The gang of prevaricators behind Ben Stein's Expelled movie had their own way of celebrating Darwin Day: they wrote a blog post that was a solid wall of lies and nonsense. In a way, I'm impressed; I'd have to really struggle to write something that was such a dense array of concentrated stupid, but for them, it seems to be a natural talent, allowing them to blithely and effortlessly rattle off a succession of falsehoods without blushing.
Let's begin with the beginning. You don't even have to be a biologist to be embarrassed by these wankers.
Until the late 1980's when the generic "President's Day" became the official holiday that subsumed them, America used to celebrate the birthdays of both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
As a result, "Darwin Day" has now supplanted Lincoln's Birthday in the popular imagination; both men were born on February 12, 1809.
We think that that is a shame.
I agree that the consolidation of "President's Day" did diminish awareness of Lincoln's birthday and reduced the appreciation of a president in exchange for a 3-day weekend, but Darwin had nothing to do with that, and it did not replace Lincoln with Darwin in the popular imagination — ask most people what the significance of 12 February might be, and you'll get a blank look. Darwin Day is a public relations effort to make people aware of the contributions of a great scientist, nothing more; there is no official holiday and no government recognition.
The title of Charles Darwin's book is not "The Origin of The Species." The full title seems shocking: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." That last half of the title, often overlooked, sounds like it could come straight out of a Ku Klux Klan manual - which is precisely why Big Science rarely quotes the full title (even though Darwin was not referring specifically to "man" in his use of the words "favoured races."). Big Science is uncomfortable with even the suggestion that evolutionary theory might favor politically incorrect thinking.
Umm, no, that's not why scientists rarely state the full title: it's because saying "the Origin" is an awful lot shorter than saying "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." It's really that simple. When I introduce the book to my classes, I've got a presentation slide of the cover page and I state the title in full the first time, and then just say "the Origin" afterwards. I've only got an hour!
As they note, the book isn't about giving human races special privilege at all — he seems to go on and on about 'races' of pigeons, and is really using the word in an old-fashioned sense to refer to varieties. But hey, if a propagandist wants to tar biologists with a false equivalency to the Ku Klux Klan, they'll go ahead and do it.
Try to parse the last sentence in that paragraph now. Is he really trying to suggest one of the flaws of modern science is that we're trying to bury the notion of 'favoured races' because it is politically incorrect? I'm puzzled about the inconsistency of on the one hand accusing biologists of being akin to Aryan supremacists, while also accusing them of falsely promoting a PC notion of racial equality. But then nothing in their tirade is particularly consistent.
Darwinian evolution theory is a viable scientific theory. Author of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins has stated that Darwin's evolution theory has provided atheists with "intellectual fulfillment." If you grant that, then you must also grant that it has given a great many racists "intellectual fulfillment," too.
The Bible has also been a source of intellectual fulfillment to racists. So? In the case of atheism, we can say it provides fulfillment because the theory is a framework for studying the origin of life on earth that makes a creator god superfluous; it also provides a framework for studying biological diversity within a single species. When a scientist says something is intellectually fulfilling, it doesn't mean it slaps down an answer that fits his predispositions, it's because it provides a path for probing deeper. The Expelled losers are confusing what a real scientist finds valuable with the post hoc rationalizations of racists and Christians who are not open to real inquiry.
Here is how Darwin himself translated his own gloomy scientific theory into an even more disturbing worldview (from the Descent of Man)
'At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropological apes… will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state…even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla'.
Whenever I see an ellipsis in a creationist quote, I always reach immediately for the original source. So, just for the sake of completeness, here's the offensive paragraph from Darwin's Descent of Man.
The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest
allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species,
has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is
descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear
of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the
general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the
series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in
various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies-
between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and
in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna,
and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of
related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not
very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will
almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout
the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor
Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The
break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it
will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon,
instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
It is entirely true that Darwin was a Victorian gentleman who carried the full measure of the prejudices of his time, and he did believe that non-Caucasian people (and actually, non-British people, and he probably had doubts about the Irish) were inferior. At the same time, he knew and described his personal relationships with, for instance, black people, and he regarded them as fully human and deserving of all the privileges of humanity, so he was actually a good step above a great many Christian gentlemen of his day.
Note also the context. He isn't advocating extermination, he's explaining the absence of extant intermediates: because breaks in a series inevitably occur, over time we'll see a widening of the differences between the surviving nearest neighbors in a lineage. He's describing a fact, not a desired end. He has also been shown to be right: the "savage races" of his day are being displaced and increasingly adopting the "civilized state" of today. Now, though, most of us wouldn't consider an Australian closer to a gorilla than a British civil servant is. Darwin was wrong about that (or perhaps now Ben Stein will berate me as being PC for considering that a false statement.)
Now, before you protest the analogy, consider that Professor Dawkins himself understands full well the analogy - to the extent that he'd prefer to just side step it:
In his "The Ancestor's Tale," he posed the Welfare State as a challenge to Darwinism. When asked by an Austrian journalist in an interview (Die Presse -July 30, 2005) how he would justify that challenge?
Dawkins: "No self-respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state."
Or, in other words, "I really don't want to think about it!"
What a bizarre mangling.
The term "Darwinian" refers to a specific, selectionist mode of change in which some individuals die or suffer impaired reproduction, while others thrive and are fecund. It is a fact. It happens. When a gazelle out-runs a fellow member of the herd and allows the slower member to be eaten by a lion, that's Darwinian. When a tree drizzles a few toxins onto the ground to suppress other species from growing in its neighborhood, that's Darwinian. It's not pretty and it may not be the utopian paradise fantasists dream of, but it's a description of reality. It's how live evolved and is evolving on this earth.
Dawkins has a clear understanding that an is isn't an ought, something these amateur filmmakers need to learn. A Darwinian world is a harsh sort of place; it's perfectly legitimate for a product of evolution to aspire to a less dangerous situation and to work towards reducing the threats surrounding it. It is -10°F outside my window right now, but that harsh, measurable, empirical, irrefutable reality does not mean that I am obligated to strip off my clothes and go stand in the snow right now.
It's quite clear that Dawkins has thought about the implications of evolution quite a bit, unlike our simple-minded friends in the creationist movement.
The new film, ” EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed" does not presume to bury the theory of evolution… but it declines to praise it, either. As a worldview…no thinking person (certainly no moral person) can view a scientific theory of life based on an undirected, purposeless and random process as anything but pessimism. Certain people, and many scientists are drawn to pessimism, and thus pessimistic scientific theories. But that does not make their theories, or them, for that matter, any more attractive or intelligent.
Pessimism is a malady to be overcome, not encouraged - and it is certainly not a quality (or a theory) to be celebrated. As history teaches us - inherently pessimistic scientific theories, like all decadent theories (socialism, communism) eventually give way to those that actually work.
Evolution is pessimism? What kind of inane argument is that?
First of all, we don't judge the validity of a theory on whether it's conclusions are what we want to hear, or on whether it is pessimistic or optimistic. If that were the case, my optimistic hope that magic elves will scamper over and take care of some necessary maintenance on my house would be a useful and powerful idea. Scientists adopt ideas that work, which is why evolution is popular and Intelligent Design creationism is a dead end; they are drawn to utility, not pessimism.
As far as optimistic theories go, has this bozo ever read the Communist Manifesto? Communism is an incredibly optimistic idea — human beings are perfectable, societies are working towards an inevitable workers' utopia, etc. It's highly non-Darwinian, unlike capitalism, which is very Darwinian. It's like they don't even think their own arguments through.
They certainly don't read their critics' arguments through. Dawkins was just quoted as rejecting Darwinian ruthlessness as a just principle for society, yet here they go off ranting and raving about his pessimism, and the ultimate failure of evolution. It's insane.
The sixteenth President of the United States believed what our country's founders believed and that The Bill of Rights so clearly stated - that all men were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That's a "theory" that works.
Like Darwin, Lincoln was a man of the 19th century. Here's something Lincoln did say:
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.
Squirm, Lincoln hagiographers, squirm. That's pretty much the standard background noise of the cultural beliefs of the period — everyone was putting everyone else in a hierarchy of superiority and inferiority on the basis of race. Lincoln was brought up in it and accepted it, as did Darwin; we don't judge them by how much they reflected the false prejudices of their society, but by how much they rose above them. Both Lincoln and Darwin were liberal for their time in their views on race, and they did their part to move culture forward.
Shall we quote Lincoln saying, "the white man is to have the superior position" and therefore declare that the aspiration of the Bill of Rights must be invalid and rejected? That's what these twits are doing by quoting fragments of Darwin's work, declaring, "Golly, that sounds like the Klan," and trying to discredit a major scientific principle.
Choosing to believe in but one scientific theory that effectively negates the whole notion of an intrinsic intelligence, a higher power, an intelligent designer - is fine, if pessimism is what floats your boat.
But that is your choice - or at least it should be a "choice" - for there is ample scientific evidence accumulating under the theory of Intelligent Design that presents an equally compelling - and much more optimistic scientific perspective on life's "origins."
It's odd how they constantly claim that there is growing scientific evidence for their theory of ID, but they never present any. I guess that's what they mean by calling ID an optimistic theory: they have hope that someday they'll actually have something constructive to propose.
But currently, Big Science is still enamored with only the gloomy, 150-year old theory originally developed by Darwin, the man who believed that "superior" races would eventually wipe out the "inferior" races. The problem is…the scientific theory justifying that repugnant view is being forced on all of us, to the exclusion of any other scientific theories, in our nation's public schools and taxpayer-funded government science institutions.
Abraham Lincoln ended slavery in America forever, to put to bed the whole notion of "inferior" races. And to be fair - the gentle Mr. Darwin himself did not favor slavery - even of those whom he described asbeing of the"savage races."
The 150-year old theory is not the modern theory. I wish we could get that through their heads: they could prove that Darwin was a baby-raping cannibal, and it wouldn't matter a whit to what we teach and study now. And seriously, get over yourselves: whining that Darwin was a racist does not turn your belief that invisible magic being(s) conjured life into existence into a scientific theory that should be taught in schools.
And you really have to be an ahistorical ignoramus to think that Abraham Lincoln ended the notion of "inferior" races. He subscribed to it. It's still an issue in our culture today.
Should the theory of Intelligent Design be allowed to be debated alongside Darwin's depressing 150-year-old theory of Evolution? Should scientists who want to explore Intelligent Design Theory be shunned, ostracized and even fired from the teaching profession?
If you have to ask the questions - perhaps you don't understand the difference between academic freedom… and the State-sponsored pessimism that is currently all but mandated by Big Science.
Science, even little-s science, only mandates that there be a an empirical foundation and open inquiry into what we're going to call science. Bad ideas that presume their conclusion and insist that evidence is not required for their proposals is not suitable for science classrooms. Show us what new evidence and ideas you're going to introduce and we'll think about it; whining about conspiracy theories and protesting that you have support but will not show it is not the answer.
"EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed" is a new film that will open your eyes to the scientific evidence that challenges Darwin's lurid theory of life. It reveals the distinctly non-scientific agenda that is driving Neo-Darwinism today. It also presents exciting new evidence accumulating behind the theory of intelligent design.
But most importantly - it will also remind you of the importance of maintaining the values of freedom and hope that Abraham Lincoln championed, and that some folks wish to deny us by fiat.
We stand squarely behind The Bill of Rights and our constitution's First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech.
Interesting. Every review I've read so far fails to mention this challenging scientific evidence for ID. When I get a chance to see it (hey, they interviewed me, even if they don't use much of the footage — are they going to send me a DVD?) I'll be sure to look for that evidence. It's not in any of their books, so it's a little odd that they'd pack it into fluffy little movie.
Don't you just love how they wrap themselves in the flag, the bill of rights, and the first amendment while trying to force their religious ideology into the schools? Patriotism really is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
- Log in to post comments
Report Card for Steve:
History of the Atlantic Slave Trade: FAIL
Novel interpretation of the initiators unsupported by evidence or sanity
History of the American Civil War: FAIL
Information about Robert E. Lee garnered from an unreliable source - a so-called national monument, or possibly a crackerjack box.
History of World War 2: FAIL
Confused information from revisionist sources
Reading Comprehension: FAIL
Seems to think that a prayer for the end of slavery trumps an explicit condemnation of the slavery abolitionist movement.
Also more confusion than can be easily summarized.
General Biology: FAIL
Claims not to believe in evolution. Certainly does not understand it.
Astronomy: FAIL
Cites biblical apocrypha. Oh, dear.
Final Grade: EPIC FAIL
The text was obviously older than that
irrelevant, but how do you know?
did you take a gander at the relevant archeology?
no?
You can argue all you want to about the existence or non existence of King Solomon - that isn't important.
ah, good to know that the fictional nature of biblical characters is entirely unimportant to your arguments.
keep on diggin' that hole for yourself, moron.
So a US soldier isn't property how?
he gets paid, for one thing.
you sure have some fucked up ideas about what a slave is, boyo.
I know some marines who wouldn't take too kindly to you calling them "slaves".
shall I send them on over to chat with ya?
maybe you can convince them they really are slaves, and that they should return all that money and benefits they receive for their service from the Federal Govt.
LOL
yeah, I'd love to see that.
Not only does the text read that the author knew the sun rotated, but he also knew the sun rotated differentially.
i wonder if the author would have agreed with your interpretation...
I rather think not.
if you disagree, why don't you show us how the same author managed to figure this out?
oh, that's right, divine inspiration, yes?
so why has divine inspiration failed everybody else so horribly?
all sinners i guess, right?
LOL.
Ichthyic,
I understand the confusion. I guess that I found the tactic so outlandish that I couldn't help but exaggerate it a bit and find it funny. Little did I realize that it wasn't such a broad line.
And Steven, your last post was already supposed to have happened.
Though I'll still point out that your reading is based upon current knowledge. People of that time would most certainly not have read it as you do now. The earth was stationary, (as any person who jumps and lands in the same place could tell you!) and the sun turned around it.
Your reading is not supported by the reading it would have been given at the time it was written.
He knew about the altering of the turning of the sun. If you still don't get it, then yes, your a moron.
if he knew about it, and you can read about it there, why can't you design an experiment to prove it?
hmm?
what, no divine inspiration on that one?
do you understand what "explanatory power" and "predictive power" mean?
of course you don't.
would you like to understand?
no, wait, why am I even asking?
And now having read this entire beast, I can safely say that NO, Steven has provided no predictions that ID has made, nor given any evidence to those ends.
The only thing coming close so far in support for ID is a quote from a rejected biblical text.
And I thought they had nothing to do with religion?
That's what normal people would give it, Owlmirror, but Steven got exactly what he wanted--way more attention than anyone ever gives him in RL.
You just know he was typing with one hand the whole time.
Wit. I love wit. I value it a nanometer below evidence in a forum discussion. To be right is foremost, but to be a joy to read and right, that is simply priceless. To eviscerate; wit can raise you to this level of making a good point, and getting a good laugh.
Not to say that I also don't appreciate the blunt clubbing given to a troll in need.
You just know he was typing with one hand the whole time.
oh, thankyouverymuch for that image which will now plague my nightmares as I take off for slumberland.
I'll get you for that.
:p
... btw, how's the recovery coming?
ready to start diving again yet?
Wow.
I would, of course, just like to make one point that really should have been made hundreds of comments before all the back-and-forth on Robert E. Lee: Even if Darwin turned out to be a slaveholding, puppy-kicking, Very Bad Guy, it wouldn't make one single solitary difference to evolutionary theory. Likewise, even if Hitler's private diary said he did it all to glorify Darwin, it still wouldn't make a lick of difference. Evolution happens. Always has, always will, regardless of what any murderers have to say about it.
You can all continue to kick Stevie around, but I hope you've at least noticed the pattern of whenever you actually ask him a question or try to pin him down on something, he just throws out more chaff (that is to say, BS) to try and distract.
Judging by the prevalence of infanticide in places like Tamil Nadu, quite many (they 'allow' it because they have no choice or because they choose it themselves). And even in the west, killing their own children is one of the most common types of murders committed by women.
I wonder if they reject the "pessimistic" theory of relativity because Einstein was a (nonpractising) Jew or refuse to use incandescent lights because Edison was a spiritualist.
I'm sure they reject anything built on an assembly line because of Henry Ford's antisemitism.
Windy,
Never mind malaria.
Why did God create the two species of lice that exist solely on humans or the human bot fly?
"Hitler said that the theory of eviloution allowed him to be an intellectually fulfilled genocidal maniac."
And Franco went to his grave convinced his services to the Catholic Church guaranteed him a place in Heaven.
So without reading all 500+ posts I have to ask:
Origin was published in 1859, Lincoln lived until 1865.
Did he ever express an opinion on the book either way?
"The Africans who taught the slave trade to the dutch and portuguese were not christian - the native americans who traded slaves were not christian"
No-one "taught" Europeans the slave trade.
The word slave derives from the word "Slav". The Teutonic Knight, the Livonian Order and various other Christian groups enslaves and sold so many pagan Poles and other Slavs that the word "slav" become synonymous with "slave".
And the earliest African participants in the Atlantic slave trade were the rulers of the Kingdom of Kongo - who converted to Christianity shortly after there first contact with the Portugese.
Their capital of Salvador was famous for its slave markets and its great cathedral.
And with one brain tied behind his back.
That had to be one of the most wretched strings of ignorant, arrogant spew we've seen around here in a long time. My head is still spinning from the Dutch-Portuguese-African slave trade "argument".
So Steve considers the Apocrypha to be be the word of God?
Tell me Steve does that extend to the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene?
Steve considers whatever supports his arbitrarily-determined world view to be an unimpeachable source.
Well, apologies for being crude, but having just read through all of his awesomely silly "contributions" to this monster of a thread I think we can safely say that wherever his blood supply was being pumped to at the time he was posting, there certainly wasn't much left to get through to his brain.
I should say here that Robert E Lee is getting rather harsh treatment here.
IN PRICIPLE, he was opposed to slavery.
As a matter of practicality, he thought that appealing to the conscience of the individual slave owner was preferable to fighting a war.
When Judah P Benjamin late in the civil war advocated freeing any slave who enlisted in the Confederate Army and adopting a gradualist program for post-war emancipation, Lee supported him.
I agree, Ian, though the argument was against the characterization of Lee as an abolitionist, as Trollboy claimed.
Let's toss another little irony onto the pile: Abe Lincoln could not accurately be described as a Christian.
As a (white) South African I get really annoyed off with people like Steven who rewrite history.
I had a liberal English teacher in 1983 who pointed out that in biology we were not going to be exposed to evolution since it contradicted Genesis. In religious education we were taught by a fundamentalist, born-again moron that the black races were punished for the sins of Ham. At the Potchefstroom University for CHRISTIAN higher education (PUCHE), there was a running battle between the geology department and the administration in the 1950's and 1960's about the geology department teaching that the earth was billions of years old. Strangely PUCHE didn't feel obliged to kick up a fuss about Apartheid since it was biblically consistent.
And who in the US sided with the racist creeps that ran South Africa? It wasn't the biologists and "Darwinists"; it was the evangelical Christians.
"Darwin was a baby eating, psychopathic murderer."
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 9:37 PM
Oh great, now we'll be seeing that quote all over the place...thanks a lot...
I would have to pull out some of my college textbooks and cite references from Lee and Jackson's speeches. There is nothing on the internet that I can find (surprise, surprise).
Christ, you went to college? Where did you go, Bob Jones?
I am still trying to understand what religion he thought the Portugese and Dutch were. That answer would have to be hilarious.
I can say, with exactly zero reservations that the Dunning-Kruger effect was exactly for people like Steve.
BGT: What appears to be a mind-crushingly stupid allegation is actually a misunderstanding (for which, of course, he blames the reader) caused by Steven's own abysmal prose.
He was trying to say that the Dutch and Portuguese merely (!) cashed in on the slave trades already practiced by certain Native American and African tribes, none of whom were Christian.
Ignoring, for the moment, the lunacy of the claim, he still fails to explain how that might let the Europeans, who were assuredly Christians, off the hook.
I'm glad to see that it wasn't the Benedryl making me foggy that had Steven's posts coming across as so completely devoid of facts, reason, or intelligence. That's some world-class stupid he's showing off.
Time for a second reconstruction--and this time we're going after the schools. No more "War of Northern Aggression" bullshit.
Benadryl trumps Diet Coke in the wee hours, Jeff. ;-)
(I've got the flu, too. Moan.)
Benadryl trumps Diet Coke in the wee hours, Jeff. ;-)
(I've got the flu, too. Moan.)
Yeah, rough week. Just took some more Benedryl, so we'll see how long I'm able to stay awake.
Thank goodness for cuddly kitties and Simpsons DVDs.
Steven, regardless of the truth or falsity of most of what you've claimed (and it is of course all false, but lets leave that aside for now), your argument all boils down to "We should reject evolution because it leads to undesirable consequences." If you fail to see the flaw in that logic, there is not much hope for you.
The only reason a slave (or employee/indentured servant) would escape is to escape from a crime they committed.
So what crime did Frederick Douglass commit? (Oh, wait, I remember: learning to read.)
I wonder what lurid crimes St. Patrick committed that made him escape slavery. Ungrateful bastard!
Uh... He forgot to close the door to the snake cage?
(As I understand it, amends were later made.)
Paging Mr. Turtledove, paging Mr. Turtledove.
You have a visitor from the Alternate Generals timeline.
Because he cannot be bought sold or willed to your children. Nor can he be kept for life; theres a reason its called a Term of Enlistment. So a US soldier is pretty much entirely unlike property.
Where on Earth did you get the idea that a US soldier was anything like property?
PS Please learn to quote properly. If you cant manage html tags, at least use quotation marks.
Ka-ching, the Portuguese and Dutch were the first to cash in.
But ... wait a minute, they weren't christians. Hmmmmmm.
Assuming you ARE trying to say that it was the African slave traders who weren't Christians, would you be so kind as to clarify this and admit at least that your prose stinks?
Or am I to charitable and are you indeed so stupid to believe what you wrote? I suggest you take a look in Holland and Portugal, and provide an explanation for the multitude of churches in both countries, many of the built in the 15th and 16th century. While you're at it, also let me know who these onfortunate souls were who were burnt at the stake by the Inquisition during the Dutch Revolt and what religious group they adhered to.
Steven,
"Yes, I know that trick too. I have read this article at least 15 times when it is cited by different so called "atheists" who claim they can think for themselves, but rely on other people's interpretatations rather than their own. I can't say I blame them, it certainly is easier this way for them."
