an interesting claim - do you have anything to back that up? Have you studied lemming psychology or lemming neuroscience? If they don't think they're lemmings, what do they think they are?
Or are you just making shit up - like your goatherd predecessors did when they invented your god?
And you still haven't answered the question I've already asked you twice now; here it is again a third time: Do you believe 2+2=4? If so, does that make you a 'lemming'? If not, why not?
Oh, and you should know that what people generally believe about lemmings isn't actually true; it's an debunked myth - just like your god and your Jesus.
They're stupid. Not their. And why are you talking about your Christian friends and family and congregation? They're (note that word) not here.
Someone ought to thank the Sleazy one PZ for providing the venue of entertainment for mocking a bored sad Christian Fundy.
Fixed it for you. No, that's okay - I'll just start a tab.
Tinnity¹:
Heh. Newton was an avid alchemist, and spent much of his time on it:
Also: Isaac Newton's religious views:
--
¹ Yeah, that's allusive. Tin is a base metal.
Tinnity:
<spoing!>
Steve, who took the time to reply wrote:
Creditability is a bitch sometimes... I know. However, if I'm so boring and repetitive, why bother with actually logging on to this website, troll what I have written, and then take the time to respond to my posts... all the whle waiting with baited breath for me to actually respond to your yammering?
Just wondering as your actions speak louder than your shallow words.
While outwardly Newton was a common-or-garden Anglican in reality he was about as heretical as a Christian can be. He didn't let his contemporaries know about his particular and peculiar beliefs because if he had he would have lost his position as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge.
re 409:
See, this is what religiotards just don't ever seem to understand. That a man can be brilliant in one subject and completely stupid in another. And that the rational thinker does not accept Newton's stupid stuff just because he is brilliant in Physics. Religiotards do not apply critical thinking skills and will accept anything purely on the authority of the speaker and not on what he actually says. It is inconceivable to a mind like Trinity's that we can recognize Newton's genius in physics and mathematics and still see that he was completely wrong about alchemy and religion.
And for this I pity the poor middle schoolers you are charged with teaching. I am sure they exit your class more stupid for having known you.
What's more important than someone's intelligence is someone's reasoning. Very intelligent people can be dead wrong. In Newton's defense he lived in a very different time. John Maynard Keynes said: "Newton was not the first of the age of reason: He was the last of the magicians."
Newton said if he saw far it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants. Today, we stand atop of skyscrapers and that the Bible is on top of a pile of bullshit.
How would you know, Fucknozzle? You don't have any.
Especially if you are an evidenceless fool loser, like you.
Fixed it for you Trannie the loser. Why don't you try some real physical evidence, rather than bad attitude. The physical evidence is the only hope you have to change our minds. Evidence so conclusive, that it will be shown by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. But, you appear to be a total evidenceless loser, who is nothing but a liar and bullshitter. Keep lying and bullshitting. We are laughing at you...
[spoiler alert]
Um, you do realize that at the end of the movie that the person who saw these dead people ends up discovering that he is dead? Using your analogy....
Just as I thought. Won't cop to what you believe. They were not difficult questions.
And you obviously don't know what trolling is. I've responded to you with substance for the most part. Calling you a fucktard and an asshole is just stating a fact.
Trinity wrote:
You know what? Certainly not any vocabulary or spelling. Did you really write "creditability"? Did you perhaps mean "credibility"?
What is credibility? Something we have and you do not.
Trinity (I've decided that must refer to his being as stupid as three average Christians) wrote:
Do you mean credibility?
No, it's quite obvious you don't.
Do you mean with bated breath?
Let's see - because we enjoy mocking stupid people like you who keep coming back and digging themselves even deeper.
In short: your unceasing idiocy is entertainment to us.
It's particularly fun when the person is a Christian, because we know that other Christians read these posts and seeing your embarrassing stupidity will help them conclude they don't want to belong to a religion that fosters the kind of limited thinking you've demonstrated here.
By coming here and revealing the shallow, insipid and poorly-thought-out nature of your beliefs, you're most likely helping increase the number of atheists.
What's not to like about that?
Tinnity:
Duh. Look at the title of this post.