Sadly, the universe is too complicated for a single person to derive all its properties alone. Happily, we are able to co-operate and cite other people's discoveries rather than reinvent the wheel every day. This is entirely necessary to the process of science, and citing a reasoned and evidenced argument is just as good as providing a new one - especially since it allows us to use reasoning which has been tested many times. If you can cite the Bible to defend its claims, can we not cite 'Big Science' to defend its?
"You have yet to explain exactly what religious affiliation the 15th and 16th century Dutch and Portugese had if it was not Christian"
"This is your interpretation of what was said - The Africans who taught the slave trade to the dutch and portuguese were not christian - the native americans who traded slaves were not christian"
If I may refer you to your earlier comment:
"Ka-ching, the Portuguese and Dutch were the first to cash in.
But ... wait a minute, they weren't christians. Hmmmmmm."
It sounds like a reasonable 'interpretation of what was said' to me.
They troll because they're too stupid to sock puppet.
Steven, here's a verse for you.
So please. Go beat yourself (and not the way you're doing it right now). And get raptured already.
He was trying to say that the Dutch and Portuguese merely (!) cashed in on the slave trades already practiced by certain Native American and African tribes, none of whom were Christian.
Ignoring, for the moment, the lunacy of the claim, he still fails to explain how that might let the Europeans, who were assuredly Christians, off the hook.
I considered that possibility, but my question is still relevant in that case for the reasons you've already covered.
Steven, if you're still reading this: you're a star!
Some of us have commented for years on Pharyngula without having a posting dedicated to us individually: you've made it on your first try.
I wonder what lurid crimes St. Patrick committed
Uh... He forgot to close the door to the snake cage?
(As I understand it, amends were later made.)
Actually, no, he ran away because he didn't like the Roman pirates who kidnapped him in the first place.
Two things:
Godwin's Law.
Argumentum ad consequentiam.
I put my response to Steven's idiocy on the other thread:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/weve_got_a_live_one.php
For once, I am almost tongue-tied with raging incredulity,
and will probably wind up being incoherent trying to spit
my venom and religious hatred all over the monitor. So
suffice it to say that I think that raging demonic retard
should be nailed to a cross and have feces and urine
thrown at him on an hourly basis. And taunt the freaking
retard to appeal to his freaking god to come down and save him. Good grief, will we ever be rid of this insane shit?
P.Z. Myers holds high praise for the racist darwin, the atheist darwin, considering him above the English Gentlemen of his day.
Historians must have praised the wrong people and not recognized the "abolitionist darwin". All these years historians in understanding those who abolished the British slave trade through Parliament, through years of effort and many resources invested, mamely, have universally nemaed Bishop Wilburforce and John Newton.
Oh I forgot they were dedicated Christians and therefore members of the group you hate and despise along with Christ.
The engima here is whether the internet is a help by permitting the evolutionist douchebags propound their nonsense for all the intellectual world to laugh at or a henderence by using perfectly good bandwidth to spew hate and venom at the community of faith.
I suggest PZ and his admirers include 2+2=4 in every post so there will be one rational and factual aspect to their efforts.
Historians must have praised the wrong people and not recognized the "abolitionist darwin"
Except slavery was already outlawed in england by the time Darwin was around.
Oh I forgot they were dedicated Christians and therefore members of the group you hate and despise along with Christ.
How can I despise someone who didn't exist?
The bible actually supports slavery (it never forbids it), so any Christian who was an abolitionist was going against the bible. A fundamentalist would use the 'good book' to defend slavery.
It seems their 'christianity' was incidental, so you might as well say they had mustaches and that's why they wanted to abolish slavery....
I love how creationists claim to have gone to some vague University, where they took unnamed classes and read uncited textbooks. Steve didn't go to any University. At best he went to a bible college or got an online degree. I doubt it.
Either way, he seems to have retreated...
The Steve will rise again?
I fail to see what the purported immorality of a select group of Christians who died generations ago does to falsify design theory. Does Hitler being a vegatarian make vegetarianism evil? Does Walt Disney being anti-semitic mean that Disney Land does not exist?
It's truly impressive to see so many ad hominem and reducto ad absurdum arguments compiled in one place. It's as if you people didn't have an actual argument behind all the fallacies.
Oh, wait.
Save your breath and typing skills, coathangrrr: Keith Eaton has a total immunity to reason thanks to his abysmal social skills and psychotic personality.
Discussing the nitty-gritty of how quantum mechanics affects houseplants with a cinderblock is a far more productive use of time than attempting to argue, or worse yet, reason with a waste of space like Keith Eaton.
Solomon:"18: The beginning, ending, and midst of the times: the alterations of the turning of the sun, and the change of seasons"
Steve: "Not only does the text read that the author knew the sun rotated, but he also knew the sun rotated differentially."
As far as I understand this has nothing to do with rotation... The "turning of the sun" refers to the 21st/22nd of december and the 20th/21st of june, when the sun turns. Hence the phrase "change of seasons"?
RD, past is past, and we can ignore it. "Design theory" refutes itself. Bring some evidence to the table, and you'll get an honest examination.
"Waiting For Cdesign Proponentsists' Evidence" - might make a movie title, eh?
What is "design theory?"
Historians must have praised the wrong people and not recognized the "abolitionist darwin". All these years historians in understanding those who abolished the British slave trade through Parliament, through years of effort and many resources invested, mamely, have universally nemaed Bishop Wilburforce and John Newton.
Dear Darwin, not another one!
William Wilberforce was not a bishop, he was a member of parliament, and not the same person as "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford and Winchester. "Soapy Sam" was the third son of William Wilberforce.
What is it with creationists. Are they allergic to any form of accurate, factual comment whatsoever?
"Life as we know it is too complicated to have evolved without the mysterious and inscrutable help of God, aka Our Lord, Jehovah, as described in the Holy Bible a mysterious and inscrutable "Intelligent Designer.""
What is "design theory?"
Good question. Good luck with it!
Yes, duh.
Short answer: not yet.
Long answer: I haven't had the surgery yet, and now it's been knocked down one notch in the priority list. The hernia surgery needs 6-8 weeks of recovery afterwards where I don't do any heavy lifting or anything, to give the abdominal wall time to heal.
Since I'm unemployed and thus uninsured, I had been saving toward paying for the surgery plus paying for an extended period of doing nothing strenuous afterward (no massage work, for example). I didn't yet have that amount saved, when a lump developed by my right eye. My doc doesn't think it's cancer, but she's a generalist, so she referred me to Harborview's poor and uninsured clinic for a joint consult with Derm, Opthalmology, and Plastics, because it's right by my eye. I just got an appoinment for May 8(!). Like I tell everyone else, let's hope it's not melanoma, or I'll be dead by then! (really, we don't think it is; I'm [sorta] exaggerating for effect). I may be able to bump it forward, though; I have a couple of job interviews next week--nothing I would have normally chosen to take, but I will under duress to get insurance for my surgeries. If I get one of those jobs, and then get insurance, I'll go to a doctor before May.
So getting the eye lump taken care of is now first priority; hernia will be late in 2008 at best, then 2-month recovery. Shall we make a tentative date to meet for diving in early 2009, modulo all things going as planned in the meantime? :)
Editorial: Hey, Arctic Oak--If wankers like Steven invested as much money, time, and mental energy in talking about real problems like the US's fucked-up "health-care" system, instead of burying those real-life concerns just to rewrite history in the service of a racist and patriarchalist agenda, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to not smacking them down when they prove themselves to be idiots.
As it is, think of it as negative reinforcement--if you teach them they can get away with publicly lying and no one will call them on it, it's like teaching the dog it can crap on the floor without consequences.
It's truly impressive to see so many ad hominem and reducto ad absurdum arguments compiled in one place. It's as if you people didn't have an actual argument behind all the fallacies.
Ah, bringing out the "logic" are we. How's that old saw go, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. That seems to be what is going on with all the "design theory" folks, a whole lot of "oh, look I learned a new word!"
And for the record, reductio ad absurdum is a sound logical form, not a fallacy.
Guess where the "ID isn't a religious concept folks" are previewing the anti-evolution film EXPELLED ?
I found the answer cruising the Answer in Genesis website.
"On Tuesday in the Special Effects Theatre of the Creation Museum, a few specially invited guests and some AiG staff were privileged to be given a preview of the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which will be released in movie theaters across the country on April 18."
What, no special previews for members of the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Smithsonian Institution or any major university? More proof - once and for all - that ID is just biblical creationism dressed up in a rented lab coat. What a fat load of crap the producers of EXPELLED are trying to foist on the US public. I'm positive that many US citizens will gobble it up.
As a response, I suggest that any corporation booking Ben Stein to advertise their product or service should hear from those of us who support real science. Let them know we'll be taking our business elsewhere. In addition, the mainstream and entertainment press should ask Ben if he believes man and dinosaurs lived together just a few thousand years ago? ... that would seem to be the case with the films target audience.
Does anyone else think it funny that the auditorium in the Creation Museum is called the "Special Effects Theatre"? They can work miracles with CG these days...
The above exchange demonstrates a significant difference between someone like Nullifidian and our good creobot Steven. Normal humans, when presented with evidence that corrects the course they are on, acknowledge that evidence, correct course, and move along in the improved direction.
On the other hand, the creobot can never, ever, admit that it has ever made an incorrect statement about anything on any topic at any time regardless of the depth of its lack of understanding of the topic at hand, and despite all the evidence in the world against its incorrectness.
Thanks bybelknap. I had been struck by the EXACT same thing after reading that exchange, but was too lazy to hunt out the comments and post.
Hey Steven,
For the record, the slaves were doing MENIAL work, not REMEDIAL work. REMEDIAL refers to the type of classes you took in high school.
-- Crabby Journalist
#557 - While your definition is presented in a juvenile, contrarian manner, it is essentially accurate.
#561 - It may not be a logical fallacy by literal definition, but in rhetoric it is simply a distractionary tactic that proves nothing. Nearly any concept can be stated in a way that makes it sounds absurd. Evolution is certainly no exception to this.
#554 - Therein lies the rub, eh? I post something about irreducable complexity, you counter with some well-practiced and rationalization filled diatribe, usually involving the clotting abilities of dolphins, correct?
Or I could delve into scripture, leaving the lot of you to intentionally mistake the fluidity of the Word of the Lord for contradictions or anything else that helps you prove your point to yourself.
I am well aware that there is little main stream scientific evidence available for Intelligent Design. When viewing websites like this, it is pretty easy to tell why. Few men or women would willingly subject themselves to the ridicule and ostracization that has been inexorably and unfairly linked to this young branch of science.
You mean the stale old shit of Paley's? What's young about that, moron?
And if there were anything in ID, scientists would subject themselves to ridicule, knowing that they could win out in the end. The only reason your IDiots won't subject themselves to the ridicule that IDists get, is that IDists deserve every bit of ridicule that they receive.
That is, they can't counter the many even-toned fiskings of their work, nor can they take the ridicule which has followed their inability to either 'fess up to the nonsense, or to provide some actual evidence for their noxious claims.
And you're simply a lying jackass, RD, who apes the propaganda fed to you by the losers who whine about "persecution" when they have failed to provide evidence.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
To me, this whole argument can be explained thus: anyone who repeatedly write "your" instead of "you're" has been so poorly educated that any subsequent statements are suspect, severely.
KE sez: " evolutionist douchebags" etc.
KE, I thought you were busy with some Expelled event? I see you're back with your lame-o insults and furious copy & paste. Watch out for carpal tunnel syndrome--it may end your illustrious blogging career.
Here let me craft a response at the appropriate junior high level for you--ah yes, this will do: "Are you aware that I am rubber, and you are glue, and whatever you say to me bounces off, of me, and sticks to you?"
Then you are misinformed. There is NO scientific evidence supporting ID/creationism. Anecdotes and argument from incredulity are not evidence.
#568 - If you're talking about me I strongly suggest you reconsider your assumptions regarding the English language. Perhaps finishing fourth grade language arts would be a step in the right direction.
#567 - Winning out in the end isn't much of a factor when you can't get the funding to do the extensive research and experimentation needed to even make a dent in the wall of closed-mindedness surrounding evolution. That and, once the results were to be completed, everyone's pre-concieved notions would lead them to, oh, say, not take the results seriously? Perhaps bend over backwards to try and assemble evidence that implies the contrary (a very un-scientific thing to do, I might add.)
I fail to see what I have said that can be accused of dishonesty. Making predictions, based on the current scientific climate, is not lying, even if the present majority disagrees with them.
"I fail to see what the purported immorality of a select group of Christians who died generations ago does to falsify design theory."
I fail to see what the purported immorality of Charles Darwin does to falsify evolution theory. Those aren't our tactics.
What Christians are you talking about here anyway? Martin Luther? We were just saying how his anti-semitic writings inspired Hitler. Please use quotations to back up your comments, this is a very long and tangled thread.
"Few men or women would willingly subject themselves to the ridicule and ostracization that has been inexorably and unfairly linked to this young branch of science."
Oh...I'm hearing violins again. Some guy who did no research was denied tenure! Boo hoo! ID proponents who lie and present bad arguments are ridiculed on blogs? BAAAAWWWW!!!
Indeed. And while he's busy searching (har) for that citation, let me offer one of my own:
This was spoken by Hitler in 1941 to his army adjutant, Gerhard Engel, and recorded in Engel's diary. It is quoted in John Toland's book Adolf Hitler. (Toland is a Pulitzer Prize winner. "Steven" is just a random guy posting on a blog.)
The only prediction that Intelligent Design proponents have made is that they are the harbingers of the "end of Darwinism."
In order to achieve this prophecy, they have indeed made numerous lies, including the slander of a wide array of people, especially actual scientists, who recognize that Intelligent Design "theory" is not science, and never will be science, especially since no Intelligent Design proponent has ever demonstrated that they are the least bit interested in making even the most trivial token effort to make a positive contribution to Science.
#572: I was speaking largely about references to the Dutch, Portugese, and Confederate Christians who were slave traders, and of the references in the article itself to Darwin being less of a racist than "good Christians". As I have stated before, I am well aware that attack the messenger does nothing to combat the message, and I do not employ these arguments my self. Those ID proponents that I do see engaging in these arguments are most assuredly doing so out of exasperation as being antagonized at nearly every turn. You need to stop and think about what side of the argument is truly the aggressor: the people of faith who see design all around them, in ever tree and animal and rock (etc.), or the people who are trying to crush every effort to explain the world from a perspective that does not match their own.
But imagine, for the sake of argument, that in fact no Spartan ever threw a single infant off any of the available cliffs. That doesn't change for a moment the fact that the ancients thought they did. That is, the idea of eugenics was current at least 17 centuries before Darwin (if, as the linked article claims, the story was put about by Plutarch in the 1st century).
Sheesh, how many times, RD? Argument from incredulity is not evidence. Ignorance does not generate scientific theories (nor, really, hypotheses).
Not attacks here, just a request - show some evidence.
Oh, you mean the people who don't want non-science taught to their kids in science class? Like, for example, the people who would rather their kids not be taught the Ptolemaic model of the solar system or the evil-eye theory of disease causation as scientifically valid "effort[s] to explain the world from a perspective that does not match their own"?
And speaking of "crushing every effort" to express a differing perspective, I suggest you take a look at ID guru William Dembski's blog from time to time. It might give you an idea of how this is really done.
Wow, this whole set of arguments is, impressive. In size that is.
I just wanted to chime in on a breakthrough I recently had. There is a lovely lady that I regularly buy coffee from. I recently struck up a conversation that led to evolution. She told me that she didn't 'believe' in it. Well, after a great deal of talking, I realized what was missing in her understanding of science. She thought that someone with the title 'scientist' was a person who thought they had the answers for everything, from red shifted galaxies, to abiogenesis. I relaxed, and took her through the major theories of science, and explained that the big bang theory didn't try to explain life. That the study of evolution was not the study of abiogenesis. And that evolution was not the study of geology.
Then I explained that there were specialists within all these fields. They don't need to know or understand the minutia of details of the other specialists. They only need to understand the how the conclusions of these specialists affect their own fields of study. All of Science is too big for only one man (well, except for Carl Sagan!) scientists depend on the research of people outside of their fields when looking at 'big picture' ideas, like evolution from one celled life, all the way up to sweater wearing puppies. But within the field, they will argue over the details to get a better understanding of how the mechanisms work.
I was greatly rewarded with a light bulb moment. She didn't immediately deconvert from christianity, but I didn't expect her to. She did have a little better of an understanding to how science works. And that is all I could ask for. Well, that and a great cup of coffee.
Let's try that again. Who is actually the aggressor?
a) Scientists who work hard to understand the world around them, and who learn things that, in turn, benefit humanity, and who teach what they have learned to children so that those children can grow up to continue those studies and benefits to humanity; or
b) People who insist on teaching non-science, for which there is no evidence and which is usually wrapped in lies, as though it is true, not only to their own children, but to entire classrooms and school districts, because it conflicts with their own personal perspective?
Encore! Encore! I want more of Steve!
Seriously, I've been eating pop-corn while reading this thread and I laughed out loud more than once. Bravo, sirs, for the fine intellectual evisceration :D
#577: As I have already stated, of empirical proof that fits into your model I have little. This evidence is fortcoming, of that you can be sure, but of course no one that wants to see it is allowed to find it, because that would be unscientific, and no one that doesn't want to see it will acknowledge its existance.
#578: I mean scientists, bloggers and random internet-addicted liberals who've decided that they can never be wrong if they never stop arguing. Personally, I believe the time is not yet right for ID to be taught in schools, because ID is not yet developed. Teaching it in public schools would do a disservice to our children and to the science itself. That said, to come crashing down on the mere existance of the science, or the study thereof, is unreasonable, meaningless censorship.
The reasons why they use such arguments are because Intelligent Design is not science, that they have no experience, ability even or motivation to engage a genuine scientific debate, and they instinctively recycle the same failed "arguments" made by Creationists.
If you actually read the Wedge Document, as well as comments made by Philip E. Johnson and William Dembski, you would know that the Intelligent Design movement is an attempt to make Science in the US "more Christian friendly," a plan, that, if allowed to come to fruition, will devastate the country.
I still haven't had my questions answered ;)
Why is it that the theory man is the product of an apelike creature still promulgated by scientists?
This theory was derived from finding bone fragments. The bone fragments were "proven" through the scientific method to be of an extinct apelike man creature. This theory is still being taught as "fact" to children.
What is not being discussed is that the bone fragments were later and discreetly found to be from a pig.
Empirical evidence of reality and science shows itself whether or not people want to see it or not.
Intelligent Design proponents have provided neither empirical evidence, nor have they provided empirical evidence that they even want to engage in doing science at all.
So have we found someone even more monumentally stupid than AFDave? AF DAve also got confused about Portugal, although he thought the language came from French...
The reason why it is taught that humans are descended from apes, and are apes, themselves, is because of the mountains of evidence that demonstrate that the closest relatives of humans are great apes, as well as fossil evidence of human-like primates that are more than just "bone fragments."
"Nebraska Man" was a misidentified tooth of a pecarry found in Nebraska. Its discovery and subsequent reidentification had no bearing on Human Evolution. If you knew how to read, Steve, you would have already known this.
#585: Are you sure of that? Quarks, leptons and antileptons appeared to people who didn't want to see them? You've got to find the information before you can see it. Or you can just try to sweep it under the rug, or stop anyone else from finding it.
#583: What, precisely, is wrong with making anything more "Christian friendly"? I fail to see how identifying a theory that happens not to contradict the Bible will do anything to harm anything. I would think that it would do just the opposite, and perhaps make it easier for young, scientifically gifted people who happen to have a strong faith in God to find their places amongst the scientific community without fear of ridicule.
Who is this RD person?
Hey, RD, are you aware that the ID'ers have spent several million pounds over a number of years, yet seem unable to produce anything with it? You are aware of the ramblings of Dembski and Behe are you not? Please explain how the multi-million dollar evangelical industry, with its bible colleges, huge churches etc, cannot afford one teensy little lab to do its work in?
Darwin mostly had his garden.
He worked pretty much by himself. Perhaps you should go and do some science yourself?
Your complaint about close mindedness merely illustrates you are an idiot with no explosure to actual science.
RD, you seem to be making the mistake of thinking that ID creationism is a legitimate and honest attempt to deal with the evidence. Here are the words of some of those who purport to be engaged in a legitimate exercise:
The Wedge Strategy, leaked from the Discovery Institute:
"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
"Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars."
Phillip Johnson, father of the ID movement:
Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having ID identified "as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message". Johnson emphasizes that "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion"; "after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact ... only then can 'biblical issues' be discussed."
"I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for them to prove...No product is ready for competition in the educational world."
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
William Dembski:
"Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ."
"ID is part of God's general revelation ... Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ."
"I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed. [...] And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done -- and he's not getting it."
"You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories."
Michael Behe:
"You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."
In sworn testimony, Behe said: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."
He also said, under oath, that stretching the definition of science to allow ID to be taught in the classroom, would also allow Astrology to be taught, as well.
Now, you tell me if any of this, said by perfectly intelligent individuals, and those who are at the very forefront of the ID creationism movement, sounds like a genuine attempt to engage in a scientific debate?
#589: Citation, please? I'd like to know what, exactly, this money was spent on, and what, exactly, constitutes this "nothing" that they came up with. Surely doing any measure of experimentation or research would produce something, regardless of what that may be.
The "Evangelical Industry" as you put it, is not neccessarily and ID industry. There is a difference. Many Evangelicals have been browbeaten into such an extreme distrust of science that they still embrace the Young Earth perspective. That is, unfortunately, where most of the money rests.
Those ID proponents that I do see engaging in these arguments are most assuredly doing so out of exasperation as being antagonized at nearly every turn.
The reasons why they use such arguments are because Intelligent Design is not science, that they have no experience, ability even or motivation to engage a genuine scientific debate, and they instinctively recycle the same failed "arguments" made by Creationists.
You need to stop and think about what side of the argument is truly the aggressor: the people of faith who see design all around them, in ever tree and animal and rock (etc.), or the people who are trying to crush every effort to explain the world from a perspective that does not match their own.
If you actually read the Wedge Document, as well as comments made by Philip E. Johnson and William Dembski, you would know that the Intelligent Design movement is an attempt to make Science in the US "more Christian friendly," a plan, that, if allowed to come to fruition, will devastate the country.
I have seen exactly the opposite happen as a result of teaching evolution. Divorce rate has gone up. More school shootings. Academic freedom no longer exists.
So called scientists who claim that ID is not science need to realize a lot of the tools they use are not science as well. They are making a double standard for themselves that many people are readily able to see through.
Among other things, the Bible contains numerous scientific inaccuracies, including saying that hyraxes (or hares) chew cud, that grasshoppers have four, instead of six legs, that bats are actually birds, that mustard seeds, rather than orchid seeds, are the smallest plant seeds in the world, and that wheat seeds die prior to germination.
Making science more "Christian Friendly" would entail making science unfriendly to scientists of other faiths.
Furthermore, the Bible does not discuss many many topics, and those "scientific" Christians who treat the Bible as a science textbook have demonstrated that they have a profound, inescapable disinterest in learning about the world around them, as they often allege that the study of topics not specifically addressed in the Bible is either sinful, or beneath their notice, and that the study of the world around them is an elaborate plot devised by Satan to tempt True Believers away from God.
Ok, my polite question for tonight, RD, is:
Have you actually investigated ID/Creationism, do you know who takes part in it, what it is, what it claims etc, or are you defening it because you have a personal version of it that you think is great?
As for funding etc, wikipedia is a reasonable place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
A subsidiary of the Discovery Institute called the Biologic institue allegedly has 3 researchers working on ID topics.
I quote from Wikipedia, regarding the DI:
"Over those nine years, $792,585 financed laboratory or field research in biology, paleontology or biophysics, while $93,828 helped graduate students in paleontology, linguistics, history and philosophy. The CSC lobbies aggressively to policymakers for wider acceptance of intelligent design and against the theory of evolution and what it terms "scientific materialism.""
Now, if you look at all the other stuff the DI does, it spends millions on lobbying. Is lobbying the same as doing science?
Where are these "mountains of evidence"? All I have seen are "mountains of theories" most of which has been proven incorrect.
I certainly know how to read and I have a pretty good BS detector. I, like so many others, have noticed how scientific theory changes over time. It is not result of a new discovery that further advances a theory, its a discovery that counters previous scientific conclusions.
ummm... how is "a discovery that counters previous scientific conclusions" not a "new discovery"?
What the hell are you on about?
#590:
Quotations from your own post:
"after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact ... only then can 'biblical issues' be discussed."
Simply put, the Bible must be removed from the debate until scientific legitimacy can be established, something that seems impossible, because the left is so obsessed with the idea that religion is the antithesis of science.
"Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for them to prove...No product is ready for competition in the educational world"
This really reinforces all that I have said. ID is not yet fully developed, but, given the chance to do so, it has great potential to stand toe-to-toe with Evolution.
"Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ."
I believe this speaks for itself. Christ is present in all things. Presenting ID without Christ is the same as presenting Germ Theory or Atomic Theory without Christ.
I do, however, believe that Michael Behe was mistaken when he said that ID could not be proven by experiment. I realize that proving that life could not have evolved is impossible, as atheists say it is impossible to prove that God cannot exist, but I believe that thus far, scientists have simply not examines things from the correct perspective. There is nothing unnatural about God, for God is all things.
because ID is not yet developed.
the question is, do you even have the slightest inkling why it hasn't and can't be developed into a testable hypothesis?
here's a hint:
archeologists have a model to work from (humans) in order to formulate a hypothesis as to whether a specific artifact was made by humans or not.
What model does ID work from?
Teaching it in public schools would do a disservice to our children and to the science itself.
there is no science to it, whatsoever, in that sense, you could hardly do a disservice to it.
That said, to come crashing down on the mere existance of the science, or the study thereof, is unreasonable, meaningless censorship.
all you have to do is show us where the science is:
show us the repeatable experiments, for example.
it's just a bunch of fucking lies, moron.
If we decide not to teach holocaust denial as part of a history course on WWII, is that censorship?
think for a second, if you are even able.
one such scientific fact has been "soft tissue cannot fossilize"
then a soft tissue fossil of a dinosaur was found. Not only did this counter previous scientific conclusions - it countered quite a few "scientific" remarks regarding a fossilized human finger.
Finding a fossilized human finger counters quite a number of scientific conclusions. But as a person who believed in ID, I cease to be amazed at how "atheist scientists" refute obvious which counters their preconceived notions.
It takes more faith to believe in evolution.
So then, please demonstrate for us how to present Germ Theory and Atomic Theory with Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, please demonstrate how to present a scientific theory, with Jesus Christ, to a non-Christian audience, and demonstrate how that is the appropriate way to present science.
Then please demonstrate how to perform experiments with Intelligent Design.
You're referring to "Nebraska Man", and it is simply untrue that "the theory [that] man is the product of an apelike creature" was in any way based on it. For one thing, the "Nebraska Man" paper was published in 1922, which is 51 years after the publication of The Descent of Man, in which Darwin described the great apes (he called them "quadrumana") as:
For another thing, "Nebraska Man" appeared in exactly one scientific paper, and most scientists of the time were skeptical that it even represented a primate, much less that it was a human ancestor. Most ignored it entirely and it had exactly zero impact on evolutionary theorizing. Within a few years it was definitively proved to be the tooth of an extinct peccary, and its disappearance caused nary a ripple. In fact, it survives today only as an item in the creationist arsenal of stupid talking points.
On the other hand, there are plentiful fossils of Australopithecus spp. which are considered to be apelike human ancestors. Are these pig fossils too?
Oh, and by the way:
This may be true, but it has nothing to do with reductio ad absurdum, which I suggest you look up to see just how absurdum your characterization is. What you're describing (mischaracterizing an idea to make it seem absurd) is more properly described as a "straw man" argument.
because the left is so obsessed with the idea that religion is the antithesis of science.
not just "the left", moron.
btw, have you ever heard of the clergy letter project?
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/clergy_project.htm
I do, however, believe that Michael Behe was mistaken when he said that ID could not be proven by experiment.
based on your vast knowledge?
LOL
wow, that was full of stupid.
You complain that science changes its mind when it's shown it's wrong?
You *complain* that human knowledge keeps getting better with new evidence?
Would you prefer science to be like religion - and keep all its knowledge stagnant, even when it's shown to be flatly wrong?
hey Steven-
why haven't you addressed the fact that you are a liar yet?
one such scientific fact has been "soft tissue cannot fossilize"
this is called a straw-man argument.
I linked to an explanation of what that is earlier.
care to try again?
how to present Germ Theory and Atomic Theory with Jesus Christ.
easy:
Germ Theory + Jesus
Atomic Theory + Jesus
oh, wait you wanted something else, didn't you...
:p
#598: Thank you for being so aggressively, pointlessly hostile. It really makes me look like the unthinking one in this argument. You have, however, pointed out just the reason why it is so difficult to come up with concrete proof for design: to see from the perspective of God is beyond us. But that there are other ways for humans to tap into this library of knowledge I am sure. It is only a matter of time before someone stumbles upon the key, but this rampant hostility and constant derision must be slowing things dramatically. What, exactly, are you all so afraid of? Is the idea of design so terrible, or is it your souls your fear for?
#594: Those numbers you quoted combined come up well under a million dollars, so I fail to see where your "millions of dollars" figure is derived from, but I will indulge the "point" regardless. This money is spent to combat the negative advertising and lobbying going on all the time, lobbying that is for the most part free, disguised, and thus more dangerous. I realize that spending a million dollars in the face of this tide is tantamount to throwing ice cubes at the sun, but one must try, at the very least.
Steven, you are an arrogant moron.
"Soft tissue" can fossilize, and there are numerous examples of soft tissue fossils. The problem is that soft tissue is less likely to fossilize than hard tissue, such as bone and shells.
And if by "human finger fossil," you mean Carl Baugh's fossil finger, do also realize that Carl Baugh has consistently refused to let anyone examine it for authenticity's sake.
Furthermore, please explain why "descent with modification because offspring are imperfect copies of their parents" requires more faith than believing that wombats, koalas and marsupial moles made it to Australia from Mount Ararat before lions, tigers and gazelles due to divine assistance.
"because the left is so obsessed with the idea that religion is the antithesis of science."
It kinda is. For reasons that are about to become clear...
"Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ."
"I believe this speaks for itself. Christ is present in all things. "
"There is nothing unnatural about God, for God is all things."
Says who?
Don't you see what bald assertions these are? That's why ID isn't science, because it assumes a conclusion and works backwards from it. What would you say to a Hindu scientist who said the same thing you just said, but replaced the word "Christ" with "Brahma"? How would either of you ever convince the other that he/she is wrong? How would either of you know?
Oh, and run along, Stevie, the grown-ups are trying to have a discussion.
The reason for his hostility is because he knows that the literal interpretation of the Bible is not science and never will be science, and he is rightly frustrated that you have blinded yourself to the fact that you have not produced a single specific demonstration of "Bible-friendly" "science."
#609: I suspect I could argue with him indefinitely, as I could with all of you, with neither side being convinced, until Jesus returns. At that point, I believe one side will be more convincing than the others. As to your other statement, this is precisely why I stated before that this science must first be established separately from religion, as many other sciences have been. Regardless, concrete proof of ID is not the same as concrete proof of Christ. A world that is designed does not rule out Brahma, Allah, Zeus or Odin.
It really makes me look like the unthinking one in this argument.
it's your line of reasoning (or lack thereof) that makes you the unthinking one.
it's that simple.
to see from the perspective of God is beyond us
if you get that, then you must also realize, at least at some level, that there simply is NO WAY "Intelligent Design" can ever be science, unless "God" itself decided to appear and elucidate how it acted within the natural world, or we could directly observe same.
btw, I thought ID wasn't supposed to be based on deism?
well, at least you saw through that lie, right?
But that there are other ways for humans to tap into this library of knowledge I am sure.
Why are you sure of this? what specifically do you base your certainty on?
what library of knowledge do you speak of?
Dembski doesn't know what you mean.
Wells doesn't know what you mean.
Johnson doesn't know what you mean.
Behe doesn't know what you mean.
harun yahya doesn't know what you mean.
OK Rd, point us to half a dozen examples of:
"negative advertising and lobbying going on all the time, lobbying that is for the most part free, disguised, and thus more dangerous."
in the scientific literature. I note that your mission here seems to be to obfuscate and avoid answering any questions, such as mine about your knowledge of ID.
Finally, as I said, Darwin did it himself, mostly in his back garden. The ID'ers have nothing to compare, because ID is not science.
At that point, I believe one side will be more convincing than the others.
itmt, why don't you run along and let those of us who actually do something productive with our lives get on with it, eh?
Steven:
I wasn't going to reply, but the claim that a US soldier is property...
Ignorance is a disease. This much is enumerated in the Hebrew Bible, many times. Go over the verses about "fools" Steven and you'll see many parallels to yourself. Note the behavioral traits were well documented even then. That is truly the one thing the Bible does well: show that individuals are the same now as two thousand or more years ago.
And as for killing children, I suggest you take another look at Inuit practices, or African cultures, where children aren't often even named until they are a year old due to high mortality. Your statements point to a dual cultural prejudice and profound ignorance.
And, by the way: this statement of yours is a long version of an oxymoron:
"I do not regurgitate canned knowledge from a person who claims to know more about something than I. I am able to think for myself and research for myself."
If you don't regurgitate canned knowledge, how do you research? Did you, de novo, make up the English language? Are you able to create facts in researching them? Apparently so.
What, exactly, are you all so afraid of?
nothing, moron, that's the point.
it's not fear of productive ideas that science fears, indeed it embraces them. It's fear of having morons like yourself return science to the dark ages, and indoctrinate our kids with idiotic nonsense that is to be feared.
We asked those who feel they created the concept of ID to produce results that show how it better explains and predicts observable data than current theory does.
we got nothing, absolutely nothing, from them.
instead, we got constant lies, misinformation, and PR stunts.
no science whatsoever.
been waiting 15 years for the latest iteration; much longer if you stretch it back to Paley's day. eons Longer than that if you accept that the core of the idea is nothing more than creationism.
btw, was Judge Jones a "lefty"?
I'm still waiting for those predictions ID makes. I'll even let slide the evidence since evilutionists are too mean to let you do some research, somehow...
You won't find a better deal than that!
Come one RD, Steve? Anybody? Predictions? Method? Mechanisms? Anything?
Hot damn! Steven, RD, and Keith. Woo-hoo! Let's go get Neal and Sal and Larry and we'll have hit the creotard superfecta!
"negative advertising and lobbying going on all the time, lobbying that is for the most part free, disguised, and thus more dangerous."
this is an example of projection.
the PR stunts are all on the side of the Disinformation Institute, and has been repeatedly documented in near endless fashion.
people like RD don't want to conscious acknowledge that all the lies and misinformation and spin actually comes from their side, so the project it on to whoever they currently see as an opponent.
happens all the time. I have a database of over a thousand entries representing all the times I have documented exactly this pattern of projection (and the inevitable state of denial that follows).
there is a definite and recognizable psychology to this phenomenon.
they all react just like they were indoctrinated in cults.
not saying of course that ALL religious people react this way, but there is a very recognizable pattern with folks like Steven and RD.
Come one RD, Steve? Anybody? Predictions? Method? Mechanisms? Anything?
hey, you could give them a hint.
Dembski says he has a whole list of predictions these days.
...
Are you able to create facts in researching them? Apparently so.
don't be silly; it's all "divine inspiration" of course!
:P
Intelligent Design is not a science? Sure it is! Intelligent Design comes together with the Study of God. Just like Geology
is the study of this, and ology is a study of that, etc. We haven't come to the ends of all there is to know about any one particular subject, this is why we continue to study and observe and study some more. Every subject in the University is an ongoing process of adding new understanding and material. Even the theory of evolution claims to be learning more and more as time goes by. And in order to add new information to "other" information, then you must have that "other" inform there already. Otherwise you have no place to put it. Intelligent Design does the same thing. They take what they know and through observation and study and more of this and call it theology. Thats all nothing too weird. Now religion might be weird for some, and which religion is weirdest is another discussion all together, but when you look at how much of evolution isn't based on fact and how dogmatically those theories are being defended then you see the huge contrast.
Basically the two are theories- and both sides now it- and one is being shut up and another is being supported by everyones tax dollars- the real problem is censorship
I mean really think about it...if evolution is taken down to the level of theory and not presented as fact, then it still doesn't run the risk of being removed from the colleges...
why insist it is fact? people who say, because they live in a non absolutist world, that there is no fact, will fight this because some part of them thinks that evolution is based in fact or even in some,...sound pejorative actually
just let them be- if anything what you get is a more politically correct world
I did give them the hint, I didn't say anything!
Duh, dum, ching!
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.
A world that is designed does not rule out Brahma, Allah, Zeus or Odin.
the assumption of design de-facto can rule out NOTHING.
deities, aliens, time travel...
is it becoming clearer now?
Holy crap. This thread far and away surpasses the epic Susan Williams-feuled, record-holding thread from the old site, by almost five to one.
The FSM gets no respect.
Jay,
You said one thing of any interest there. It is that this
ID is theology. Thank you for finally admitting that.
Steven, you are an arrogant moron.
"Soft tissue" can fossilize, and there are numerous examples of soft tissue fossils. The problem is that soft tissue is less likely to fossilize than hard tissue, such as bone and shells.
And if by "human finger fossil," you mean Carl Baugh's fossil finger, do also realize that Carl Baugh has consistently refused to let anyone examine it for authenticity's sake.
Furthermore, please explain why "descent with modification because offspring are imperfect copies of their parents" requires more faith than believing that wombats, koalas and marsupial moles made it to Australia from Mount Ararat before lions, tigers and gazelles due to divine assistance.
If you think that my posts are arrogant, its a result of being told think and not being "allowed" to question it. That is arrogance personified.
You have neglected, either deliberately (which I highly suspect) or out of sheer ignorance, to mention that Dr. Baugh's fossilized finger was discredited by the scientific community under the premise that soft tissue cannot fossilize. Of course soft tissue can fossilize. At the time the finger was "discredited", scientists "thought" soft tissue could not fossilize. As for Dr. Baugh not permitting anyone to examine the finger for authenticity, this is also a deliberate lie.
It comes as no shock to me at the lengths an atheist scientist will go, to deliberately deceive the public. After all, not only is their reputation at stake, so is their job.
The funny thing about about all of this - are the assumptions made by those who think they have it all figured out - only to have evidence presented that contradicts their preconceived beliefs. If you are going to jump and say "hey that is what the christians are doing!" - you would be wrong again.
"You can all continue to kick Stevie around, but I hope you've at least noticed the pattern of whenever you actually ask him a question or try to pin him down on something, he just throws out more chaff (that is to say, BS) to try and distract."
That's because, as he says, he 'knows all the tricks'. Or at least, the one trick that every ID/creationist dickhead masters early on: changing the subject when they know they're licked.
Still waiting on those predictions, method, mechanisms.
Come on guys? Why so quite when asked to support ID, as opposed to erecting cringe worth attacks on evolution?
intelligent Design comes together with the Study of God
not according the the inventors and purveyors of it.
ID is NOT theology.
or do you not understand what theology is?
holy crap, Dembski et. al. must just shit their pants when they see "supporters" like yourself mangling their ideas (poor as they are).
btw, since we are on the subject of theology, many theology professors at various Universities no longer think their field has any meaning.
why do you suppose that is?
Have you ever heard of Hector Avalos?
http://www.philrs.iastate.edu/avalos.shtml
theology itself is doomed.
Many of the (public) perceptions about the Big Bang are wrong, in my experience:
Dude, you totally rawk! How the heck did you get tickets? My parents said "no" anyway. Yeah, I'd give my left nut to have seen Big Bang.
Steven, you still haven't defended yourself against the obvious fact that you are a liar.
care to show us how you aren't a liar yet?
"You can all continue to kick Stevie around, but I hope you've at least noticed the pattern of whenever you actually ask him a question or try to pin him down on something, he just throws out more chaff (that is to say, BS) to try and distract."
That's because, as he says, he 'knows all the tricks'. Or at least, the one trick that every ID/creationist dickhead masters early on: changing the subject when they know they're licked.
Exactly when have any of my questions gotten an honest answer?
And when I am responding to several posts it may appear I have changed the subject - scroll back and eat your words.
Opps, I mean quiet of course.
See? I just corrected a mistake. Take note Steven.
More of Steven's delusions:
Curiously, "divorce rates among conservative Christians [are] significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience".
How the heck did you get tickets?
LOL
he got them at the restaurant at the end of the universe.
Exactly when have any of my questions gotten an honest answer?
more lies.
*sigh*
your momma must be proud.
It comes as no shock to me at the lengths an atheist scientist will go, to deliberately deceive the public. After all, not only is their reputation at stake, so is their job.
have you ever actually examined the annual budget of the Disinformation Institute, liar Stevo?
compare the money spent on research (0%)
to the money spent on PR (40%)
now tell us again who's jobs depend on spinning their reputations.
LOL
It comes as no shock to me at the lengths an atheist scientist will go, to deliberately deceive the public. After all, not only is their reputation at stake, so is their job.
have you ever actually examined the annual budget of the Disinformation Institute, liar Stevo?
compare the money spent on research (0%)
to the money spent on PR (40%)
now tell us again who's jobs depend on spinning their reputations.
LOL
You actually believe that crap? And I am the one that is "delusional"?
My Goodness!!
0 dollars spent on research (lol)
Actually, divorce rates and school violence started going up right around the time that "Under God" was forcibly injected into The Pledge.
:-)
Steven seems to have misunderstood The Wedge Document. His consistency is remarkable. I agree, however, that if the stated goals are reached the results will be devastating.
You actually believe that crap? And I am the one that is "delusional"?
uh, the DI is a nonprofit, moron. their records are readily accessible.
do try to keep up.
oh, and when were you planning on showing us that you aren't a liar?
Actually, divorce rates and school violence started going up right around the time that "Under God" was forcibly injected into The Pledge.
:-)
Steven seems to have misunderstood The Wedge Document. His consistency is remarkable. I agree, however, that if the stated goals are reached the results will be devastating.
yep - not surprised at all at how history is a fleeting concept for those who study evolution.
Misunderstand one subject, and you misunderstand them all.
The divorce rate and school shootings went on the rise when prayer was taken out of schools.
Nice try - but try harder.
I believe that was another post of Steven's that failed to produce any predictions for ID.
Nor method of research, nor mechanisms by which ID operates.
Steven, have you given any support for your position? I've seen nothing other than your antipathy for evolution on display. Though, this is evidence for nothing.
So, where's the beef?
Actually, divorce rates and school violence started going up right around the time that "Under God" was forcibly injected into The Pledge.
:-)
Steven seems to have misunderstood The Wedge Document. His consistency is remarkable. I agree, however, that if the stated goals are reached the results will be devastating.
Uh wait - I see your point ... every time I say the word "God" I want to divorce my wife and go on a murderous rampage.
Ooops - no, that was a mistake (took a note to correct my mistakes) I actually feel that way when I am told that life was a coincidence, my ancestors were monkeys, there is no afterlife, my actions in life don't matter because there is no judgment in the afterlife, marriage is a sham and there is no God.
just wanted to clarify.
His consistency is remarkable.
you mean his inconsistency?
Misunderstand one subject, and you misunderstand them all.
says the one who is the perfect example of that statement. You know exactly as much about history, geology, and biology as you apparently do about anything else, sad a commentary as that is. You did graduate high school at least, right?
It's becoming more and more noticeable that you aren't even bothering to challenge the fact that you are a bald-faced liar.
c'mon, liar, show us how honest you are.
The divorce rate and school shootings went on the rise when prayer was taken out of schools.
LOL
yeah, show us those statistics, fool.
go ahead, we'll wait for you to make some up.
Uh wait - I see your point ... every time I say the word "God" I want to divorce my wife and go on a murderous rampage.
does your wife know you are a habitual liar?
I see you've all had quite a time repeating yourselves during my drive home. It's a shame I don't have the patience to address the same questions, reworded endlessly. For the time being -
#616: No, Judge Jones is a man that was bamboozled, quite forcibly, by the scientific left into mistaking the comments of a few misguided creationists as representative of a fledgling school of thought. He is only human, and was faced with quite the dog and pony show, from what I understand. I believe that many would find it difficult to find the truth within such a pile of disinformation.
#617: I too am waiting, but rest assured they are coming. All we need is the correct key, and the flood gates will undoubtedly fall open.
#624: What, exactly, do you feel you have proven by listing a few more things that ID has nothing to do with?#631: Here, I must agree. ID is not theology. It is science.