Hahah. John. I guess Trinity didn't know that he was being poked.
aww, now that's just a warm fuzzy... *smirk*
stevieinthecity#9dac9 wrote:
If we're going to list the things Trinity is clueless about we're going to need a bigger boat thread.
An Ark even. Then the things Trinity doesn't know can walk on two by two.
Just thinking about things that come in threes...
Feymaniac wrote:
Um… no… maybe you watched a different movie than I did… maybe not, but it was the little boy who said he saw dead people and made the statement, not Bruce Willis. He was trying to tell Bruce that he was dead because Bruce didn’t realize it until the end of the movie.
Now that you have the facts straight, how dos the analogy work? Better, worse, or do you feel the need to comment on something as innocuous as such and further humiliate yourself?
(fixed it for you, no charge) Yep, you started in doing a good job of humilating yourself again. Still no evidence. Still nothing but attitude.
*Goes to sharpen stick*
Wowbagger wrote:
Tell you what... I'll answer your question just as soon as you (or anyone else) provides that refutation of post #155. Mocking and calling people names does not really equate to 'kicking the shit out of them'... when the person(s) mocking and doing the name calling make themselves out to be idiots by not engaging the facts in the first place.
From where I sit, the shoe is on the oth... never mind, I see stupid people, and they don't even know they are stupid. :-)
Fixed another on for your moron. Still nothing but attitude. Get to and prove your point, or go away. But either option requires intelligence and forethought. That leaves you out.
*Keeps sharpening stick*
Well, it was several years since I've watched that movie. I knew the kid saw dead people, but I thought Bruce Willis ended up doing so as well. Looking at Wikipedia it doesn't seem to be the case. My bad.
So I got the plot to a decade old movie slightly wrong. If you want to talk about humiliation you first said you've never heard of the Hamitic theory (despite claiming to teach American history) and then said of course you've heard of it. You brought up PZ's ejaculations up 15 times.
You've also made the following errors:
- "Creditability "
- "baited breath"
- "[Louis] Pasture"
- "I see stupid people, they don’t even know their [sic] stupid." [Irony!]
- "Lemmings don’t even know their [sic] lemmings...."
- [My favorite:] "Also, you ended up spelling ignoramus wrong. You of should of [sic] stuck with the simpleton retorts that are only two syllables. It would have kept you from looking like a complete idiot." [!!!!]
You went on a thread called "Poke fun at creationists while I'm' occupied" and then were surprised that people were making fun of creationists.
Most of all it seems like you are a creationist. That's just plain embarassing in this day and age. Or, if you're not then you haven't the sense to clearly state you don't hold such ridiculous beliefs. I think it's clear who you are in your silly analogy.
When people refuse to answer questions after their claims have been answered they are trolling. Several people have addressed his pathetic argument over and over. He just chooses to ignore them or not accept their responses.
He'll be in the dungeon soon.
I suspect he won't answer my questions because he knows the ridicule that will be heaped on him.
Feymaniac wrote:
To beleive that we (mankind) doesn't know everything?
To believe that all that there is had a cause?
To believe that reptiles only turn into human beings in fairytales.
Hmmmm... yea, I guess I'm guilty as charged.
From where I sit, the shoe is on the oth... never mind, I see stupid people, and they don't even know they are stupid. :-)
Like just about everything else in Trinityland, words and events have different meanings than what other people are used to. In Trinityland, stupid is a adjective that signifies that the person in unable to ignore the evidence and accept Trinity's pronouncement as the TRUTH. Especially when Trinity admits it's own ignorance about the subject on hand.
Trinity,
You're a dishonest little coward, aren't you?
The exhibit (poster in question) says nothing about a debunk theory, in fact, YES FACT, by following the Biblical narrative we realize the it was Canaan, not Ham’s other sons who migrated to Africa and were falsely accused of receiving Canaan’s curse. - Trinity the cowardly liar@155
The poster quite clearly shows a large arrow, marked "Ham", pointing into Africa. Do you disagree? The "Hamite theory" is that Africans are the descendants of Ham, so the poster in the "museum" supports that "theory", which is a key part of the justification for slavery and racism.
Tell you what... I'll answer your question just as soon as you (or anyone else) provides that refutation of post #155.