Hey, Steven, where in evolutionary biology does it say that:
"life was a coincidence, my ancestors were monkeys, there is no afterlife, my actions in life don't matter because there is no judgment in the afterlife, marriage is a sham and there is no God."
EVERYONE STOP!
We are apparently dealing with a very unbalanced person here. Unlike, well, any of the rest of us (i.e., people with ethics), Steven is tempted to go on a "murderous rampage" if any of his delusions are attacked. I suggest we all slowly back away...
No, Judge Jones is a man that was bamboozled, quite forcibly, by the scientific left
those are serious charges. funny that Jones has never said such in any of his speeches after the trial.
in fact, he often made note of the fact that the defendants in the trial often were caught in lies.
so who was doing the "bamboozling" again, hmmm?
did you even bother to read any of the transcript?
it's available from several sources, if you would like a link.
there is nothing to hide for our side there.
unfortunately, for your side, the defendants were proven to be liars and to have broken the law.
oops.
RD welcome back! You're just in time to provide us with predictions ID makes. And while you're at it please add its method of study and the mechanism by which it operates.
Steven, seems unable to produce this. I was hoping you could clarify? Being that ID is science and all. Not theology.
Steven, predictably, missed my point entirely.
Hey! Maybe ID does have predictive power!
I remind you RD, you cannot call something a science, when you're still waiting on the science.
So either provide predictions, or recall the claim to science.
I too am waiting, but rest assured they are coming. All we need is the correct key, and the flood gates will undoubtedly fall open.
but Dembski has already made several predictions, haven't you been following along?
or are you just constructing your conception of ID in your own mind?
uh huh.
I would suggest you at least learn the basics of your own pet conceptualization before you decide to prognosticate.
you idiots know just as much about ID as you do about the ToE, which is to say, precious little.
Steven, I'm going to assume you (and others who think as you do) are correct: any philosophical, social or theological movements whose members/follower/believers are shown to be evil demonstrate that the movement itself is evil. If Hilter was an atheist/darwinist, than atheism and darwinism are inherently evil. So, by this logic if we can find a single instance of a Christian acting evil we can conclude the inherent evil of Christianity. No?
You might argue that people can call themselves Christians but act in some way other than what the tenets of Christianity specify, making their actions the result of personal flaws and not flaws of their declared religion. You might also argue that the actions of individuals within a given religion do not reflect the entirety of the followers of that religion. I would agree with both. Which is why you're bat shit crazy if you equate atheism/darwinism to the actions of an individual, or political movement. While some people are motivated entirely by belief in one faith or another, most people are more complicated and act on a series of motivations. While Robert E. Lee might have thought, based on religious morality (I'm not convinced), that slavery was evil, he obviously did not think economically and/or socially that this was a compelling enough reason to abandon slavery.
History does not take place in a religious vacuum. There are thousands of reason we war, kill, heal, love, and make art, many of them having nothing to do with biblical faith (see cave art). You expose nothing but short-sighted self-imposed ignorance in most of what you write. I would go so far as to say, that many who share your delusions show signs that your thoughts are not intelligently designed.
What, exactly, do you feel you have proven by listing a few more things that ID has nothing to do with?
how do you know? Dembski and Johnson have not ruled out anything.
How do you know aliens or Zuess or time traveling humans aren't responsible for perceived design?
maybe you better tell Behe et. al. how you figured it out right away!
LOL
Here let me show you how easy this is guys.
I predict that neither of you will provide predictions. This will test my hypothesis that neither of you have any support for your claims to ID being a science.
And now we'll run our test.
maybe now would be the appropriate time to mention that in the book of Exodus it states the number of "biblical" years Israel would be without a homeland.
In all fairness and accuracy, it wasn't a prediction. A prediction is a "guess".
That's right, read it, do the math according to the "biblical" year, and the end result is the year 1948.
So much for disinformation.
maybe now would be the appropriate time to mention that in the book of Exodus it states the number of "biblical" years Israel would be without a homeland.
hey, did you know that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that a tribe of israelites ever wandered the desert?
that the writings the book of Exodus are based on aren't nearly as old as they tell you?
btw, does your wife know you are a habitual liar?
that there is no archeological evidence to support that anything IN exodus ever happened?
bet they forgot to tell you that in high school, eh?
yep - not surprised at all at how history is a fleeting concept for those who study evolution.
Quite a statement from someone who claims the 16th century Dutch and Portugese weren't Christians. I'm still waiting for some evidence on that, Steven. But don't worry, I'm not holding my breath for it.
LMAO. A prediction is not a guess. Steven, go back to whatever "university" you went to, and demand your money back.
Whoa... 1948? Very interesting!
Please show your work.
This is one very long thread, I've only read the beginning and very end, but I want to post something anyway:
Steven #645 wrote:
How very odd -- do you really think that people who don't want to hurt other people even IF there is no God will somehow be impressed with the character of someone who says they do? That's like saying "I'd happily steal money if the security camera wasn't on" and then jeering at people who don't think there's a security camera, and still don't steal, because that makes them immoral.
For the record, our actions in this life matter to others, with or without an afterlife. Our marriage matters to our spouse, with or without God. If other people really don't matter to you at all -- why do you pick God over Satan, when you think you have a choice?
The first choice is always love over hate -- regardless then of evolution OR creationism, atheism OR Christianity, God OR no-God. You're getting it backwards.
Forgive me Steven if I'm a little confused. That wasn't a prediction for ID right?
As I understand RD to have put it:
So I don't think a christian bible verse will work. Otherwise, we'd be right back into that whole theology morass again. And of course you don't want that.
So, what are ID's real predictions? As in what are ID's predictions based upon its proposed hypothesis?
Actually, Steven, Carl Baugh's "fossil finger" was discredited because it does not look like a human finger: it looked more like a plug made from the hole of a pistol shrimp.
Furthermore, you have conveniently neglected to explain why "descent with modification occurs because offspring are imperfect copies of their parents" requires more faith than believing that wombats, koalas and marsupial moles made it to Australia from Mount Ararat before lions, tigers and gazelles due to divine assistance.
RD, please demonstrate this.
Is the existence of God a science theory?
Why -- or why not?
Hey, yeah! I come in late and get the magic number! Neener neener...
Sastra,
That just proves you're evil and we shouldn't listen to you.
:P
The divorce rate and school shootings went on the rise when prayer was taken out of schools.
Nice try - but try harder.
OK, I'm a sociologist...that means I study society. Steven, where are divorce rates the highest in this country? In places that are the most conservatively religious.
Your analytical skills are nonexistent.
Actually, Steven, Carl Baugh's "fossil finger" was discredited because it does not look like a human finger: it looked more like a plug made from the hole of a pistol shrimp.
Furthermore, you have conveniently neglected to explain why "descent with modification occurs because offspring are imperfect copies of their parents" requires more faith than believing that wombats, koalas and marsupial moles made it to Australia from Mount Ararat before lions, tigers and gazelles due to divine assistance.
I am not hesistant to say that you are promulgating deliberate lies. Because you even know of Dr. Braugh, I can say you would also know of the medical examination of this finger. It was proven to be a human finger and NOT a (enter atheist scientist discrediting label here).
As for the deluge - yeah, I can certainly delve into that topic. But first, lets try to use our God given brains. This may seem like a trite question at first, but it has its implications. How many breeds of dogs were there 500 years ago?
Actually it all started when Ronald Reagan became a member of the Republican Party. It's been all downhill since then.
Well, damn. I've got a fundraiser to go to here in a few minutes and I still haven't gotten even the slightest inkling of a thought in the dream of an answer.
But no matter, at this fundraiser you see, we'll be gathering money to make this movie that calls ID into question about why it won't let us poor, attacked evolutionists do any science, that way the audience will miss the fact that we really don't want to do science at all, because this whole thing is driven from our ideological roots.
I hope no one beats us to the idea....
It was proven to be a human finger
reference, liar?
or was that too in one of your lost textbooks?
how do you keep all your lies straight?
oh wait, you don't even bother, do you.
proceed.
How many breeds of dogs were there 500 years ago?
something tells me you haven't the slightest clue as to the actual answer to your own question, but go ahead, lie for us again.
But first, lets try to use our God given brains
an unreasonable assumption on the face of it.
you should try returning yours if you actually believe that.
The divorce rate and school shootings went on the rise when prayer was taken out of schools.
Nice try - but try harder.
OK, I'm a sociologist...that means I study society. Steven, where are divorce rates the highest in this country? In places that are the most conservatively religious.
Your analytical skills are nonexistent.
I am sure that being a self proclaimed expert gives you a semblance of authority.
Your failing to see a fallacy in your argument, or your trying to implicate the ills of society on christians. Where is your evidence? Much better question is - where is the proof?
I have evidence that Hitler was a Darwinist and an Atheist.
He's not lying for us. He's lying for Jesus, which makes it ok.
It was proven to be a human finger
reference, liar?
or was that too in one of your lost textbooks?
how do you keep all your lies straight?
oh wait, you don't even bother, do you.
proceed.
How many breeds of dogs were there 500 years ago?
something tells me you haven't the slightest clue as to the actual answer to your own question, but go ahead, lie for us again.
Its funny how you don't even look this stuff up for yourself. Shooting from the hip?
Oh wait ... I've been holding your hand every step of the way - go look it up little boy.
And just for the record Steven:
YOU HAVE NO PREDICTIONS BECAUSE YOU DON'T DO SCIENCE.
You have what we call, propaganda. Religiously inspired propaganda no less.
I'll also remind you, that my hypothesis @658, now has more evidence than yours does.
He's not lying for us. He's lying for Jesus, which makes it ok.
well, ok then.
I have evidence that Hitler was a Darwinist and an Atheist.
go ahead, but you better damn well be providing evidence from things Hitler himself said or wrote, and not things made up by Weikart, which, btw, you've still never read.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/finger.htm
So, where is the independent verification, Steven?
"I have evidence that Hitler was a Darwinist and an Atheist."
Yet you have yet to actually post it here or provide a link.
Here ya go Steven.
Look which state has the lowest rates...yup, Massachusetts.
Nevada is the outlier, because it has minimal residency requirements. But, it's conservative southerners that really seem to like divorce.
Then again, you got nothing, Steven. Nothing.
Its funny how you don't even look this stuff up for yourself. Shooting from the hip?
no, that's your job.
proceed.
after you have shot yourself in the foot for the dozenth time, then I can laugh for the dozenth time.
does your wife know you are a habitual liar?
"Look which state has the lowest rates...yup, Massachusetts."
But that CAN'T be right! They're the ones trying to DESTROY it by letting gays get married!
I am sure that being a self proclaimed expert gives you a semblance of authority.
just as we are sure that being a complete moron will cause you to lie and make shit up as you go along.
tell me, does your wife let you diagnose medical conditions for her, too?
ok ok stop your whining little boy .....
Dale H. Peterson, M.D.
1050 E. 2nd, # 242
Edmond, OK 73034
Phone 405-340-8836
dpeterson1@mmcable.com
Fax 405-348-9564
give him a call about his medical examination of Dr. Carl Braugh's fossilized finger.
There you go crybaby.
Wow... The only thing that could make the ass kicking Stevo and this RD clown have been handed in this thread better at this point would be for the Truth Machine to show up and finish them off.
It appears that Steven has taken the Ronald Reagan approach to knowledge:
"Facts are stupid things."
this is fun ..... :)
watching so called experts trip up on their own lies. I have noticed no "real" documentation regarding any evidence in concerns to christians causing the divorce rate to go up. Because there isn't any.
Oh my ... go figure.
so one guy who says he examined the finger says it's human, and dozens of others who examined it as well don't.
hmm.
ever hear the term: cherry picking?
no wonder you idiots fall for ID.
watching so called experts trip up on their own lies.
oops, catch us in a lie, there, liar.
after all, since you lie so demonstrably often (and you have yet to deny it), you should be expert in catching others at lies, right.
so, point them out for us, like I pointed out just one of your lies in #497, referring to the lie you told in #377.
you reek of desperation, idiot boy.
My quote:
I provided data demonstrating that the states with the highest rates tend to be in the South, which also tend to be more religiously conservative populations. Steven, rewrites the issue as "Christians and divorce."
In other words, I addressed the issue and he moved the goalpost. Shock of shocks!
Shock of shocks!
heh, i wonder what he would conclude if he took a gander at the old AFDave threads on PT and Dawkins.net?
would he recognize himself, I wonder?
I'm betting not, even as obvious as it is.
what the hell...
hey Stevo-
check this guy out, and see if you recognize a kindred spirit...
http://truthmatters.info/afdaves-creator-god-hypothesis/
Those divorce rates are given in divorces per 1,000 population. I would be interested to know whether the marriage rate similarly correlates. After all, you can't have a divorce without a marriage, right?
Predctably (there's that word again!) Steven seems to be showing no awareness or grasp of the difference between correlation and causation. What a lazy thinker. Lazy, lazy, lazy. He's even lazier than I am!
so one guy who says he examined the finger says it's human, and dozens of others who examined it as well don't.
hmm.
ever hear the term: cherry picking?
no wonder you idiots fall for ID.
Why don't we move the goal post a little further ....
list the so called dozens of "others" that examined this finger :)
LOL
You are so full of BS its making me retch.
generally, it's an issue of marriage age. In those areas with higher divorce rates, people tend to marry younger (and they tend to be poorer). It just so happens that in more conservative areas people tend to marry younger, and to divorce more.
Then again, I actually study things. Unlike Steven, who just pulls shit out of his ass and flings it in every direction possible.
It's actually rather pathetic to watch him flail about, demonstrating his ignorance and lack of intellectual ability for everyone to see. I'd be embarrassed for him if he weren't such an asshole.
Did you get that from here, Stevo:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/fossilized-human-finger.htm
I am afraid that you are going to have to do better than that. I can find little else on the internet about the supposed Dr Peterson. Is this what constitutes evidence, to you?
That explains why you believe as you do, though it is not exactly surprising at this point.
And, it seems that Dale Peterson is often used to verify these sorts of "finds" for Carl Baugh. From a 1996 NBC broadcast entitled The Mysterious Origins of Man.:
Do anyone else smell something?
it seems to be a trend to make predetermined assumptions about something within this corner of the scientific community over something that hasn't even been personally "seen".
Shock of shocks?
This whole blog was set up to ridicule a movie before its even been released.
If that isn't transparent enough, I don't know what is.
hey liar stevo:
tell me where this came from.
ah, making fun of the credulous.
smells like napalm in the morning.
it seems to be a trend to make predetermined assumptions about something within this corner of the scientific community over something that hasn't even been personally "seen".
like making conclusions from books you have never read, right liar stevo?
pathetic.
did you check out AFDave's site?
see anything familiar?
This whole blog was set up to ridicule a movie before its even been released.
If that isn't transparent enough, I don't know what is.
Umm. no. This blog existed long before "Expelled" was ever conceived. This POST ridicules the liars who made it, but the blog is years old.
It is rather interesting to plumb the depths of Teh Stoopid.
If that isn't transparent enough, I don't know what is.
we could fill an entire forum with what you don't know.
oh, wait...
...btw, in case you hadn't actually noticed (no surprise), perhaps you should re-read the actual entry that started this thread.
is it about the movie Expelled?
it isn't, is it.
oops.
where are those preconceptions coming from again?
Steven wrote:
Then he wrote:
Uh-huh.
I have noticed no evidence whatsoever showing that the rise in divorce rates, the increase in school shootings, or the demise of academic freedom - the last of which is itself undemonstrated, let alone shown to be the result of anything at all - are attributable to the teaching of evolution.
That is your claim. Back it up, Steven.
BACK. IT. UP.
Of course, Steven will not, or perhaps cannot, admit the obvious inconsistency, rank hypocricy, and intellectual dishonesty exhibited by this small sample of what his lazy, lazy mind produces.
OR WILL HE? Surprise us all, Steven! Take the high road! Strike a blow, against all odds, for honesty!
"Finally"...this is a well known belief held by many serious thinkers of both sides. Evolutionist can very well admit that ID is a theory- instead they say it is a doctrine
if you go back and understand what these words really means and you'll see that there is a difference between these understandings
Creationist (whatever- gap, young, or old earth) say it is a theory among the other theories that there must be an ID'er- its only one theory among the another when looking at the world we all live in. doctrine however will discuss the moral aspect of those implications. and belief goes beyond either one of them- believe is not (like wishful thinking)a word that means 'someone' must believe, it is the actual belief that is held without apology, like someone who says my name is Mike or whatever
Of course you are going to have some believe the ID at each level of belief- so what? It doesn't mean that its not just theory (study of...design). They aren't saying lets study God. they are saying lets study design? Who really doesn't study design or at least have to address it in anything they do? when you say their is structure you say it was designed- so what? this is rather silly to deny- so why the heartache - I mean what is the real danger?
is the danger that Christianity will make a come back and become a superpower and imperialist- or is it already that?
I think we are really speaking out both sides of our mouth if we cry for freedom of speech and then want to shut others up-- this stuff is all in th mind anyway
what would really be a "finally" matter is when the evolutionist 'finally' see that this is all that most theologians are saying
of course you have some religious folk (of all religions) that say their personal account is correct on how creation all started and forms, and each are dogmatic in their own way, so what? Is the question really the "religion" or that they have a belief that they hold dogmatically? If its the belief that is not liked then so what too? but why care to censor that- after all serious evolutions have already admitted that they only have a theory too, and some will dogmatically saying that its more then that....
what are the root words of theory- whats the word come from?
check it out and understand that theology in the colleges ranked first among the sciences- they aren't asking for it to find its way back to the top-- get real- we need to really understand the argument
Both theories raises serious questions for both sides- for some it reinforces their beliefs and for others it causes then to abandon their belief....would you rather everyone abandon all beliefs and except only one? if not, then which beliefs are ok to have? and who is going to decide which ones are ok? will it be majority? or will majority have to be accommodated to the minority opinion
someone might say evolutionist are being accommodated because they are the minority- if this were so wouldn't you agree it was good to live in a place where it was made possible? This is the real question? the deal is not that evolution be destroyed like some spooky bedtime story of "Burn the books" and "God almighty, burn the books"
shorter Jay: I got nothing.
i've never heard such rambling BS.
shorter Jay:
"Can't we all just get along?"
no.
Who really doesn't study design or at least have to address it in anything they do? when you say their is structure you say it was designed- so what? this is rather silly to deny- so why the heartache - I mean what is the real danger?
your mistake is in thinking there really IS design, instead of the mere perception of it. nobody actually researches "design" because because there really isn't any. When you see the word "design" in an actual publication, it is ALWAYS referring to either a human design, or the perception of a design (as in: that structure appears designed to do the following...). NOT ACTUAL DESIGN. This is exactly why there IS no "design research", as readily admitted by the supporters of the concept of Intelligent Design to begin with.
get it?
and i didn't need a thousand plus words to express why you are wrong, go figure.
as to the etymology and usage of the term "theory", suggest you actually learn wtf you are talking about before spouting off like yet another ignorant moron:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
"Indeed. And while he's busy searching (har) for that citation, let me offer one of my own:
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." "
Wow, that's almost word for word what Tim McVeigh said while in prison awaiting execution.
Embrace the designedness!
Hmmm, on top of that, I don't think theology and theory do have the same Greek root, appearances to the contrary...
Ichthyic: You are right it is doomed but you don't hear the tone you say this in. And if you do then you are just as totalitarian as those you'd laugh at for being religious
this is what the ID'ers are pointing out! and for the sake of freedom of speech I am hoping the film EXPELLED awakens the minds of people to the fact that there are those who believe this theory so dogmatically that they feel they are actually getting back at religion for years of suppression- they believe that the tables have already turned on the religious
just know that theology is very much alive and that religious people aren't on the run- they are only addressing one of the few areas that need attention
don't worry you have the ACLU working busy for you- I think thats a pretty fair trade- we are keeping each other busy
I will admit that I haven't read all the above comments, but on the topic of
One of his campaign promises (he was vying for presidency of the confederacy) was to abolish slavery in the south.
I am surprised nobody found the proper source to back up this claim, after all that arguing. In Guns of the South, by Harry Turtledove, Lee runs for president of the confederacy after they win the war thanks to the AK-47s brought by time-travellers from South Africa hoping to establish a racist utopia. The Afrikaners are so surprised when Lee turns out to favor abolition!
Sheesh, can't you all find a simple historical reference like this?
Meh. Ichthyic beat me to it. (No surprise there!)
check it out and understand that theology in the colleges ranked first among the sciences-
actually, theology within many universities is being relegated to the dustbins.
if you don't know why, suggest you actually visit a major university with a theology dept., and speak with someone conversant in the field.
or, you could read the book of one of the leading theologists in the country:
http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?id=4005518247825&pid=1591025362
appropriately titled:
The End of Biblical Studies.
It may not be a logical fallacy by literal definition, but in rhetoric it is simply a distractionary tactic that proves nothing. Nearly any concept can be stated in a way that makes it sounds absurd. Evolution is certainly no exception to this.
I suggest you stop using phrases and concepts you don't understand. Reductio ad Absurdum is a valid argument. It is not, as you seem to believe, misstating others views in an absurd manner.
I'm a bit late I realize, but better late than never.
this is what the ID'ers are pointing out!
where?
show me.
the producers of Expelled are not IDers.
show me where someone who actually puports to be involved in the conception of Intelligent Design says they are concerned about the demise of theology as a field of study.
put up or shut up.
@#714:
ROFLMAO!
that's it! you nailed it.
and for the sake of freedom of speech I am hoping the film EXPELLED awakens the minds of people to the fact that there are those who believe this theory so dogmatically that they feel they are actually getting back at religion for years of suppression- they believe that the tables have already turned on the religious
it's hardly an issue of freedom of speech when someone can make a fucking movie detailing their own conceptualizations now, is it?
exactly how are the producers of expelled, or yourself, or Steven, or Behe, or Dembski being silenced, exactly?
just because what you say has nothing whatsoever to do with legitimate science, and we don't want our kids taught utter nonsense, that has nothing to do with free speech.
stop lying, to others and to yourself.
Meh. Ichthyic beat me to it. (No surprise there!)
sorry;
I'm almost burned out on this one.
10 more minutes and I'm done.
c'moooonnnn stevo!
say one last, stupid thing for me.
don't worry you have the ACLU working busy for you-
newsflash:
the ACLU works hard for YOU, too.
you might actually want to look at the court cases they have supported sometime.
even they recognize this is not an issue of free speech.
Guns of the South does prove, however, that the Afrikaaners - who are, after all, nothing more than microevolved Dutch - aren't Christians. This irrefutable fact drops the blame for slavery right back in the laps of... dang, who was it again? The Scientists? Or was it Elvis?