You have good reason to be ashamed of your beliefs, but it is the height of cowardice to refuse to spell them out. I do believe I hear a cock crowing... Yes, there it is again! And a third time!
Mocking and calling people names - Trinity the whining hypocrite
This from a lying cowardly hypocrite who obsessively refers to PZ Myers as "Sleazy".
BTW, it's pretty fucking bizarre that Noah curses Canaan because Canaan's father Ham, saw Noah naked. Just shows what a total load of worthless shit the Bible is.
To believe that reptiles only turn into human beings in fairytales.
And with this statement, Trinity declares that, through his extensive study of a book that has been translated, re-translated, edited, re-edited over several millennium knows better then biologists how biology works.
Next, I want to see Trinity battle the speed of light.
To believe that reptiles only turn into human beings in fairytales.
good grief.
You're either way more moronic or way more ignorant than I was giving you credit.
re 443:
"To believe we doesn't know everything"?
I see you learned your lesson about "They're" and have stopped using that contraction altogether; too hard to keep a few homophones straight? Maybe you should start working on your grammar now.
verb agreement is not your strong suit is it. Hint: parenthetical phrases don't count. "...just as soon as you provides that ...". See anything wrong there, now?
Anyway, your 155 has been refuted innumerable times and you simply put you hands over your eyes and shout "la la la, I can't see you". This is why we ridicule and mock you (besides being a complete asshole about one single typo someone made in one contraction).
To believe that reptiles only turn into human beings in fairytales. - Trinity the cowardly lying hypocrite
Taken literally, of course, this is quite true: no individual reptile ever turned into a human being, and human beings did not evolve directly from reptiles. It is typical of Trinity the slimy little shit to phrase things in this disingenuous way.
I can't believe you're still giving this guy the time of day. He's using the most tedious biblical hair-splitting to try and accuse PZ of a little technical error in his accusations against the Creation Museum, which as we all know, is bullshit from top to bottom anyway, and using that to advance the ever-so-tired argument that anyone who follows a blog must be some mindless drone that agrees with everything that the blogger says (as opposed to biblical scholars, who are, of course, rugged mavericks).
And then he harps on the whole ejaculation thing, like he thinks it will shame us. I mean, that's just sad. Really, this guy's a complete waste of time.
re 439:
Trinity wrote:
The projection is strong in this one.
So is playing Plants & Zombies. Sometimes, time-wasters are fun.
You don't have to be a creationist to believe that. We don't know everything. However, what we do know is that creationism is full of shit.
Pfft, it's much more than that. You also believe that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Oh also, a few thousand years ago a 600 year old man managed to get two of every species on Earth and a few family members onto a boat and ride it out a global flood that the Jewish Zombie god caused.
Yeah, makes perfect sense.
You're right, that only happens in fairy tales. You know what also happens in fairy tales? Dust turns into a man. A rib turns into a woman.
Please continue however.This should be interesting. You barely know anything about the subject you teach. Please tell us what you know about evolution.
Ah, Trinity, after that it's bullshit all the way down.
It's bullshit, for heaven's sake. It floats. That's what bullshit is for.
You know, I'm tired of this "Jewish Zombie god" trope.
It's quite obvious that Jesus was a vampire. That's why he wants people to [Sesame Street Count accent]drink his blood, muahahahahahaha![/Sesame Street Count accent]
Plus, if he were a zombie, then he'd be trying to eat all of his followers brains!
Oh, wait ...
Tinnity, here is the conclusive physical evidence you have put forth to date:
For your deity existing: Zip, zero, nada, nothing.
For your babble being inerrant: Zip, zero, nada, nothing.
Credibility of your testament to date: Zip, zero, nada, nothing.
Yep, there is good reason to believe anything you say. [/sarcasm
Trinity,
What makes you a moron is that:
You believe that the fact that we don't know everything negates what we do in fact know.
You fail to see that by your logic, your own deity would have had to have a "cause" and that cause before it.
You refuse to learn enough about evolution to realize that your straw man of reptiles turning into human beings is in fact made of straw.
Get serious.
Rev, why can't Trinity be both? It's a free country.