I never was very good at History.
you might want to cut the ACLU a check sometime, or at least some slack:
http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html
Ichthyic: real classy there youz
you can look back<<<<<, like back in the history at a time when theology was not only ranked as the first science of universities but it was the foundation it was built on
so what though- its not on top any more-- is that better--- do you want it gone all together? if so then you are among your peers here at this site who are deciding to not understand the argument, hold your opinion (which is perfectly legal and tolerable), and some who think its fun to badger
I am not taunting you- in fact I'm not even defending myself or anyone religion- and so because I have nothing to prove here in words I am going to spend my time elsewhere-- I'm gonna go find another way to stay busy--I don't however anticipate I will purposely try to keep you busy-- its just the nature of having different views, what can I say?
good luck here
"The divorce rate and school shootings went on the rise when prayer was taken out of schools."
It's both fascinating and mystifying how so many far right fundies appear to believe that America is the world.
So, Steve, why aren't school shootings epidemic in the Czech Republic and Estonia, the two countries with the highest percentage of atheists?
How come the divorce rate here in Australia (where there's no prayer in school ) is lower than in the US?
Whoooo what the heck? This site just edited my last post! what a sham!!!!!!
tsss...
so what though- its not on top any more-- is that better--- do you want it gone all together?
no, there are many talented philosophers and sociologists involved in theology departments.
their talents would be missed if they didn't use them in departments better suited to their actual pursuit.
I personally know at least 2 people with theology degrees that would get excellent placement in a dept. of philosophy.
Whoooo what the heck? This site just edited my last post! what a sham!!!!!!
What are you babbling about now? did the post not show up? Sometimes that happens (I've had it happen here). did it change words?
Or, did god do it ....whoooooooooo
"Uh wait - I see your point ... every time I say the word "God" I want to divorce my wife and go on a murderous rampage.
Ooops - no, that was a mistake (took a note to correct my mistakes) I actually feel that way when I am told that life was a coincidence, my ancestors were monkeys, there is no afterlife, my actions in life don't matter because there is no judgment in the afterlife, marriage is a sham and there is no God.
just wanted to clarify. "
While we're clarifying, are you aware that the overwhelming majority of Christians world-wide accept the theory of theistic evolution?
In other words, they believe that evolution was the mechanism through which God created man.
I had a conversation once with a geologist who was a Scots Prsbyterian, he was an outspoken critic of Young Earth Creation ism precisely because of the Biblical injunction to "speak the truth to all men in all things".
Even if your "I don't want it to be true so its false" argument wasn't logically invalid, it's based on a false premise.
Whoooo what the heck? This site just edited my last post! what a sham!!!!!!
yes, it's such a sham you can write about it being a sham and not have your post touched.
ever thought there might be another reason other than "conspiracy" to explain why part or all of a previous post didn't show up?
incorrect tags maybe?
also, all posts containing more than 2 links are automatically held for approval.
past that, couldn't tell you. it's not like there is a language filter round these here parts.
but, leave it to morons like yourself to jump to the conclusion that it's all a conspiracy to silence you.
LOL
Steven is correct that chattel slavery was illegal in the first decade after Georgia was founded. that's it. Georgia was founded as a military buffer zone between Spanish Florida and British Carolina. Georgia's founder General Oglethorpe believed that slavery in Georgia would pose a security risk (a group of people the Spaniards could tap into should they invade Georgia) and that slave and indentured labor (restricted in Oglethorpe's Georgia) would invalidate his plan to make Georgia a haven for debtors. This never lasted. Georgia adopted slavery after the crown assumed control of Georgia in the 1730s b/c Oglethorpe's plan was not paying off.
Robert E. Lee came to oppose slavery on economic grounds, similar to George Washington's actually, but he did indeed own slaves. And he was not an abolitionist, he thought abolition on a large scale was a bad thing. He opposed a plan, repeatedly, to recruit blacks into the Confederate army b/c it would undermine the CSA's ideology. In March 1865 the Confederacy was in such bad shape Davis overruled Lee and demanded the army recruit blacks. Too little too late. This business about Lee running for president, WTF?
Oh, and the Nazis rejected the Theory of Evolution b/c it meant they shared common ancestry with the untermenschen (Jews, like me).
whoooo yea maybe God did it - why didn't I think of that- man you must be more spiritual then I am- do you have any books I can read?
alright guys you have fun now I'm outta here-- see ya at the theaters
and yea it edited my last message- part of it showed up though- whatever no biggy- it wasn't going to change your guyses minds anyway....
bit this site is a sham for doing that (humm I wonder if this one will go through....
if so then you are among your peers here at this site who are deciding to not understand the argument
when you get around to posting an argument, I can figure out if I am deciding to not understand it.
I'm outta here-
we'll miss you.
make sure to take you meds before going out.
Nice going ultimate dickhead liberal jackoffs........NOTHING you have posited here has any sense to it whatsoever. NOTHING. FUCKTARDS know-nothing-asswipes. BWAHHHHH HAHAHAHHAHAHHA
I waited and waited for Ichthyic to grasp the concept that Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist - apparently he/she cannot understand basic grammar.
So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained.
General Robert E. Lee, May 1, 1870
700: "This whole blog was set up to ridicule a movie before its even been released."
Yeah, the really hard bit was to travel back in time to several years before Expelled was ever announced and write thousands of entries totally unrelated to Expelled to disguise this fact.
I have evidence that Hitler was a Darwinist and an Atheist.
Oh, so you have evidence that a guy who thought that some groups of humans were inferior to others also believed that all of those groups descended from a common ancestor? Were the Jewish apes considered above or below the gypsy apes in his speeches and writings?
Sorry Steven, but it really does sound like you, RD, and perhaps Jay are some of those fake Christians that Charles Barclay warned us about. The comments about "the left" and liberals kind of gave it away. Turn off the Fox News and the hate radio people, they are just trying to sell you books and get advertising revenue by keeping their ratings high with stuff that is definitely scripted. Remember that Fox is the main stream media. The come off sounding like ranting lunatics from the fringe but they aren't. Just like with the DI, all you are to them is money. They will say anything to their loyal followers to keep it flowing.
Oh, and Steven, please use html. You really should be using something to set the quotes apart from your replies.
I often asked, if slavery was the issue of the American Civil war -
Why was Robert E. Lee vigorously aoopposed to slavery? Why didn't he own slaves?
Why did many Union Generals own slaves?
Jay, some of your text was probably swallowed by bad HTML tags. It happens. If you think "the site" is censoring you, you're mistaken. The filters never silently swallow text. Ever. If you didn't get a moderation notice, or some other notice from the site suggesting that it objected to what you were trying to post (the spam filters do weird things sometimes, especially inside hyperlink tags) then it was almost certainly your error. I know this from bitter first-hand experience. :-)
STFU MENA ya dumbass Dr. Goebbels would be proud of you ZEIG HEIL (Nazi= socialist) get used to it moron--perhaps the pot or such has gotten to your critical thinking nodes.
I have evidence that Hitler was a Darwinist and an Atheist.
Oh, so you have evidence that a guy who thought that some groups of humans were inferior to others also believed that all of those groups descended from a common ancestor? Were the Jewish apes considered above or below the gypsy apes in his speeches and writings?
Sorry Steven, but it really does sound like you, RD, and perhaps Jay are some of those fake Christians that Charles Barclay warned us about. The comments about "the left" and liberals kind of gave it away. Turn off the Fox News and the hate radio people, they are just trying to sell you books and get advertising revenue by keeping their ratings high with stuff that is definitely scripted. Remember that Fox is the main stream media. The come off sounding like ranting lunatics from the fringe but they aren't. Just like with the DI, all you are to them is money. They will say anything to their loyal followers to keep it flowing.
Oh, and Steven, please use html. You really should be using something to set the quotes apart from your replies.
I don't use html tags because I am lazy and arrogant.
Why don't you explain, in your own words, how eugenics fits into the third reich's "master race" ideology? How does eugenics fit into Darwin's natural selection theory?
Hmmmmmmm ..... Darwin wasn't all about apes you know (but you knew that).
Antidickhead, you really need to get a new hobby. Comments like that don't get anyone mad, we usually just skip over them, like I did with your previous one and most of this one. Yaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnn.........
How does eugenics fit into Darwin's natural selection theory?
It doesn't.
Why was Robert E. Lee vigorously aoopposed[sic] to slavery?
he wasn't.
Why didn't he own slaves?
he did. this was pointed out several times to you.
guess you missed that part in your continuing delerium.
Why don't you explain, in your own words, how eugenics fits into the third reich's "master race" ideology? How does eugenics fit into Darwin's natural selection theory?
um, weren't you the one bragging about your evidence?
having fun lying yet?
Thanks MAJeff. I only popped in for a second and it looks like I struck a nerve. Sorry, I never stick around with these long threads and I'm not going to make an exception for this one. It's supper time. Toodles, Steven. I never called you arrogant and/or lazy. You need to develop some thicker skin.
ADHD has been heard from.
Steven, Lee did own slaves. Though you refuse to see, it has already been demonstrated that Lee, by his own words in a passage you yourself cited, was not an abolitionist. The fact that he was sympathetic to the plight of the slaves, and was more than glad in retrospect to see the era of slavery in America come to an end (with the exception of illegal immigrants and members of the Armed Forces, of course) does not make him an abolitionist. He believed that slavery would end in God's good time, and that man's interference in that process should be minimal.
By the way, I'm still waiting on the evidence showing that rising divorce rates, an increase in school violence, and the demise of academic freedom are the sad result of the teaching of the theory of evolution.
The idea of selective breeding is as old as agriculture. The same ideas applied to people were the ideas of aristocracy. The Nazis thought Germans were a naturally aristocratic race, it had nothing to do with Darwin.
Yes, Steven, you ARE lazy and arrogant. That's the first honest thing you've said. Good on you, dude! I knew you had it in you! *beams*
But just in case you're being timid, and simply don't know how to blockquote but are afraid to admit it and ask for help:
<blockquote>text to indent</blockquote>
The blockquote tag has its limitations, though. Hard carriage-returns have a way of terminating the block, and anything following the CR will appear unindented. I've had pretty good results with using the <p> tag in place of a CR within a blockquote.
So this:
<blockquote>text to indent<p>more text to indent after a newline</blockquote>
winds up looking like this:
Also:
If you actually look at photographs of Baugh's "finger", it's obvious that it is no such thing. It is a cylindrical piece of stone with an internal structure that does not correspond to any details of human anatomy. It's a rock, nothing more.
Now you're reminding me of Ed Conrad.
Does anyone else here notice how Steven has conveniently neglected to explain why "descent with modification" requires more faith to accept than the idea that marsupial moles, wombats and koalas were able to make it to eastern Australia from Mount Ararat before lions, tigers and gazelles?
Now you're reminding me of Ed Conrad.
Actually that was my first thought too because he also used another name, didn't he? Ted something perhaps? It wasn't Baugh though.
Again, it doesn't. Natural selection is the idea that a trait that is advantageous under one circumstance may not be in another, or may not continue to be an advantage if the environment changes.
For example, think about polar bears, white fur, and shrinking polar ice caps. Hypothetically, were they to migrate to areas without snow and survive, we would probably expect to see a change in their fur color. That's just a quick example, but it doens't say anything about the "value" of white fur over other potential colors, except that white fur works for them now and so is selected for. It may not always, though.
Eugenics, on the other hand, is a discriminatory practice against certain socially undesirable individuals for largely prejudiced reasons. It has nothing to do with genetic advantage, which often can't even be detected by looking at someone. Some of those undesirable traits might even be related to other unknown desirable traits.
Further, attempts to homogenize the gene pool are exactly what you don't want to do. In general, lots of genetic variability is a good thing and is the very reason why having babies with close relatives is generally frowned upon. Although most eugenics practices would probably not have any real affect on the human population as a whole, the fact that in principle it goes against what we know about the usefulness of large gene pool should tell you something. Namely, eugenics has nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with regular human failings and prejudice.
Incredible. 753 posts, much of them in dueling with the weird private universe of someone who thinks that Darwin (who of course opposed slavery) is somehow responsible for the fall of the Confederacy. Darwin was no more a racist than Abraham Lincoln, whose birthday he shares. And what in the name of Dixie does Robert E. Lee's private views on God have to do with evolution?
Like I said, weird.
Doesn't matter MENA you are an asshole anyway that's all I need to know.....jackoff
If one has access to journals online (sorry if you don't!), you may find the following article interesting. I'll post the reference and abstract.
Kruger, J. and D. Dunning
1999Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77(6):1121-1134.
Abstract:
"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of the participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities."
Not that it's relevant to our creationist friends...
Oh god, I can't believe I ate the whole thing.
What an amusing thread.
Ichthyic, you are absolutely killing me! :D
This thread has run long enough to call the competition to a close. Although a number of posters have made admirable efforts to displace him, PZ Myers remains The Most Insufferable Ass in the Blogosphere.
Steven,
"I have seen exactly the opposite happen as a result of teaching evolution. Divorce rate has gone up. More school shootings. Academic freedom no longer exists."
This is faulty logic. A study done years ago considering ice cream and violence made the same mistake. They found a correlation between the two during summer. Violence increased during summer time. Ice cream consumption also increased during summer time.
What they failed to recognize is that it is just a correlation. Correlations do not imply causality. There are a multitude of reasons for why divorce rates skyrocketed initially--a lot of women (and men) were in unhappy relationships. When it became more socially acceptable, they divorced instead of staying in an unfulfilling relationship. Recent data clearly show that divorce rates have in fact been falling. Here is a link to a graph showing as much:
divorce rates through 2000
"The divorce rate and school shootings went on the rise when prayer was taken out of schools."
This also suffers from correlational fallacy. Again, correlation does not imply causality. Learn statistics. Please.
"Exactly when have any of my questions gotten an honest answer?"
Many times. You cannot fault other people when you choose to ignore what they are saying. It's a bias. Look it up.
"It comes as no shock to me at the lengths an atheist scientist will go, to deliberately deceive the public. After all, not only is their reputation at stake, so is their job."
Not all scientists are atheists. Moreover, science does not seek to misinform the public. Science is a method for discovering the truth. The basastronomer wrote a really good post about the nature of science. However, reading through the previous 600 or so comments, I've noticed what seems to be a general trend towards you not clicking links because "you've already been there" and "it's a trick", so I will sum the highlights for you. I hope you understand them:
-The scientific method makes one assumption, and one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules.
-If the universe obeys rules, then the rules should be revealed through observation
-Through science (using the scientific method), we accumulate knowledge
-It's a method, a way of finding this knowledge. Observe, hypothesize, predict, observe, revise. Science is provisional; it's always open to improvement.
-Science is based on evidence.
-Are there holes in this knowledge? Of course. Science doesn't have all the answers. But science has a tool, a power that its detractors never seem to understand.
There you have it. Science is a method of understanding the universe around us, and it's a pretty damn good method. All the theories and laws we have come to understand are derived from science. The computer you're using to dole out your trash? Yeah, that came from science. Any medicine you take to stay healthy? SCIENCE. The internet? SCIENCE. Do you see where I'm going with this?
In all it's years of existence, religion in and of itself has rarely produced anything meaningful outside of faith, hope, a sense of community between like-minded individuals, and lots of wars. I have yet to hear of a war based solely upon science.
Science is not a faith or a set of beliefs. It's a method. Get it. Please. And do it quickly.
Does anyone else here notice how Steven has conveniently neglected to explain why "descent with modification" requires more faith to accept than the idea that marsupial moles, wombats and koalas were able to make it to eastern Australia from Mount Ararat before lions, tigers and gazelles?
Of course, you didn't answer my question. But you keep bringing yours up again and again. Pay attention.
Jim, you're far too modest. Sing your own insufferable praises!
Ichthyic,
I understand the confusion. I guess that I found the tactic so outlandish that I couldn't help but exaggerate it a bit and find it funny. Little did I realize that it wasn't such a broad line.
And Steven, your last post was already supposed to have happened.
Though I'll still point out that your reading is based upon current knowledge. People of that time would most certainly not have read it as you do now. The earth was stationary, (as any person who jumps and lands in the same place could tell you!) and the sun turned around it.
Your reading is not supported by the reading it would have been given at the time it was written.
The flat earth theory has also been blamed on christians. Turns out that was an urban legend. Scientists thought the earth was stationary and flat. Not christians.
But it sounds so good atheists repeat it.
The Most Insufferable Ass in the Blogosphere.
who cares?
only people who failed to prove him wrong.
...besides which, there are several people here who qualify as far more insufferable asses than PZ.
I think one of them is on vacation, but I'd throw my own hat in the ring and probably get pretty far. hell, for being an insufferable LYING ass, Steven has everyone else here beat hands down.
Scientists thought the earth was stationary and flat.
show us which scientists those were, please.
oh, forget it, you're just babbling inanities at this point.
go and take your meds, would ya?
704 posts, and probably 650 ad hominem attacks. It's great to see how willing everyone here is to have mature, open discourse. How terrible it would be to actually consider the point of view of another, or even read anything that he/she writes from a point of view other than "What can I attack most easily?" You all purport to be the ones who fight against closed mindedness, whilst shutting out countless perfectly valid points of view before even giving them the chance to develop. Hypocrisy at its finest.
It's great to see how willing everyone here is to have mature, open discourse
*yawn*
once you put up some actual discourse, instead of a continual string of ad-hominems, you might get a response on point. you still have yet to make an actual argument.
hypocrisy at its finest indeed.
moron.
note that this is NOT ad-hominem (not that you even know what that means).
perfectly valid points of view
still waiting to see what those are...
I see Carl Baugh has come up again.
In August of last year, I got into a long debate with a Creationist — and compared to Steve, here, he was a model of politeness, sanity, and honesty. Not that that's saying much, but credit where due.
Still, he did bring up Baugh's little anomalies. So I am copying and pasting a few paragraphs from that thread:
———————
When Baugh's name was first mentioned as a source, I didn't really dig into his background at all, because, hey, one Creationist is as much of a liar as another.
After reading the talkorigin's pages on his persistent pattern of deceptive practices, I realized that I had been wrong. Some Creationists lie more than others.
Baugh is so full of horsehit that even Answers in Genesis felt moved to repudiate him.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/whatbau.html
And note that "Mr.". For Baugh to arrogate to himself the honorific of "Dr." is yet another example of horseshit, and is an insult to those who actually spend years of their lives working towards bachelors, masters, and doctorates in the hard sciences.
Baugh: Humbug!
———————
Actually, I suddenly became fascinated by Mr. Baugh's credentials, or rather, lack thereof.
I see that he has some alleged degrees in theology. Whoop-dee-doo. Since theology is essentially the study of a work of fiction, it's not that hard to get a degree, as long as you make sure that your lies aren't too different from the lies of every other theologian in your particular sect. This is called "dogma".
And since theology has nothing to do with actual cosmology, biology, geology, paleontology, or any other hard science, even if those degrees in theology are valid, they would prove nothing about Baugh's knowledge in those fields.
How about those other degrees, from the Pacific College of Graduate Studies? Wait. What the hell is the "Pacific College of Graduate Studies"?
Oh, look:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html
(emphasis mine)
Baugh: Humbug!
"Why did many Union Generals own slaves?"
ONE prominent US general, Ulysses S Grant, owned a total of two slaves.
They were in fact the property of his wife who was a southerner and became his property automatically upon their wedding.
He freed them prior to the start of the civil war.
Manumission of slaves was actually illegal in several southern states and freed salves were, in some ways, treated even worse than slaves.
Shrug. I think there's some mature and open discussion that went on earlier, but the thread has been pretty much poisoned by Steve.
I do hope that you're not trying to imply that any of Steve's points are valid, in any way, shape, or form.
And what would those be again?
Here's the thing that's so bloody frustrating (and much of what you'll see is an attack out of frustration borne of having to deal with the same nonsense again and again and again....).
The folks proposing that ID be introduced are rejecting the entirety of scientific investigation because it doesn't explicitly bow down to the idea of a supernatural creator. Yet, other than religious belief, there is no reason whatsoever to accept such hypotheses. People want to force Biblical ideas into science, yet they provide no reason to do so other than "the Bible says so." That, in and of itself, is supposed to make become a scientific statement, yet it is exempted from scientific investigation.
And fools like Stephen, RD, Keith and YOU refuse to accept that. No, because a bunch of ancients repeated a story over and over and over, it's supposed to supplant everything else. And our frustration suddenly becomes reason to reject the work of thousands of scientists engaging in research in favor of a bunch of stories that don't even have historical, anthropological or archaeological evidence. The stories alone must be true, simply because the must be true.
As a scientist (and even as a social scientist which some of my colleagues here would question) I say, fuck off.
The folks proposing that ID be introduced are rejecting the entirety of scientific investigation because it doesn't explicitly bow down to the idea of a supernatural creator.
...but of course ID has nothing whatsoever to do with religion according to the Disinformation Institute.
nosireebobbo.
I do love how these people continually shoot themselves in the head...
over and over and over and over...
it's like watching Python's "Twit of the Year" competition, but in real life!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSqkdcT25ss
the only repititon I see in this entire blog, is the consensus that anyone who refutes evolution is a fool. I have seen some open and flagrant mocking of christians, even though there are atheists who refute evolution as well.
I used to sit patiently in a biology class lecture listening to "your opinions" without causing any fuss or discussing mine. I was never given the chance to question the validity of "your" claims.
I am astounded to hear about biology professors who will fail a student who refutes evolution, or fire a scientist who refutes evolution.
As for the open mocking of christians, since when did the 1st ammendment declare there was freedom "from" religion? It doesn't say it anywhere. Thomas Jefferson may have agreed that there should be freedom from religion, but the US Constitution does not declare it anywhere. Citing Thomas Jefferson does not change federal law.
These despicable acts of failing students, firing professionals based on a belief is a violation of federal law and a violation of academic freedom. People who do such acts are criminals.
Steven the Trollboy grunted:
What a dishonest malen'kiy mal'chik you are! You've ignored a huge percentage the questions and rebuttals addressed to you.
By the way, Trollboy, with regard to the whole "flat earth" thing, there's nothing to refute. YOU are the one who brought it up. I grant that you are correct to object to the notion that Christianity played a big role in perpetuating the flat earth model, but you're the only one who has made an issue of it. Nobody here has made any such claims. Therefore your complaint is fabricated from pure straw. Well, have at it. Flail away. Flail away, Merill. Flail away.
Your claim that it was "scientists" who thought the earth was flat is even less supportable. A Greek "scientist" made a reasonable estimate of the earth's circumference over 200 years before the birth of Christ. There was some dispute concerning the sphericity of the earth amongst leading philosophers of Christianity's first half-millenium, but certainly by the Middle Ages the spherical earth model had gained widespread acceptance in the western world. As the second millenium of Christianity dawned, exposure to Islamic astronomy nourished the coming Renaissance and the scientific thought which accompanied it. We'd be hard-pressed to find any theologian OR scientist of that age who believed the earth was flat.
So you're right to complain about the "urban legend" - not that anyone other than you has bothered to mention it here - but your claim that it was "scientists" who believed the earth was flat is, like most of your claims... pure fiction.
Perhaps you'd like to talk about heliocentricism instead?
Perhaps you'd like to answer one of the questions I posed earlier?
Perhaps you'd like to explain how you managed to mistake a work of fantasy fiction for a textbook?
is the consensus that anyone who refutes evolution is a fool.
i dunno, why don't you finally get around to actually trying to refute it so we can see if you're as much a fool there as everywhere else?
didn't you have some evidence you wanted to show us about something or ruther, Oliver?
firing professionals based on a belief
I think you'll find all the professionals that have been fired in the last 20 years for beliefs, have been fired for questioning YOUR worldview, not science.
shall we gather up a list for you?
Chris Comer is a relatively recent addition.
Know about her?
now let's see... who is the "expelled movie" focusing on?
Sternberg?
well he wasn't fired now, was he.
Gonzales?
he wasn't fired either, and he himself admits his religious beliefs had nothing to do with why he was denied tenure (not that that is any big deal; most of us are denied tenure, actually).
so, let's see the list of people "fired" for questioning evolutionary theory.
c'mon bright boy, surely you MUST know, right?
or were you just assuming it to be so, because the producers of Expelled, a movie you haven't seen, said it was so?
Ichthyic why are you so hell bent on falling flat on your face time and time again? Must I hold your hand this time too?
Ichthyic why are you so hell bent on falling flat on your face time and time again? Must I hold your hand this time too?
LOL
yeah, keep projecting, Anne Elke...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tZ14RSCesE&feature=related
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/07/biologist_fired_fo…
there is just one - perhaps you haven't discovered google yet?
Steven,
You are a liar. You are a fool. I am finished with your nonsense.
The world is an amazing place. It's even more amazing when we learn more about it. You would have us wallow in ignorance. Fuck you. You aren't worth it, and your fetishization of ignorance is insulting to me as a human.
Begone. You have nothing of value to add, as is evidence by this thread. Those of us who are actually curious, who want to learn and figure out things, will keep up our work despite you. In spite of you. The world is too amazing, too wonderful to be captured in your silly myths. And your limited mind, your hateful ideology, they serve no purpose.
Bye now.
So do you have the functioning brain cells to provide evidence that Ichthyic is wrong, or lying and demonstrating your arrogant stupidity all you're good for?
Is there? Just one, I mean?
Lessee now... oh my goodness... even without looking at that article, I'm gonna guess... (and yes, this is a "guess" not a "prediction", Steven) ... I'm gonna guess that this is the case of the creationist "biologist" who took a job based in evolutionary biology at WHOI by concealing and/or misrepresenting his anti-evolution philosophy from his employers.
Am I right?
Don't you mean Anne Wilkes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptpaEntid74
Of course...
Creationists are the only people who count in this world, after all.
there is just one - perhaps you haven't discovered google yet?
keep going... did you happen to notice that this is a court case that has NOT been resolved yet?
of course this person couldn't be lying about why they were fired now, could they?
why would you believe what they say as opposed to the statement from Wood's hole itself:
did you perhaps catch that maybe, just maybe, this person was let go because:
Abraham said he did not want to work on "evolutionary aspects" of the National Institutes of Health grant for which he was hired, even though the project clearly required scientists to use the principles of evolution in their analyses and writing.
so he was fired for refusing to do the work he was fucking hired to do.
do you actually work, moron? would your boss not fire you for refusing to do the work you were paid for because of some religious ideology?
you just don't get it, do you?
LOL
btw, did you look up what happened to Chris Comer? She was fired from the Texas BOE for calling attention to a lecture by Eugenie Scott.
google that one up, fool.
~Yesssssss!~
(Where's Keith Knight when I need him?!)
Freedom from religion and freedom of religion are the same thing. You want freedom to practice your religion? Fine. You want freedom to not be forced to practice somebody else's religion as well? Guess what: that's what freedom of religion is.
"I have a cleaning woman who is a Seventh-day Adventist and neither of us feel any tension," said Michael Ruse
perfect.
I'm not a big fan of Ruse, but that was a gudun.
I love how Steven flops around like a live flounder on a hot griddle. (Umm, not that I've ever actually seen such a thing.) He goes from Slavery to Evolution to Flat Earth to Expelled! to Hitler to Darwin and back, touching each subject with as little of himself for as short a time as humanly possible, just to avoid the burn.
Sigh.
Ok. I lied.
I don't love it.
oh, btw, I have to thank Steven (Oliver*) for actually contributing something worth looking at for the very first time on this whole thread.
it was far from supporting his position, but it was worthy of adding as a bookmark for future reference, when we discover this idiot was indeed fired simply for failing to do the work he was hired to do.
now that you've gotten your google-fu going, Oliver, keep that ball rolling and actually spend some time looking at any one of the inane lies you chose to spew 'round here.
*did you watch the Twit of the Year? Oliver is the one that managed to run himself over with the car.
I don't love it.
irrelevant, so long as the pattern is noted.
it's a common one amongst creobots.
they don't get that what this indicates to everyone else is that they really don't know anything about any of the topics they intend to "discuss".
brain damage will do that to ya.
Abraham did not return a telephone call seeking comment. An Indian citizen, he now works at Liberty University, a Christian university in Lynchburg, Va., founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell.
shocker!
ROFLMAO
*sigh*
ok, I'm burned out on this. It's just too easy, and reminds me too much of the AFDave thread that went on for 4K posts over on PT a while back.
Floor's yours, Oliver.
try not to get too much blood on it, 'K?
RD:
The hypocrisy is yours. You relentlessly jabber about keeping an open mind. Yet you admit that you can provide no evidence at all for ID. You expect the scientific community to change the rules of the game because you can't compete under the existing rules. Give me one reason why we should do that. It is not close-minded to demand the same level of rigor from you and your ilk that we demand of each other. If this is a problem for you, then perhaps you're not really fit to play our game. As they say, other sports beckon.
No, I'm not going to let you get away with that whopper. Creationism has had decades in which to demonstrate even a tenuous connection with real science. It has failed, completely and utterly. That, ultimately, is the reason creationism is considered a joke. And until creationists start providing evidence that their "science" makes verifiable, detailed predictions, it's going to stay a joke.
The benchmarks are there, if you care to look. The steps you need to take to get creationism taken seriously as science are in plain sight. Physics, chemistry and biology operate effectively in that environment. Creationism cannot, and no amount of special pleading is going to get it excused from the rigor required of real sciences.
Actually, no, it isn't, Ichthy
Don't you know that Liberty University is the Great Creationists' Secret Burial Ground where the greatest among them go to bury their careers?
Comer wasn't literally fired, but in being forced to resign, she was surely Expelled!
Her transgression, in being non-existent, was far less egregious than Abraham's. Yet the creobots cry, cry, cry.
Cry, baby. Cry. Cry for the injustice. Cry over the unfair treatment a dishonest fool brought upon himself.
Do it, baby. Defend the liars. Villify the honest public servants who are trying to do what they're hired to do. DO IT.
There you go. Now admit it: It feels good, doesn't it?
Too bad it's intellectually and morally insupportable.
How do you sleep?
Now if I have any sense, I'll retire.
Steven sez: "These despicable acts of failing students, firing professionals based on a belief is a violation of federal law and a violation of academic freedom. People who do such acts are criminals."
But when a Christian/Bible college does this (expelling students or firing a professor for their beliefs), then it's acceptable? Oh, I know--that's different.
And yeah, I've seen it happen. For trivial reasons, not some kind of perceived "heresy." Just pure pettiness & politics.
And let's be honest--you would love to be able to have any biologist/geologist/astronomer fired for teaching something you don't agree with. Or any historian fired that does not agree with your revisionist American history.
Fired? Imprisoned? Re-educated? Executed? What's your particular dominionist preference?
I love how Steven flops around like a live flounder on a hot griddle. (Umm, not that I've ever actually seen such a thing.) He goes from Slavery to Evolution to Flat Earth to Expelled! to Hitler to Darwin and back, touching each subject with as little of himself for as short a time as humanly possible, just to avoid the burn.
yeah, I wish he was the only one.
yeah, I wish he was the only one.
the tattoo on my calf proves I'm the only Tigger!
#637,
It was the Big Bang Burger Bar, and after the show we all got together and drew up all sorts of crazy shit on paper napkins. Got so engrossed in it we almost missed the shuttle back up to the 20th century, and got so rushed catching our ride we left the napkins behind. I hate to think anybody decided to put our crap into action. Shit, you should've seen what we came up with for Shurgleshug III. Stuff you really wouldn't believe ...
Ah ...
...
...
Hold on a minute ...
...
...
Oh fuck ...
...
... we're on Shurgleshug III.
How was I to know radar domes as dorsal fins on sharks wasn't such a hot idea?
Creationism has had decades millennia...
800th comment! :D
How was I to know radar domes as dorsal fins on sharks wasn't such a hot idea?
you should have known after what happened when we had frickin' laser beams attached to their heads.
Oh right, something relevant.
"Communism is an incredibly optimistic idea -- human beings are perfectable, societies are working towards an inevitable workers' utopia, etc. It's highly non-Darwinian, unlike capitalism, which is very Darwinian. It's like they don't even think their own arguments through."
Creationists intellectually dishonest, unthinking idiots? No way!
I changed one word. Why? Shits and giggles. You you know that you are a rather silly little man.
Shorter RD @ #765: "I'm taking my ball and going HOME!"
In case you're still reading, here's a quick tip: Insult does NOT necessarily equal ad hominem.
For a perfect elucidation of why ID makes us so mad, and why we're so unmoved by the cries of "censorship" and all that from the ID camp, see MAJeff's comment #769. It ties in quite well with what I was saying about the designer assumption (and, by extension, the Christ assumption) being just a big bald assertion with nothing to recommend it but the insecurity of those who assert it and how they can't seem to just observe the universe as it is without trying to discern some "purpose" behind it, with them at the center of that "purpose". And they call US arrogant...
I still think Mr.Dr.Baugh's "finger" looks like a french stick. Only smaller.
Holy fucking christ on a cracker. Hundreds of comments later, and still not a single prediction for ID.
In all this fuss, one of the greatest things the creationists could have used against us was evidence of the claim that they actually have science on their side (just like they say they do), by showing it to us.
Even its most intellectualized state of simple testable prediction with no lab tests needed would have been something. But, what do we have?
NOTHING
Pitiful.
My hypothesis is far stronger than even I imagined it was.
And Steven? What's with quoting my point about how your reading of the bible would be out of line with the time it was written, and tying it to some nonsense about a flat earth?
I was talking about Heliocentrism. In a heliocentric universe the sun "turns" around the earth.
Do you actually understand the point I'm making? I'm beginning to actually worry about your mental health.
Meh, what do I actually care? You bore me. Don't bother responding to that question Steven or any attempt to get you to name a scientific prediction detailed by ID.
Not that you could.
Just as I predicted
I'm guessing Steven has never heard of the "Curse of Ham", which was the Biblical justification Christians used for the slavery of blacks. Oh wait - Christians approved of slavery, and used the Bible to justify it?
http://www.qkw.com/racematters/noahscurseslaverysrationale.htm
How's this quote for you, Steven:
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm
I have evidence that Hitler was a Darwinist and an Atheist.
I hope it's better than your evidence that Robert E. Lee was an atheist in his early life, and an abolitionist after he converted to Christianity, and that he was running for the presidency of the Confederacy and making stump speeches in support of abolitionism, which, when queried, look suspiciously like a letter to his wife written five years before the Confederacy even existed.
I am surprised nobody found the proper source to back up this claim, after all that arguing. In Guns of the South, by Harry Turtledove, Lee runs for president of the confederacy after they win the war thanks to the AK-47s brought by time-travellers from South Africa hoping to establish a racist utopia. The Afrikaners are so surprised when Lee turns out to favor abolition!
Sheesh, can't you all find a simple historical reference like this?
Oh my.
I'm picking myself off the floor after two minutes of hysterical laughter.
I think you've accurately identified his "source". Harry Turtledove seems to be an popular one for idiots trying their hand at history. Jonah Goldberg, for example, relies on Turtledove for his understanding of the history of fascism.
And a blast from the past:
I would have to pull out some of my college textbooks and cite references from Lee and Jackson's speeches. There is nothing on the internet that I can find (surprise, surprise).
Now I'm curious to find out what college assigns Guns of the South as a history textbook.
The fact that he was sympathetic to the plight of the slaves, and was more than glad in retrospect to see the era of slavery in America come to an end (with the exception of illegal immigrants and members of the Armed Forces, of course) does not make him an abolitionist.
Zing!
I'll say one thing for this thread. It's certainly keeping me laughing.
Hats off to you.
Thanks for all the entertainment folks. Although I can't believe I read the whole thing ... what an appropriate way to procrastinate when I should be studying for an Evidence final!
If Steven has any strange ideas concerning Tax law, perhaps he could drop by next week?
@ 607:
"...to see from the perspective of God is beyond us. But that there are other ways for humans to tap into this library of knowledge I am sure. It is only a matter of time before someone stumbles upon the key, but this rampant hostility and constant derision must be slowing things dramatically. What, exactly, are you all so afraid of? Is the idea of design so terrible, or is it your souls your fear for?"
RD, I don't think anybody here "fears for their soul," and I don't think you have to worry much either(as souls don't exist).
But, let me tell you, I do fear every second that religion is allowed to spew its BS to the world.
Science and reason are the keys to life's salvation, not magic sky daddies and prayer.
Why must you project your own (religious) fears on us?
And
God isn't beyond us, he is behind us, as in long ago. There will never be knowledge that magically unlocks itself; it takes hard work, observations, and science to do that. ID is not science. ID is not knowledge. The bible is not knowledge. What is knowledge?
SCIENCE
Steven's Guide to The History of Slavery
Many people think the Civil War was a result of slavery. Wrong! Despite the fact that the historical record is filled with Southerns saying so it had to do with states' rights (1). Even fact when Robert E. Lee was campaigning for president of the Confederacy he promised to abolish it (2).
Slavery began with Dutch and Portuguese atheist scientists (3). They took Africans, who had a terrible life in Africa, to America where they were better off. What horrible people! Anywhoo, Georgia was Christian state so they outlawed slavery. Slavery was caused by Darwinist and was abolished by Christians (4).
References
(1)Right out of my ass
(2) I can't find anything on the ENTIRE internet to support this but I saw it on a national monument once, I think
(3)Forgot to take my medication once and I ended up typing that 10,000 times.
(4)Ibid.
Come on boys and girls, the competition is over. Give it a rest. Despite your best efforts, PZ remains The Most Insufferable Ass in the Blogosphere. There's no need to keep demonstrating to the browsing public that defenders of Darwinism are so rude and witless that they think using the "f" word utterly destroys any arguments against Darwinist dogma. You can't smooth over the theoretical and evidentiary shortcomings of Darwinism by demonstrating to the world that you're complete asses. Leave that to PZ. Darwinism (and evolutionary biology in general) suffers enough damage to its public plausibility from one consumate ass defending it; it suffers even more when a whole army of asses defends it. Darwin, who was a champion of science as human dialectical argument, would be appalled by the lot of you. Grow up.
You can't smooth over the theoretical and evidentiary shortcomings of Darwinism by demonstrating to the world that you're complete asses.
Evolution hasn't been about Darwinism for the last eighty years, since the development of population genetics and the synthesis of Mendelian genetics and evolution.
If you have any "theoretical and evidentiary shortcomings" of evolutionary biology as understood today, not 150 years ago, feel free to present it.
Something tells me Jim is doing his hardest to avoid reading the actual content.
Of course, the Creationists don't respond to reasoned argument given in a polite tone: They just ignore everything we say when we do that, and it probably emboldens them instead, since it implies that we take their silly arguments seriously. We can't ignore them, since they'd be emboldened by the lack of opposition. That leaves ridicule, which occasionally shows some progress.
So thanks, Jim, for being a mindless concern troll.
Darwin, who was a champion of science as human dialectical argument, would be appalled by the lot of you.
Oh forgot about this. Just throwing around philosophical terms you do not understand does not actually stake you out any position of intellectual superiority. To the extent that your statement is meaningful, it is false. Darwin's form of argument in the Origin had nothing to do with dialecticism as understood by Hegel or practically anybody else. Darwin was inspired by William Whewell's proposal of hypothesis formulation, working out the real-life consequences, and the consilience of results with predictions.
Jim, the "f" word most appropriate here describes each of you trolls perfectly - "fool".
BTW, I was glad to see one of my pet peeves - no freedom from religion in the USA. Very amusing coming from christers (or chews). See, back in the day, when some Roman rulers insisted on being recognized as divine, some chews and christers wouldn't do so (they were free to enjoy their own religions, as long as they also admitted Caesar was a god). So they were persecuted, even kilt daid. That's freedom "of" religion without freedom "from" religion, in a vivid historical example.
Those who do not learn the lessons of the past...
It pains me to see so many bright people - profs, post-docs, grad students, what have you - spend so much time on an internet forum trying to educate dunces who would otherwise not make it into a university classroom.
sadundergrad, I'm sure some of these guys could make it into a university classroom. Classrooms need cleaning, too.
He always does. Why should this time be any different?
Ichthyic:
Different context. Of course, you're right in the broad sense; I was referring to the time during which creationism has actively pretended to be science.
A point I forgot to mention:
We're talking about people who believe in sorcery! Somehow, I don't think their complaint has anything to do with plausibility. Or that the plausibility has anything to do with the manner of speech from one of its defenders.
Nullifidian: "Evolution hasn't been about Darwinism for the last eighty years, since the development of population genetics and the synthesis of Mendelian genetics and evolution."
I use "Darwinism" in the sense given by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy....
http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/darwinism/
>Darwinism designates a distinctive form of evolutionary explanation for the history and diversity of life on earth. Its original formulation is provided in the first edition of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859. This entry first formulates 'Darwin's Darwinism' in terms of five philosophically distinctive themes: (i) probability and chance, (ii) the nature, power and scope of selection, (iii) adaptation and teleology, (iv) nominalism vs. essentialism about species and (v) the tempo and mode of evolutionary change. Both Darwin and his critics recognized that his approach to evolution was distinctive on each of these topics, and it remains true that, though Darwinism has developed in many ways unforeseen by Darwin, its proponents and critics continue to differentiate it from other approaches in evolutionary biology by focusing on these themes.<
Nullifidian: "If you have any 'theoretical and evidentiary shortcomings' of evolutionary biology as understood today, not 150 years ago, feel free to present it."
I'd be happy to discuss with you the theoretical and evidentiary shortcomings of Darwinism (and the case for ID), but not here. I enjoy a good debate, but I have no patience for the infantile argumentation that is so characteristic of Pharyngula (which is why I said that I'm done with it, meaning that I don't intend a reprise of my participation last September). There's apparently something in the Darwinist Kool-Aid that infects the herd of independent minds who imbibe it, causing them to make sneers, jeers, and ridicule the primary weapons in their polemical arsenal. (The contrast between the level of discourse here and the level of discourse on the ID blogs - such as Dembski's Uncommon Descent - is stark.) If you want
to talk, come over to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/
The forum is moderated to ensure at least a minimum level of cordiality (which may leave you with little to say), but the conversations there tend to be a lot more substantive than the vulgar, insult-laden diatribes here.
If you haven't figured out why Pharyngula is so harmful to the case for Darwinism, perhaps the following will help. It's taken from an essay by attorney Edward Sisson that appears in "Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who
Find Darwinism Unconvincing," edited by Dembski....
"...in judging the nature of the debate over the origin and subsequent diversity of life, there is (an) aspect of litigation that sheds light on why the debate is conducted as it is. A psychology that commonly operates in litigation is that opposing lawyers are primed to reject every statement by the other side - for there is no advantage in considering that the statements might be true. Lawyers are not engaged in a mutual search for the truth. In comparing the writings of the science-trained advocates of intelligent design with the writings of their opponents, I see that psychology occurring again and again on just one side of the debate: the side of the science establishment. That psychology is not evident in the work of intelligent design proponents that I have read. The fact that it is
missing from their work is one reason why I have come to trust them more than their opponents in this debate. I think that the intelligent design advocates want to talk with me about looking for the truth. In sharp contrast, the science establishment is primarily engaged in using
intimidation, ridicule, and innuendo against its critics."
Pharyngula demonstrates the validity of Sisson's observation beyond dispute. The rhetoric of PZ Myers and his amen chorus gives no one who is not already committed to the "truth" of Darwinism any reason to trust them. This is harmful, not helpful, to the case for Darwinism. I encourage you to keep up the good work, with full confidence that you will.
Keep chittering away, and maybe you'll eventually convince yourselves you're right, and that all you're doing is "subjecting ID to the same rigors" as other sciences. On the internet you're never wrong if you get the last word, right?
As a side note, the possibility of a God gene, as detailed here from a rather biased perspective, as can be expected from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene , to me indicates the presence of design. No, I have not read the book yet, but I have a passing familiarity with the concept. If human beings are "hard-wired" to seek out the spiritual, even though faith is often counterintuitive to survival, this points very strongly to a designer who seeks subtly to point his creations in the right direction.
RD, do you know that experiments have created OOB experiences in subjects, and others have also been made to feel a "presence" in their proximity? These were done by tricking the mind, not by exposure to some god.
Try dropping acid, maybe you'll see god. The brain is an electrochemical marvel, with all sorts of abilities and quirks, including errors and incorrect assessments. Perhaps you are biased in favor of expecting a god in everything. Perhaps I am biased to see no gods in anything. Actual evidence tends towards my interpretation/expectation. Until some solid evidence (and I'm not talking the gaps in ToEW nonsense) to support divine intervention, you have nothing.
BTW, I sure don't feel a need to seek the "spiritual". Do you think I've evolved past that? ;)
Durn, I have fat fingers this morning.