So, I take that Trinity thinks evolution works like in Pokemon. Gee, read a textbook once in awhile.
Evolution does not occur in the individual level. It occurs in the population level. Individuals may acquire changes that could foster evoulution, but it must defuse into the population and change its gene frequency first. Overtime, these microevolutionary changes results in macroevolution. We see fossil evidence off this.
But it's not surprising that he believes in pokemon-like evolution. After all, he believes that a rib turns into a woman, magically.
@Trinity
While I can understand why you would feel compelled to point out where PZ, or anyone else for that matter, misrepresented something, (and in fact, we all do as is obvious if you hanged around other threads), what I don't get is why you would want to devote as much energy to this particular and really limited issue while not saying anything about the whole museum which is an erected monument to lies enforced on gullible people. If you're so much interested in setting the record straight, why don't you take issue with Ham and the likes ? This looks like a much bigger problem to me.
But then, I'm a lemming (for whatever that is supposed to mean ; I guess you're referring not only to the fact they live in large colonies but also to the "jumping down the cliff" myth : what is believing in one more myth at this point ?).
Nobody is claiming that we know everything. We don't know everything. And we shouldn't pretend to know stuff that we don't - which is merely the first test that religion fails.
I think we should have a healthy debate on whether that cause is a giant turtle or Lord Brahma. Each is as likely as Yaweh.
Day-um. Dumbest strawman ever. Exit stage left. Seriously.
Janie Mouth Wrote:
Well? Do you believe that a reptile can turn into a human being? I'm asking a pretty simple question... and instead, you answer with another one of your attacks. I guess I would too when pressed for one's own beliefs.
Mr Fire Wrote:
Go ahead... I happen to believe that everything that exists exists necessarily. To beleive in a causal entity is wrong? Regarless of who you beleive it is?
Yea, I'd take your advice too when pressed with the obvious.
No and neither does any capable scientist or layperson who understands evolution.
Depends entirely what you mean. Can an individual reptile turn into a human being? I don't for a second think that anyone believes this (at least not anyone sane) - particularly not anyone specifically arguing against creationist nonsense.
Could the human population have arisen from a reptilian (or reptile like) population over hundreds of millions of years? Pretty much anyone sane with access to the abundance of information we have about the interrelatedness of all life on the planet shouldn't have any difficulties at all believing this.
Goats:
All of this is well and good… the poster does point to the sons of Ham migrating to Africa. Ham had 4 or 5 sons… maybe 3… not sure… anyway… the point is the poster states, right there above the arrow you so fondly point out, Tower of Babel Dispersion… it has Canaan in Palestine. The one who receives th curse does not go to Africa. If you want to pretend you refuted post #155… fine, go ahead. You, me, and everyone else on this board knows better. Stick with the insults and name calling as you are seemingly much better at that then critiquing someone else’s post.
Classic illustration of someone who has absolutely no idea about life in general. I’m guessing you are about 15, you live in your parents basement, weigh about 250 – 5’6”, and most kids think you smell.
Ewan wrote:
So the is yes? You believe… and correct me if I’m wrong (which you would do anyway), that a reptile, or something like a reptile, if given just enough time and the right types of conditions, can and has changed into a human being?
I'm thinking that it is not possible, according to this chart anyway:
link,
A frog would be a better candidate... but wait... wasn't there just some movie that came out a little bit ago... about a frog changing into a prince? Seems it was a pretty good cartoon. Why not just show that in our biology classes?
Because drunk -- or hungover -- old men cursing their own grandchildren is how "life in general" works.
I certainly hope you have neither children nor grandchildren.
If you do, I pity them for their having an evil shit as an ancestor.
Trinny, given enough time I believe that a prokaryote (or population thereof) "turned into" a human. (or at least something very like a prokaryote...)
And a mouse.
And a corn plant.
And every living thing on the planet.
The jump from something reptilian, or froglike, or anythinglike isn't really that hard of a concept for me to grasp - given enough time, and the right conditions.
To reiterate, not on an individual level (which appears to be where you want to keep returning to) but over multiple generations, not in huge sweeping changes, but by tiny degrees.
The peer reviewed scientific literature shows that is exactly what happened, and it took hundreds of millions of years. Good hard solid physical evidence.
Belief without evidence is delusion. You have presented absolutely no evidence beyond your delusional belief that you are right. We have evidence. You have delusion. The only way to convince us you aren't delusional is to present solid physical evidence for your imaginary deity. I asked you for that hundreds of posts ago. You still avoid the issue, like you know you are just a bullshitter. When are you going to show yourself a man, and either put the right evidence, or shut the fuck up?
We know you don't understand evolution. That you're so willing to misstate what evolutions tells us shows that you are quite proud of your ignorance. Your also willing to use such a distorted and absurd interpretation that you show unbelievable arrogance.
You don't understand it so you won't accept it.
But that an omnipotent being created humans just as they are is so much more credible, right?
Ignorant dipshit moron that you are.
A synapsid, to be specific.
Rather can leave, and has left human descendants.
Yes, that's exactly it. Along with what Ewan R said about the origin of the other life forms we observe on earth today.
Now try to understand that we don't hold this because we got up one day and decided to piss on your religious beliefs, just to be contrary. There's a wealth of evidence that shows this to be the case, from the fossil record to biogeography to ERVs to the twin (morphological and genetic) nested hierarchy of life to actual laboratory and field observations of evolution in action.
re 468:
Once again, this little tidbit of information is not on the poster. The discussion is about the poster and the common understanding of the curse.
Tell you what, go down to the local pub and find someone you don't know and who has heard of the curse of Ham, but before he describes it, bet him to name who was cursed. Come back if you ever lose money on this bet. And if you happen to live near this "Museum", I'll bet you could stand right next to this poster and bet everyone who looks at it and it'll be a long time before you have to pay out.
Wait. Did Trinity say flatout that Hamite not in any way connected with Hamitic?
Further to #419, John Morales
Sorry I'm late in coming into this but reading through the thread (and being an Englishman) I was interested in Trinity's comment about Isaac Newton.
He seems to be holding him up as a notable Christian. There are many ways of defining the term, "Christian". One way is to ask whether they agree with the standard statements of faith developed over the centuries, such as the creeds.
In this context, I wonder if Trinity is aware that Newton was an anti-trinitarian and would have had to reject the creeds? He would have been regarded by nearly all church bodies then and today as being a heretic.
Fixed it for you. I don't normally pick on harmless mistakes that wouldn't even occur if the English language had a halfway sane spelling system, but you teach, so you urgently need to learn how to spell fairly common words.
Pasteur. Pronounced very differently from how you thought he is. The second syllable is stressed, not the first. The eu is pronounced this way; at the bottom of the 2nd box on the right side, there's a link to a sound sample, if you've installed an .ogg player.
Because he doesn't know how it's pronounced – the oe represents the same sound as Pasteur's eu, only shorter, and the e would be pronounced if it came after the l instead of before.
(This was a slur on the short Robert Hooke. Newton was quite a jerk.)
And yet, you believe you know for sure that science has got a lot of things utterly wrong?
Get a mirror.
Uncaused events happen all the time. Radioactive decay, for instance, is never caused. Neither are the events that cause the Casimir effect.
You need to catch up to the last hundred years of progress in physics, my friend.
This merely reveals your utter lack of knowledge about mutation, selection, drift, and time.
You oversimplify. It's both two of every species (Gen 6:19), explicitly both kosher and not (Gen 7:8-9), and two of every unclean and fourteen of every kosher species (Gen 7:2).
That's the kind of thing that happens when two versions of the same story are interwoven to make it appear like there's only one version.
<sigh>
The definition of evolution is "descent by heritable modification".
Regardless. From French regarder, "to look" and "to look at".
Again, you happen to contradict quantum physics, complete with its fulfilled predictions like the Casimir Effect.
Trinity:
I really can't claim to be an expert on fairytales but the only fairytale I can think of where an animal turns into a human is when a princess kisses a frog who ends up as a prandsome hince (or something)
http://www.fairytalebriefs.com/frog-prince.php
Maybe you can come up with a suitable reptile-to-human fairytale. If not, I would suggest that before you come to a site packed full of biologists, you ought to work out the difference between an amphibian and a reptile.