ToEW
I thought you said you were leaving, Jimjim. So leave already. Shoo. Quit banging your head against a wall if you find it painful.
(predicts Jim is going to reply "Ah, so you Darwinianists admit that arguing with you is like banging one's head against a wall!" only 1,000 words longer and whinier)
#831: Perhaps you would feel a need to seek the spiritual if you would allow yourself an open mind. I, for one, was an agnostic for years before the truth finally came to me. I come from a very lax religious background, my family consists of very few people of faith, I hardly feel that I have been set up with a bias towards faith.
RD, Jim, please demonstrate how Creationism and Intelligent Design are capable of being experimentally verified, and demonstrate how they are superior explanations for describing how the diversities of life seen today and previous times came to be than "descent with modification," or shut the hell up.
RD, I have an open mind. There are no faeries in the bottom of the garden, no matter how beautiful that garden is. And as for your epiphany - you have my condolences. :(
The Wedge Document makes it perfectly clear that ID proponents want to change the rigors of science itself, so that they don't have to be subjected to them. Why would they do that, I wonder?
Y'know, Jim, at comment #201 above, I asked you a question. I phrased it very politely, too. You didn't answer. That was a bit rude, but perhaps you just didn't see it. So I'll ask it again, now:
Jim, last September, you were invited to read Kevin Padian's Dover testimony, as well as many other biological resources. Did you ever do so? Have you ever read any book on what you so continually denigrate, modern evolutionary biology?
True Bob, when you have your brain so open-minded that it fell out, leaving the emptied cranium free to be stuffed with mental garbage; that squishy *thud* the brain makes upon impact with the ground is not an epiphany by any definition of the word.
If anything, it's a sound closest to the sound an angel makes when it's killed with gross stupidity.
Stanton, they're TRYING TO! Just, every time you ask them about that sciency stuff, don't you see that you're CENSORING them? All this talk about experiments and verification and other, you know, science whatchamacallit is censoring their VIEWS!!!
Stanton, I had originally put that joke in my post, then pulled it. Thanks for adding it in!
Rather than wait for another thousand years before RD will address this indirectly with one his/her grating platitudes, I'll answer it, in that, in order to grant Intelligent Design scientific legitimacy and supremacy, they fully intend to fatally cripple the American scientific community, regardless of the dire consequences.
Undoubtedly not: Jim is the sort of moron who dares not so much as even come within 100 feet of even an elementary science textbook for fear of contamination by its evil, sinful nature.
By the way, Jim, it's interesting that you bring up that lawyer's comments, because they're exactly backwards.
When scientists discuss evolution, they point to the evidence.
It is the ID proponents use "intimidation, ridicule, and innuendo" to argue against evolution. Look at the original posting that set off this thread: Rather than discuss the evidence in favor of ID, the producers of Expelled thought it would be somehow meaningful to ridicule Charles Darwin, using lots of innuendo against his character, and promote the character of Abraham Lincoln.
And as PZ noted, the essay included some baldly false statements, and ignored some important historical contexts for both Darwin and Lincoln.
But what does that have to do with demonstrating the evidence for ID?
#842: Show me where, in the "Wedge Document", it is stated that the rigors of scientific review should be reduced, removed or suspended for ID. In the portions quoted much earlier in this thread nothing that could even be construed as having those implications appeared. I fail to see why evidence that you supposed is so damning would be withheld for hundreds of posts.
"However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism...Governing Goals: To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies."
How is ID going to be subjected to the rigors of science, if it doesn't want to be bound to observable, physical, testable phenomena?
RD, if you read the damned thing, you'd know the answer to that.
#846: That's what we call a cop out.
#845: Eroding this human obsession with the visible world is a far different idea than destroying the scientific method.
Right, kmarissa. It's an agenda based on an argument from consequences. It's not scientific. It's not about exploring the real world, it's about achieving predetermined social and political goals. They want to insert "design theory" into every aspect of life, whether it fits or not. It's about imposing an orthodoxy on every aspect of public life. It is, in a word, fascism.
Jim calls the wording of these goals "unfortunate." I call it "definitive."
Get it now, RD?
RD, are you now going to bring in evidence from the invisible world? Realize that science can now see what was once invisible, both macro and micro - for crying out loud, individual ATOMS have been imaged! Seen any images from Hubble, deep space? That stuff was once invisible. So show us your invisible evidence, since it's the only kind you have.
What, RD, you got a better method for examining the invisible?
Sorry, but the scientific method is the best thing we've got for studying the invisible, unless you've got a new system to propose.
RD, again, how is ID going to be subjected to the rigors of science, if it doesn't want to be bound to observable, physical, testable phenomena? How do you practice the scientific method on non-observable phenomena?
Mm. No, you're wrong there.
It doesn't say "the visible world", it says "scientific materialism". The scientific world view necessarily covers everything that can be tested or examined; that which is not visible can be translated by some tool in some way into something that is visible. The scientific method is founded on testability, and it is therefore the scientific method that they most assuredly want to destroy.
Excuse me? Cop-out?
Have you read it? The entire document? A simple "yes" or "no" will do.
Oh? What do you call the imposition of an unscientific ideology onto the world of science and science education?
The "human obsession" is an obsession with the light and dark phantoms born of ancient fears and superstitions. It's time to grow up, people. We're adults now.
(The contrast between the level of discourse here and the level of discourse on the ID blogs - such as Dembski's Uncommon Descent - is stark.)
Yes, indeed, it is a very stark contrast. On Uncommon Dissent, people who disagree with Dembski are banned outright, no matter what tone they take. Meanwhile, the head honcho himself is an infantile wretch who thinks that posting Mickey Mouse voices reading from Judge Jones' decision overlaid with flatulence is the height of wit.
Here, we do not censor people like you, as a rule, unless they become egregiously offensive. There are several reasons for this. One is that, unlike the ID sites, we do not need to censor dissenters because the dissenters have literally nothing to go on. This leads to a degree of openness on blogs that acknowledge and accept science vs. those which want to tear it down in favour of mediaeval thinking.
RD, please read AND ANSWER my request in comment #835, or please shut the hell up.
#854
exactly... and they say they are "expelled".
Lastly, if you weren't a hypocrite about civility, and weren't using it as a shield to deflect sound criticism, then it is obvious that you wouldn't be making derogatory comments about PZ and similar swipes at other people here.
Wait, has RD been here before? I thought they might be a newbie. Ahhh well.
Ichthyic- I see you are a man of education, knowing Monty Python like that.
Better RD:
"#845: Eroding this human obsession with reality is far easier than learning the scientific method."
Enjoy your ignorance, kiddo. While you and Jesus and the angels have a little lapsit time giving each other wet-willies and talking about the really deep questions, we'll be driving around in our sciencey horseless carriages, quaffing scienced-up antibiotics, and cloning our thumbs for fun and profit.
Your argument boils down to: science is too hard and it makes some people feel uncomfortable.
That's not an argument, that's a whine.
Jim sez: "In sharp contrast, the science establishment is primarily engaged in using
intimidation, ridicule, and innuendo against its critics."
You are of course kidding, right? The ID crowd never uses these techniques against their critics?
Intimidation: Trying posting an honest question about ID dogma over at UD and see how long it takes you to get banned (WD: "I don't like your tone ...). Or better yet, try articulating a non-creationist point of view in a typical evangelical church and see how quickly you become persona non grata. The journal Science has a sad article yesterday about one man's persecution by his family and church for his acceptance of evolution as a valid theory.
Ridicule: I'm sure the many derogatory terms that Denyse et al use on their blogs, like "Darwinoids," are actually terms of endearment. And how long do you think it would take to find an example ridicule of mainstream scientists on the UD blog? Microseconds? And don't get me started on Dembski's highbrow fart humor ... Talk about Expelled!
Innuendo: Darwin = Hitler = Stalin--What's the harm of a little rhetorical little well poisoning between friends? Who cares if it's a big lie--it works so well to motivate the masses.
RD #566:
In order for ID to be a branch of science, it has to play by certain rules. Ask a question. Generate potential answers for the question (that can be distinguished by observable data). Gather data. Figure out whether the data is consistent with any of your answers. Refine answers.
ID hasn't answered any question - disproof of Darwin's theory of evolution (and descendants) would not prove ID correct, only that evolution as theorized didn't happen. Just because you can't think of something else does not mean something else didn't happen. You have to make a guess, and then substantiate the guess with data. ID hasn't bothered to do any othese things. It hasn't even made testable predictions that are difficult to carry out (like string theory) - it hasn't made any.
Science is about asking and answering questions about the observable world and dealing with the answers. ID is dictating to the world what the answers are and ignoring anything that contradicts your wishes. Most places have a better term for that - insanity.
Heh... That comment gets two thumbs-up, hje. It's so typical of the weak-minded to project their own lack of integrity onto their opponents, then play the victim when challenged.
Come on Jim,
Give it up buddy. You're really just making your side look worse, which is an accomplishment in itself, but really, why? Why come onto this blog with the sole intent of being a troll? Why dodge several polite and incessant requests for even a single prediction made by ID? You talk of being civil yet begin your own posts with calling PZ an "insufferable ass" and then attempt to chastise us for using insults?
So why should I believe that you have any evidence whatsoever? And why must it be presented elsewhere? Do the facts change depending on where they are presented? No excuses Jim. Either you actually have evidence here and now, or you don't.
You're walking the thin line of a hypocrite here. Here, is your chance to show some evidence and change that situation. This is me making a direct, civil, specific challenge to you Jim. Your response will dictate how you're viewed.
Quoting:
To me, this whole argument can be explained thus: anyone who repeatedly write "your" instead of "you're" has been so poorly educated that any subsequent statements are suspect, severely.
Posted by: Sid Schwab | February 21, 2008 2:30 PM
I'm not sure how attacking individuals' intelligence or capabilities is worthwhile conversation. I'm not even sure which side (Evolution/Creation) this guy is on, but it should be "...who repeatedly writeS "your" instead..." There should be an 's' there. Merely attacking the person or setting up straw men or poking fun because people inadvertently mistype (did I type that right?) while emotionally charged isn't really helpful in any case. Rather, it shows forth fallacy and an inability to engage in useful dialogue. My intent here is not to malign nor to damage the person I quoted above (lots of people have been doing the same basic thing). Rather, I encourage people with excellent intellects to act like it.
And thus ends a sad thread.
856 comments. No ID predictions, no evidence, nothing worth a damn.
And people wonder why we give no respect to creationists...
The real sad thing for me is, I'm always waiting to cut my teeth on a sharp creationist. But I never seem to find one. I leave these threads disappointed. The only people worth arguing with I agree with most of the time.
............... 866, now, thanks to my not being able to count ...........
DOES THIS DEBATE HAVE TO BE SO HOSTILE AND BASE? WHATEVER HAPPENED TO RESPECT FOR OTHERS BELIEFS? I'VE RARELY READ SUCH UNPLEASANTNESS. COME ON PEOPLE. RISE UP AND ACT LIKE OTHER HUMANS ARE WORTHY OF RESPECT - OH, WAIT, - WHY SHOULD THEY BE? - THEY'RE JUST ORGANISMS THAT CRAWLED UP OUT OF MATTER ACCIDENTALLY.
Way to go Vanilla. First off, ignore those who weren't insulting, then ignore why those who were, were. Then forget where the caps lock is.
Sounds interesting. Link?
Maybe because the vast majority of creationists who make the grueling pilgrimage to Professor Myers' blog demonstrate that they have stunted social and etiquette skills on par with those of a 6 year old bully, and that they have allowed their colossal, ziggurat-like egos blind them to the fact that making a paltry reference to the Bible can never replace even a rudimentary education in Biology, Science, or World History, or that creationists hypocritically appeal to us to turn Science into a democracy so that they can turn it into a theocracy, nevermind that Science can only function as a meritocracy?
I've met a few sharp creationists, though, what impressed me the most was the way they regarded me as being human.
I'm sure this will be posted soon, but check out this upcoming debate between William Dembski and Niall Shanks:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=9776501534
"THEY'RE JUST ORGANISMS THAT CRAWLED UP OUT OF MATTER ACCIDENTALLY."
HEY I DEMAND YOU RESPECT MY BELIEFS YOU UNPLEASANT CLODHOPPER.
"I am never surprised by this band of elitists including PZ in their defense of Marxism, I am aware of the politics of Dawkins, Gould, etc. while living off the U.S. taxpayer dole and teat his entire paltry, meaningless, and non-productive career".
Um...call me crazy, but I thought Dawkins was British???
He's British, but he was born in South Africa I think.
Kenya, actually.
Wow. The amount of hatred bursting forth from this blog, and particularly from the commentators, is staggering. The arrogance is suffocating.
I'm curious. How exactly do you handle it when someone comes along who is every bit as intelligent as you (as measured by things like academic achievement, IQ test scores, etc) but who is a believing, devout, orthodox Catholic? And, not only that, but someone who is a recent Catholic convert? Let me guess: You would deny the premise that the person in question is highly intelligent. Right? How predictable. And pitiful.
@464: I am able to think for myself and research for myself.
Much like the TimeCube guy, from what I've seen, Steven.
No we wouldnt. Many highly intelligent people do great science despite their religious delusions. We don't start calling them unintelligent until they started saying dumb shit.
"The amount of hatred bursting forth from this blog, and particularly from the commentators, is staggering. "
Doesn't make us wrong. You're welcome to try and refute what PZ said in the initial post if you disagree.
"Doesn't make us wrong."
No. It just makes you hateful.
"You're welcome to try and refute what PZ said in the initial post if you disagree."
No thanks. I'm not particularly interested in any of that. I was just making the observation that there seems to be a lot of venom being spewed about.
"No. It just makes you hateful."
We hate liars.
"No thanks. I'm not particularly interested in any of that."
Then there are plenty of other blogs with more interesting content out there.
"I was just making the observation that there seems to be a lot of venom being spewed about."
Congratulations, you're the 500th person to come and make that observation. No, you don't win a prize.
still going...
I'm curious. How exactly do you handle it when someone comes along who is every bit as intelligent as you (as measured by things like academic achievement, IQ test scores, etc) but who is a believing, devout, orthodox Catholic?
we take arguments as they come regardless of who makes them or what their background is.
shit arguments are given what they deserve, a quick burial in an outhouse pit.
honest arguments are engaged quite differently, as you might have noticed, even in this thread, if you had bothered to look more carefully, rather than attempt to reinforce your preconceptions.
your loss.
I am not at all surprised by that. Obviously, you're the kind of person who thinks a blatant lie spoken with a honeyed tongue is more virtuous than a truth spoken bluntly.Please don't hang around. All we can do with your ilk is spit more venom in your direction.
I'm curious. How exactly do you handle it when someone comes along who is every bit as intelligent as you (as measured by things like academic achievement, IQ test scores, etc) but who is a believing, devout, orthodox Catholic?
And I'm curious. Why are you singling out Catholics? I read this thread through from the beginning, and I hadn't seen any expression of Catholic-hatred. In fact, if you want to see that, you're far more likely to find it from the producers of Expelled than you are to find it here.
Let's face it, no one alive was present when mankind originated. Really verbal abuse is so childish and typically comes from the weakest side in an arguement. For any of you who have a sincere and open mind and would like to see some interesting items such as Ancient Egyptian chariot wheels in the Red Sea, look at: www.covenantkeeper.co.uk and also, www.arkdiscovery.com
Let's face it, no one alive was present when mankind originated.
are you saying god is dead?
hey! guess what?
it's just one step beyond to say there aren't any deities.
you can do it!
Oops it is www.covenantkeepers.co.uk (plural)
Again to the subject, Scientific American magazine stated in an article "Bioinformatics Gold" I think it was, that the recent completion of the human genome contains so much information that if it were all put on compact discs in their cases- standing upright, shelf space would need to be nearly one half mile long! No one can dispute that white rabbit DNA is 'naturally selected' in snow where dark rabbits are easy prey. However, the extreme complexity that we see in all living things mitigates more readily to an intelligent designer than randomness. Consider the following analogy: Eons ago, deep in the ocean, iron ore began to form into sheets, holes developed followed by rivets. Soon by this process a fully formed ship floated into harbor... Contrast that idea to: Where there is a watch there is a watch maker; where there is a world, there is a world maker. Actually there is no such thing as a truly honest minded atheist... here's why. If you drew on paper a square that we will say represents the sum total of all your knowledge. You cannot know that God does not exist outside of your knowledge... you are agnostic, or not knowing. May all of you truth seekers have a great day! mw
So are you saying that what happened in the distant past never occurred or existed because none of the witnesses are alive today for interviews? Really, it is sad and pathetic that creationists like yourself, Michael, don't care to realize that they continue to reinforce the stereotype of Christians as being reason-hating morons.
I think it was, that the recent completion of the human genome contains so much information that if it were all put on compact discs in their cases- standing upright, shelf space would need to be nearly one half mile long!
have you ever looked at what the head of the human genome project, the project you just mentioned, Francis Collins had to say on how the results of that project provided nothing BUT support for the theory of evolution?
no?
read away:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Theistic.cfm
you might even LIKE the idea of theistic evolution.
(HINT: Collins is a xian, like yourself)
Let's face it, no one alive was present when mankind originated.
No one alive today was present when Abraham Lincoln was born, but there doesn't seem to be any trouble establishing that he was born.
For any of you who have a sincere and open mind and would like to see some interesting items such as Ancient Egyptian chariot wheels in the Red Sea, look at: www.covenantkeeper.co.uk and also, www.arkdiscovery.com
For those of you who know this is the work of that old fraud Ron Wyatt, I'd encourage you to not bother.
Again to the subject, Scientific American magazine stated in an article "Bioinformatics Gold" I think it was, that the recent completion of the human genome contains so much information that if it were all put on compact discs in their cases- standing upright, shelf space would need to be nearly one half mile long!
Actually, you could fit the complete sequence of the generic human genome on two compact discs with room left over for an e-text of On the Origin of Species. The human genome is only three billion base pairs long, after all.
However, even if your claim were true, what does that have to do with evolution?
However, the extreme complexity that we see in all living things mitigates more readily to an intelligent designer than randomness.
You're not using the word "mitigates" correctly, and you're presenting a false dichotomy.
Consider the following analogy: Eons ago, deep in the ocean, iron ore began to form into sheets, holes developed followed by rivets. Soon by this process a fully formed ship floated into harbor...
And what is this supposed to be an analogy of?
Contrast that idea to: Where there is a watch there is a watch maker; where there is a world, there is a world maker.
What's the contrast? They're both stupid.
Actually there is no such thing as a truly honest minded atheist... here's why. If you drew on paper a square that we will say represents the sum total of all your knowledge. You cannot know that God does not exist outside of your knowledge... you are agnostic, or not knowing.
Consider an entity that knows everything which does exist, and nothing that doesn't. The existence of copies of Great Expectations is known to this entity, but the intimate details of Miss Havisham's life is not, for example. One day, someone asks this entity if God exists, knowing that an entity that knows everything that exists would be able to answer the question. This entity searches its extensive but finite stores of knowledge and answers, "No, God does not exist." This is perfectly logically conceivable, and shoots a large hole in your claim that nobody can possibly know that god doesn't exist outside one's knowledge.
Furthermore, what happened to simply accepting the possibility of being wrong about the existence of god? Even if I do not have sufficient knowledge to rule out the existence of god--which you haven't shown--what's the major problem with simply ruling out god's existence anyway based on my assessment of the odds against a god's existence? Why is this the one issue which we cannot be wrong about, and why do the people who think so seem to be so wrong about everything else?
@890 - Actually, your all-knowing entity would most likely say "I don't know if God exists" or even "There is no way for me to know if God exists." MW actually gets close to what I personally consider the right idea when he talks about the finite "box of knowledge." There is a limit to what science can investigate. (Science can't "prove," per se, only strengthen or weaken a theory.) Any "God" necessarily exists outside that "box." But since science cannot comment on, study, or falsify anything outside the box, the existence of God is not something that science can comment on. Rather, the possibility of the existence of an all-powerful being is a philosphical/religious question.
Ultimately, the question of "Does God exist?" falls into the same category of "Where did we all come from?" It's a question that science cannot (and shouldn't have to or try to) answer.
It is unfortunate that the loudest voices in any room are often the most uninformed. As is almost always the case, the truth in any arguement most likely lies between the two extremes. Personally, I believe in God, and I believe that the theory of evolution is the best theory we've got on how the natural world works. So I suppose that makes me a proponent of Theistic Evolution.
At the same time, I realize that the theory of evolution does still have "gaps"- things that will probably never be proved conclusively. This isn't surprising, considering that the theory includes pretty much everything that's happened on the entire planet since there was an entire planet. That doesn't mean I'm a "God of the Gaps" proponent either- it's just I understand that as of today, there do exist "gaps" that "God" could fill. The problem with a "God of the Gaps" arguement is twofold: First, it is falsifiable. It is theoretically possible for all the "gaps" in the theory of evolution to be closed by science. Not likely, but possible. Second, the "God of the gaps" theory can never be proved, as it requires proof of the existence of God to complete a scientific theory, thus muddling science and philosphy.
Instead the TE view understands that there is likely a scientific explanation for all natural phenomenon, and relgates God to that area outside the "box" in which science operates. TE would argue that a creator who could design and build a complex system such as the one we live in is far more magnificent than one who needs to tweak a system that has already been created. But ultimately, TE subscribers understand that this theory does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of God. That, as one earlier poster mentioned, is all "just hope." I prefer to call it faith, but I suppose the idea is the same.
Well, just to piss you all off, here's a YEC tool taking the exact tack of going after Darwin's book title:
Instead, as documented in the current Journal of Creation,3 Nazis eagerly made use of the evolutionary concepts already entrenched in German academia. Note that the subtitle of Darwin's The Origin of Species by means of natural selection was: The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. Evolutionary teachings were simply carried to their logical conclusion by the Nazis who tried to exterminate the 'inferior' races like the Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs, as well as the 'unfit' (e.g. the handicapped). This is confirmed by the evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote:
'The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.'4
Too bad that neither Sarfati or Keith ever read Mein Kampf or The Origin of Species.
From the first comment here:
Here the term "races" is used as an alternative for "varieties" and does not carry the modern connotation of human races - the first use in the book refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage", and Darwin proceeds to discuss "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants"
God, these people have no honesty. Safarti doesn't mention that Hitler said in Mein Kampf that it was Luther he admired, not Darwin, Sarfati quotes from the Nuremberg proceedings that Striecher figued xianity would get in the way of their plans, but he doesn't mention that Striecher also said that the Nazis were just carrying out Luther's plans for the Jews and that if Luther were there, he'd be in the dock with them.