But very few people, even among those who know the curse story in the first place, know it's Canaan rather than Ham who is cursed. It is, after all, called "the Curse of Ham".
Or maybe both are cursed. Is Canaan the eldest son? Are divine curses inherited like British titles of nobility?
Please do explain.
(BTW, basements cellars one can live in are very rare in England.)
Link doesn't work.
<a href="put the entire address here, http and all">put the text you want to turn into a link here</a>
Also, keep in mind that what the differences are, and whether there are any reptiles among our ancestors, depends on the definition of Reptilia. There are several out there. Pick one and tell us which one.
Posted by: Trinity| May 13, 2010 3:20 PM
Janie Mouth Wrote:
Look at that, it cares enough to spell my name right. It is knows that Mouth is my last name. It shows that it has placed the same care in this act as with anything else it has posted here.
Well? Do you believe that a reptile can turn into a human being?
No, I do not think the one organism will turn into an other organism. But you think this question is a direct conflict with evolution. But you know so little about the subject, you think your question is a stumper
I'm asking a pretty simple question... and instead, you answer with another one of your attacks.
When a person asks a sub moronic question, I feel no need to give a straight answer. You might as well have asked if 2+2=5. But given your demonstrated lack of reading comprehension, you missed that what I wrote was not just an attack on you. I stated your puffed up opinion of yourself. You suffer from delusions of adequacy.
I guess I would too when pressed for one's own beliefs.
I am fairly straight forward about what I believe in. I also have a great respect for demonstrated facts. Which is unlike you; it took hundreds of post rubbing your nose in your own shit to get you to admit that you are a creationist.
You are not the first ignorant asshole to have strolled in here nor will be the last. Assholes like you are not interested in reality; you find comfort in submitting to a tyrant for all eternity. I do not have the patience to converse with an asshole who has no intention to converse. But I take great joy in mocking you.
But I feel sorry for all of the children who are taught by you. But I am sure that some of these students see you as a shining example of what not to become.
Trinny, given enough time I believe that a prokaryote (or population thereof) "turned into" a human. (or at least something very like a prokaryote...)
on a serious note, and for those not completely bugfuck insane, you might be interested in something an old buddy of mine just published in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html#/
seems the idea of independent creation is the thing that is extremely highly improbable (on the order of 106000 less likely than common descent, based on statistical analysis of all the independent data available*.
stick that in your hat and smoke it, trinity.
*He notes this himself over on Panda's thumb, which is having a discussion of the paper.
You might as well have asked if 2+2=5
actually, that's not an apt analogy.
it's more like he asked if 2+2=grapefruit
But that an omnipotent being created humans just as they are is so much more credible, right?
Frankly, it's not even less an issue of credibility (even though it entirely lacks such), than it is that the concept is entirely useless.
ask Trinity what research we would do, what practical applications we could generate, if all of a sudden we decided the creation myth (HIS creation myth) were de rigueur.
Goddidit is pretty much a dead-end no matter how you look at it.
it's USELESS.
Ichthyic, duly noted. I was going for be merely wrong as opposed to being surreally wrong.
(Yes, I know it is not a word. But I think it fits the context.)
All of this is well and good… the poster does point to the sons of Ham migrating to Africa. Ham had 4 or 5 sons… maybe 3… not sure… anyway… the point is the poster states, right there above the arrow you so fondly point out, Tower of Babel Dispersion… it has Canaan in Palestine. The one who receives th curse does not go to Africa.
here's my analogy of what Trinity is doing.
We look at a forest, and see trees. We conclude the forest is composed of trees.
He looks at the trees, sees unicorns. He concludes the forest is composed of unicorns.
Yes, he is bugfuck insane.
Fucking creationists. So fucking ignorant.
Probably thinks he's a descendant of Noah and the earth isn't older than 10,000 years.
Ok, so now I'm seriously fucked off.
There's one of the stupidiest, most ungramitagillest trolls ever to appear on Phayrgula, and me, and Kel, and Nerd, and PeteD, and Steveinthecity, and owlmirror, and one or two others are doing the late shift and kicking the twit into orbit and then...and only then.. you all show up.
He's ours.
Our chewtoy.
Fucking faringulites,
Go back to your discussions of chocolate, adoption, bacon, or whatever else you were talking about.
Hands off our moron.
Or else.
;-)
Yeah! He's priceless. Reptiles turn into humans. According to Trinity that's what we think. It's too good.
Three-times-as-stupid turned up again after how badly he had his clueless ass kicked around yesterday?
Jeez, these morons just don't learn.
AnthonyK, look up d-e-r-e-n-d-e-r to find a truly sub literate troll. By comparison, Trinity is well written and well seasoned. By comparison, so is a rabid dog.
(I did this to get around PZ's killfile.)
#491 AnthonyK
Spoil sport!
Don't worry, 10 minutes after midnight, I'm off to bed. Promise you'll leave some scraps?
That was a typo. But I have to admit, I love a well seasoned chew toy. It keeps my coat sniny.
Reptiles - humans.
Do not link
*quick looks around, and seeing Patricia still preoccupied with prince charming, and the tattling Pullet Patrol™ busy with their food, hands out 3-day-old grog all around to the Pharangulites posting*
Trinity wrote this about Knockgoats?!? Jesus H Fucking Christ, what an idiot. I guess we broke his tiny woo-soaked brain.
Steven M Wrote:
It doesn’t have to be on the dog gone poster as it is nothing but a lie to begin with. It is analogous to answering the question if someone has stopped beating their wife yet. It makes no sense unless someone is trying to lie about the intent. Sleazy is lying about the intent… therefore, to someone who wants desperately to believe their iconic hero is unable of carrying personal bias or animosity to a group of people that he wouldn’t lie… it is too much to believe when some poor (evidently) ignorant, pigfucking, fucknozzle, tranny (or was that Train..ey,,,er – whatever) dipshit gets on you all’s self congratulating board about how smart everyone is as long as they don’t disagree with you… I guess I can see your point… why question Sleazy. After all, he isn’t capable of lying or bending the truth… now is he.
Steveincity wrote:
Of course I don’t understand evolution you guber. I mean, if I truly did then I would never dare question its veracity or any of the evidence that supposedly supports it. I really do wish I did because the idea that a frog can, if given enough time, the right environmental pressures, reproductive success, and all of those just right modifications (mutations) in the Dna of each progressive generation can and has resulted in humans… gee whiz… I sure do hope the evidence is pretty lock tight as it really does sound like (of course coming from someone who obviously doesn’t know dick about it) and please do excuse my skepticism… a fairy tale.
Ewan wrote:
I’m not asking you about the concept… or the process (believe it or not I do understand ToE). I simply don’t buy it… the idea of everything involved coming together at just the right time, right place, right conditions, for eons of time… sorry… I just don’t have that much faith. I’m just asking if you do believe that it has happened and has resulted in all extant biological species?
Owlminor wrote:
I’m sure you do… I do have children and I do have a grandchild. Again being the duuf dipshits that you seem to be, personal anguish is a crapper. Personal suffering and having to endure a life of hardship would almost be the ultimate punishment. However, if you are punished for something that you did there is a sense of justice that you can at least begin to accept. You did it, you deal with the consequences. The problem is in your shallowness don’t understand the gravity of love for one’s children. To curse, to a life of servitude, the one that you love – the one you would be willing to freely and gladly give your life to protect, is now going to suffer a life of anguish, suffering, pain… all for something YOU did.. well, guber.. you tell me, which one would be the ultimate punishment. You being punished for a misdeed, or your child being punished for it?
Also, before you go down this ‘well he only saw his father naked schtick’, please try to look for a little more context in what is written here. Adam knew his wife. Of course he knew her. She was the only other human being on earth. But in the context of how it is written it implies that the had sex as she begat children. Well, Ham saw his father naked… it doesn’t indicate what else or what happened. If just gazing upon a naked man back then was culturally unacceptable then this might make sense. At the other end of the argument if saw means some form of sexual assault or other inappropriate type activity.. without spelling it out other than – he knew his father…. We just don’t know. But, of course, you… 4500 years removed from the culture and context are completely free and able to call him/me an “evil shit”. Well… I simply have to bow to your endless trough of knowledge and understanding of ancient eastern culture. Please forgive me if I’m questioning your authority or credentials on said topic.