With these bastards, its always what they don't tell you is what trips you up.
Actually, your all-knowing entity would most likely say "I don't know if God exists" or even "There is no way for me to know if God exists."
It doesn't matter what you think it would be likely to say, the point is that it would have an absolute rational warrant to say that no gods exist. Again, if there is an entity which knows all things which do exist, and none that don't, and it doesn't know of the existence of any god, then it has the rational warrant to say that god doesn't exist when questioned about the existence of god (which would have been the first time my hypothetical being would have heard the word). It is not meant to conclusively demonstrate the non-existence of god, as it is just a thought experiment. As a though experiment, however, it does show that the argument MW presented as an apologetic against atheism was fundamentally wrong.
MW actually gets close to what I personally consider the right idea when he talks about the finite "box of knowledge."
MW is simply trying on an argument from ignorance. It doesn't usually fly.
Any "God" necessarily exists outside that "box."
Necessarily? Why necessarily?
But since science cannot comment on, study, or falsify anything outside the box, the existence of God is not something that science can comment on.
The purpose of the illustration was not to argue that science can or cannot comment on the existence of god, merely that using the common apologetic argument of claiming that unless one knows everything, one cannot rule out the existence of god is logically deficient as well as a rhetorical cheap trick.
Rather, the possibility of the existence of an all-powerful being is a philosphical/religious question.
An all-powerful being which cannot interact with and produce causal change in material universe in any way? I would highly doubt such a creature would be all-powerful, and I sincerely doubt that its existence would be relevant to anyone not already devoted to theism.
Ultimately, the question of "Does God exist?" falls into the same category of "Where did we all come from?" It's a question that science cannot (and shouldn't have to or try to) answer.
Well, actually science answers the "Where did we all come from?" question very well, for certain reasonable definitions of the word "we". Humans evolved from hominin ancestors. Every individual present in the world today was born of a sperm and egg and developed in a more or less standard process of embryology the steps of which are well-known.
It is unfortunate that the loudest voices in any room are often the most uninformed. As is almost always the case, the truth in any arguement most likely lies between the two extremes.
I would dearly love to see some argument for the claim that it "is almost always the case" that "the truth in any arguement...lies between the two extremes" which doesn't start by assuming its conclusion.
It doesn't matter what you think it would be likely to say, the point is that it would have an absolute rational warrant to say that no gods exist.
No. There are two possibilities. The first is that your entity is limited in what it knows by the rules of science. In this case, the entity would not be able to determine if God exists, it would only have an absolute rational warrant to say that it had no information on the subject. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. The second possibility is that your entity in fact, knows everything in which case it is "God" and, one would assume, knows as much.
Any "God" necessarily exists outside that "box."
Necessarily? Why necessarily?
Because the box is defined as "that which science can measure, observe, and/or falsify." By definition, anything inside this box has limitations and boundaries. Since the definition of "God" is an all-powerful being, such a being cannot exist inside the "box," so to speak.
...common apologetic argument of claiming that unless one knows everything, one cannot rule out the existence of god is logically deficient as well as a rhetorical cheap trick
A common misconception. In an arguement about any other topic (identical snowflakes, dwarves, bigfoot) you would absolutely be correct. But since, as I've mentioned before, science can't observe/measure God, ruling out the possibility of God is, in fact, the logically defecient course of action. Any non-biased scientist (including those at the National Academy of Science) would be smart enough to say that science can neither prove nor disprove the existance of an all-powerful being.
An all-powerful being which cannot interact with and produce causal change in material universe in any way? I would highly doubt such a creature would be all-powerful, and I sincerely doubt that its existence would be relevant to anyone not already devoted to theism.
On the contrary- an all powerful being, assuming that said being exists outside of what we call time, could easily have created the universe in such a way as to meet all of our prayers, needs, etc... For example, many scholars argue that the "Nativity Star" was nothing more that a convergence of Jupiter, Saturn, and Venus. How fortuitous that such a convergence was taking place. The Bible is full of such examples. You'd call them "coincidence," while I'd call them "the will of God." Again, the point is that science cannot provide any commentary on which one of us is more correct.
Well, actually science answers the "Where did we all come from?" question very well, for certain reasonable definitions of the word "we". Humans evolved from hominin ancestors. Every individual present in the world today was born of a sperm and egg and developed in a more or less standard process of embryology the steps of which are well-known.
Perhaps I should have been more specific in my point. I was discussing the greater "we" as in the universe in general. It's the problem of infinite regression. Where did all "this" come from? Scientifically, there has to be a starting point- but what existed before that point in time? This is a philosophical question- not a science question. Science can and will continue to strive to answer more and more questions about the origins of the universe, but will never be able to solve the problem of infinite regression. Science provides a quantifiable amount of discrete information- a "box" inside of which we understand how things behave and operate. It cannot, however, comment on anything outside said "box."
I would dearly love to see some argument for the claim that it "is almost always the case" that "the truth in any arguement...lies between the two extremes" which doesn't start by assuming its conclusion.
Apparently, I was either unclear when I made the comment which prompted this response, or you are proving my point. Logically, those with middle-of-the-road views tend to be less passionate about them. If you are a proponent of evolution and have no opinion on the existance of God and I am a theistic evolutionist, then our scientific viewpoints are the same and you would have no qualms with my religious beliefs. If you were an atheist and held the same views on evolution, our scientific viewpoints would be the same but our religious values would clash. Finally, if I was a 6-day creationist, then both our scientific and religious beliefs would be in conflict. I have no issue with those that use science to argue their viewpoint on evolution vs. 6-day creation. They have a valid arguement, and one I tend to agree with. However, those that believe that science can defend their religious preference (God or lack thereof) do not understand the limitation of what science can and cannot do. If you chose to espouse the belief that there is no God, that is your choice. But understand that it is a philosophical choice, not one based on science.
No. There are two possibilities. The first is that your entity is limited in what it knows by the rules of science. In this case, the entity would not be able to determine if God exists, it would only have an absolute rational warrant to say that it had no information on the subject. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. The second possibility is that your entity in fact, knows everything in which case it is "God" and, one would assume, knows as much.
And there's the third possibility that you actually read what I write and respond relevantly. First of all, I didn't bring science into it. It does not matter what my hypothetical entity's source of knowledge is, just that it has it. Secondly, my hypothetical entity does not know everything. That was the whole point. My hypothetical entity does not know anything about things which do not exist. Miss Havisham's life is a closed book to it, Ahab's obsessions mean nothing to it, etc. I don't know why this argument is so opaque to you, save that you're simply turning your brain off.
Because the box is defined as "that which science can measure, observe, and/or falsify." By definition, anything inside this box has limitations and boundaries.
So the physical universe is bounded? If you can demonstrate that, there might be a Nobel in your future.
On the contrary- an all powerful being, assuming that said being exists outside of what we call time, could easily have created the universe in such a way as to meet all of our prayers, needs, etc...
*sigh*
I wasn't talking about our prayers and needs. For one thing, I wouldn't use the first person plural. I was talking about a god which is utterly incapable of interacting with and producing causal change of any sort, good, bad, or indifferent, within the universe because that's what you have to have if you're going to claim that a god is forever beyond the purview of science.
Perhaps I should have been more specific in my point. I was discussing the greater "we" as in the universe in general. It's the problem of infinite regression. Where did all "this" come from?
How the universe arose is nothing to do with an "infinite regression", and apologists are generally very incompetent in dealing with transfinite mathematics anyway. The best explanation is that the universe arose as a fluctuation manifested as a spacetime curvature in an empty vacuum. General relativity indicates that under such conditions, the slight curvature will expand exponentially. Einstein made nothing of that possibility, but today it's called the Inflationary Theory.
Science can and will continue to strive to answer more and more questions about the origins of the universe, but will never be able to solve the problem of infinite regression.
Again, you've not demonstrated that there's an "infinite regression problem" to be solved.
Apparently, I was either unclear when I made the comment which prompted this response, or you are proving my point. Logically, those with middle-of-the-road views tend to be less passionate about them.
That's not logical, nor is it even true. There's a long history of passionately committed ideologues each positioning themselves as the "middle-of-the-road" option. Michael Bérubé writes a whole book (What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?) in a "pox on both your houses" style of 'moderation', excoriating the political left and right and positioning his vanilla liberalism as the middle-of-the-road position, while Ann Coulter derides Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the "lunatic left". Nancy Davis, a social democrat, frequently presents her socialist views as the middle of two extremes while a standard-bearer for unfettered capitalism like Hillary Clinton is portrayed by the right-wing as a raving socialist, and people like me disdain her for her unbearable shift to the right.
Contrary to your claims, the more fervently one holds to a position, the more likely they are to portray it as the middle ground of sweet, unbiased reason (at least in modern day circles where Enlightenment values have that kind of traction). I don't bother with that nonsense, personally, because it would be absurd to describe my political positions as in the middle of anything, and I know it.
If you are a proponent of evolution and have no opinion on the existance of God and I am a theistic evolutionist, then our scientific viewpoints are the same and you would have no qualms with my religious beliefs. If you were an atheist and held the same views on evolution, our scientific viewpoints would be the same but our religious values would clash.
But I am an atheist, and I don't give a damn about your religious opinions, which is why I didn't bother to respond to any of your testimony. So much for your preconceptions. Nor does any of this actually make a case that the truth of an argument lies between two extremes. It doesn't even fulfill the minimal requirement of identifying where the extremes are and what the middle ground is between them.
If you chose to espouse the belief that there is no God, that is your choice. But understand that it is a philosophical choice, not one based on science.
Physician, heal thyself. You're the one who's banging on about "science" when I'm trying to make a philosophical argument countering the implication that one must know everything to know that god doesn't exist.
OMG I can't believe you guys are still posting stuff down here. This comments list is so long, no one's going to read this crap!
Allow me to state the simple and obvious. If we are dealing with "science and god" then any god who makes claims upon the world and acts upon it can be tested and can fail.
The bible is replete with such claims on gods power over and in the physical world and each and every claim fails. This of course only rules out the god dictated by those constraints, i.e. one who answers prayers, makes the sun stand still, causes floods, etc. Though, each of these claims is found fantastically wanting. Thus, any rational observer would decide that such a being who is said to do these things does not exist. And we decide so the same way we rule out Santa and the Tooth Fairy. We learn that their claims as to what they do are false. Thus, we conclude that any such being with those traits as defined is falsified and we cease to believe in the existence of any being with those traits. And so it goes with any god who makes clams upon the natural world. We can test them, and they fail. And the simple reason is: They are not there.
While this alone does not rule out the place of a "god," as in a prime mover or one who only serves to initiate the universe, this vagary also does not give any evidence in favor of any god that any religion has ever created. So we don't put any belief in those unimagined gods either. We return to the natural default of not believing in a god, as we have no evidence of one and the prime mover "god" is for all intents and purposes no different from who we view the world now. That is, one with no divine intervention.
And on a side note, it has been stated so many fucking times in innumerable places that if the universe must have a cause, then so must a god. And if god gets a free pass at not needing to be created, then why not the universe? <>Something must be self-existant. And a lack of imagination (read: ignorant) argument does not fly.
And Black Sheep my friend, this argument isn't necessarily meant for other readers. It is one we are having amongst ourselves. Though, it is one you are more than welcome to join if you feel you have anything to add.
God Bless America. You would have been stoned in the middle ages for your blasphemy. America's belief system of 'free speech' is allowing you the right to criticize this movie and its subject, and from what I gather, your right to do so is the underlying issue the movie is addressing.
Being a Christian, and professing Christian beliefs, has unwittingly (or possibly, wittingly) been the target of ridicule by academia, the press, and our government.
People feel self-conscious about speaking about their faith in public because of public pressure. In today's society its okay to be anything but a caucasian Christian male. I dare you to publicly criticize the Islamic, Buddhist, or Native American Indian faiths publicly . . . what, cat's got your tongue now. That's what I thought, its not appropriate, but yet somewhere down the line it became appropriate to tarnish the most well documented, well-preserved religion ever!
I am a baby-Christian, and I have more questions than the next person. I search for answers to my biblical questions with an open mind to be able to find the truth in the clutter of today's society. When our American institutions begin to put forth organizational, financial, or personal agenda's in the way of people finding out facts, I have a real problem with that. If you are an atheist, that's a belief system; when we are looking for evidence to support or disprove our beliefs, I want the evidence to be objective.
I've ranted enough, God Bless America. America doesn't allow free speech, the people within her boarders allow free speech. If we fail to permit free speech, there is no one to blame but ourselves.
xtiger,
I ridicule Islam all the time. Buddists and native Americans usually do less to warrant my bile, but I have no love for any system of belief build upon blind faith. In this thread you find christianity being ridiculed because it is the faith held by those doing the damage they do in the name of it. But take a look around this blog and you'll find a good number of posts criticizing Islam.
Also, remember, Atheism in and of itself, is nothing more than the lack of belief. It is not a belief system. While atheists do all have beliefs and those beliefs may very well be influenced by the lack of a belief in a deity, atheism itself does not have a set list of beliefs, and thus cannot be a "belief system." It's a belief system like a test pattern is a tv show. It's not.
Also, I'd be a little careful about throwing around claims like "well preserved" in regards to christianity. Scientology is probably the most preserved as it has had the least time in which to devolve. And keep in mind "well documented" does not equal everything that has been written about that religion. That would be "the most written about religion." In fact Christianity has a frightening lack of independent documentation as to the claims made in its holy book. It isn't well documented at all.
And by the way, you began by being appreciative (I hope) of the fact that we will not be stoned to death today as we would have been in the middle ages; an age overrun with religious belief. Think about that for a second and realize that the religious didn't stop stoning people of their own accord. If your religion, of which you are a new member, hadn't been fought against, it would be stoning us still.
You would have been stoned in the middle ages for your blasphemy/
Are we supposed to be thankful? 2000 years ago you would have been crucified for your douchebaggery.
Ah, those were the days.
Fuck you.
Sorry, that was rude.
Fuck you, you bigoted assface.
God Bless America. You would have been stoned in the middle ages for your blasphemy. America's belief system of 'free speech' is allowing you the right to criticize this movie and its subject, and from what I gather, your right to do so is the underlying issue the movie is addressing.
First off, this is a blog with an international readership, not just an American one. Secondly, the theme of the movie is a bunch of wanna-be theocrats whining that they're not getting their way. Ho hum.
Being a Christian, and professing Christian beliefs, has unwittingly (or possibly, wittingly) been the target of ridicule by academia, the press, and our government.
Assuming that you're continuing the standard American myopia and mean the American government when you refer to "our government" in an internationally-read blog....
The majority of universities and colleges in America is private, and a majority of these private institutions are sectarian Christian. So what are you whining about?
Likewise the press. You'll never see any group more fawning over the Christian faith than the American media. Most newspapers, including my local paper, the San Diego Union-Tribune, even have a regular weekly "faith" section dominated by Christianity. Again, what are you whining about?
And lastly the American government is ridiculing Christianity? That one sends my Bullshit Meter off-scale. In American electoral politics, you simply cannot be elected without genuflecting before the religious lobby. This goes for both major political parties.
People feel self-conscious about speaking about their faith in public because of public pressure.
And yet you, a self-described "baby Christian", are doing just that. The big grown-up televangelists get their own stations, and airtime on all the major networks every Sunday. You were saying?
In today's society its okay to be anything but a caucasian Christian male.
Yes, pity the poor victim of the Black Atheist power structure.
I dare you to publicly criticize the Islamic, Buddhist, or Native American Indian faiths publicly . . . what, cat's got your tongue now.
You don't read this blog very often, do you? I'd link you, but the magnitude of links would be interpreted as spam and sent for moderation. I suggest you just search for the words "Islam" in the search bar.
That's what I thought, its not appropriate, but yet somewhere down the line it became appropriate to tarnish the most well documented, well-preserved religion ever!
Well-preserved? There are no less than twenty thousand Christian sects. Plus, the original Christians of James' times kept kosher, circumcized their male infants, observed Shabbat, etc. It was a main source of friction between the Pauline and Jamesian strains of Christianity.
By the way, if you're going to answer your own questions, it would behoove you to do a little internet search so that you don't look like an idiot.
I am a baby-Christian, and I have more questions than the next person.
That's amazing, because you already have managed to find in yourself a Big, Grown-Up Christian Arrogance.
I've ranted enough, God Bless America. America doesn't allow free speech, the people within her boarders allow free speech. If we fail to permit free speech, there is no one to blame but ourselves.
Here's news for you: coming here and making a plea for free speech in defense of a movie is self-defeating, which is, albeit, one thing that the idiots who are producing Expelled haven't figured out yet.
I am a baby-Christian, and I have more questions than the next person. I search for answers to my biblical questions with an open mind to be able to find the truth in the clutter of today's society. When our American institutions begin to put forth organizational, financial, or personal agenda's in the way of people finding out facts, I have a real problem with that. If you are an atheist, that's a belief system; when we are looking for evidence to support or disprove our beliefs, I want the evidence to be objective.
you see, your first problem is looking to the bible for any kind of guidance, especially in the modern world.
Your own supreme hubris prevents you from realizing that the only self-professed Christians who deserve and receive ridicule by academia, the press and the government are those who overstep their bounds by demanding that they receive special privileges that they have made absolutely no effort to earn. In other words, Creationism is not a science and never will be a science ever since scientists realized that a literal reading of the Bible is not an accurate depiction of the world as people see it over three hundred years ago. No amount of Hollywood magic or political spin-doctoring will ever change this, especially since the proponents of Creationism today are wholly, physically incapable of demonstrating how a literal reading of the Bible is science. The only people who say that Creationism is a science and that it deserves a place in science curricula are either blasphemous, hypocritical slanderers, or the mouth-breathing saps suckered by the aforementioned slanderers. Both groups deserve every single bit of scorn and ridicule they have rightly earned.
Unlikely: Those Christians who have enshrined their ignorance as "faith," such as yourself, have demonstrated they lack the motivation, drive or brain power to ask any questions. Furthermore, I find that, whenever a person boasts of having "an open mind," that person once left their heads so open that their brains fell out, whereupon the emptied cranium was filled to the brim with useless mental garbage and then welded closed. Furthermore, why do your "biblical questions" take priority over trying to understand Nature and the Universe? Unless, of course, "biblical questions" is a euphemism for "navel contemplation."
If you had not welded your own eyelids shut, you would realize that Creationists are a group of institutions whose agendas require that people stop finding facts. Your own arrogant ignorance makes you into a raging hypocrite. Furthermore, as once mentioned in this blog, atheism is not a belief system. The lack of belief in the divine is no more a belief system than "off" is a channel on the television set.
And most of western and northern Europe is even more secular than the US. Our "blasphemy" is allowed not because big sky daddy blessed this country; it is because brave people all around the world have worked to move us from being dominated by theology.
Granted, some people from academia are anti-religious but you will also find much more who are. You really do not check out your local book store much.
Are you say that the press is anti-religious? It is just so hard to find religious themed publishing companies and publications.
Um, when was the last time you heard of a president, senator or member of the house of representatives who admitted they were an atheist or agnostic? And under the current administration, you have heard of faith based initiatives.
Life is just so hard for the white christian male in this country. You so very rarely heard from the likes of George W Bush, Pat Robertson, Trent Lott, James Dobson, Bill O'Reilly, Mel Gibson...do I really need to go on. Where is the oppression of christian males?
You have never read this blog before. You are making accusations based on your ignorance. It is not that the cat has our tongue. Please, go over past threads and see the ones where Islam is roasted. As for criticizing Buddhists or Native American believes, rarely do we have to deal with the nut jobs that may follow those paths, unlike the nut jobs that follow christianity of islam. Also, if you think christianity is so well preserved, pleased be advised that there is no documented remnants of the bible until around the four century.
xtiger70, the reason people here are ripping your comments apart is not because we are out to oppress you. (Thought you calling what is happening here "blasphemy" tips off what you would like to do to us.) It is you are basing your rant on a noxious combination of ignorance and stupidity. I would suggest one of two things; either learn more about everything around you or stay away from here. It really is that simple.
For someone who claims to be an intellectual, you're pretty ignorant.
If you watched the movie before attacking it, perhaps you would realize that its not a religious attack on science, but rather pointing out that TRUTH is being withheld and freedom is being suppressed. It dives into a very important issue and simply presents the case and then asks the individuals watching to do what they will with it.
I feel sorry for you that you are so insecure in your beliefs you need to not only defend yourself, but attack others!
perhaps you would realize that its not a religious attack on science, but rather pointing out that TRUTH is being withheld and freedom is being suppressed.
In other words, the basis of the film is a lie, and mo doesn't have the analytical skills or useful knowledge to understand that the problem lies in the very premise s/he is presenting.
So, what's the problem with calling that out?
How dare we attack a lie!!!
Mo, you and your compadres are both boring and predictable.
Bunch of hypocrites.
If you watched the movie before attacking it, perhaps you would realize that its not a religious attack on science, but rather pointing out that TRUTH is being withheld and freedom is being suppressed. It dives into a very important issue and simply presents the case and then asks the individuals watching to do what they will with it.
PZ is in the movie and we know exactly what lies it contains, you dumb fuck.
No, it isn't.
TRUTH is that which is supported by facts and evidence.
"Intelligent Design" and other forms of creationism are not supported by facts and evidence.
Therefore, no truth is being withheld.
No, it isn't.
Freedom of speech is almost completely permitted in the United States of America, where this movie was (mostly) made and is being presented. No-one is preventing the film from being shown. No-one is preventing "Intelligent Design" and other Creationist ideas from being published. Any church in the land is permitted to present apologetics that favor Creationism and "Intelligent Design".
However, science has higher standards for TRUTH than the United States of America. Science has higher standards for TRUTH than churches. In order to be considered part of science, an idea must be supported by facts and evidence. "Intelligent Design" and other Creationist ideas are not supported by facts and evidence. Therefore, they cannot be taught as science.
It really is that simple.
Mo, you and your compadres are both boring and predictable.
And gullibly stupid. Go climb back into bed with your sister, you half-witted yokel liar for Jesus.
Perhaps an IDer would like to provide us with some predictions and experimental results that are being "suppressed?" Heck, I've been unable to find any content in ID, unless you're arguing that the Illuminati suppresses blog comments in real time. I've dealt with some IDers at my blog, and not one of them was able to provide any substance.
Quite frankly, it's the IDers who keep getting caught in shoddy attempts at suppression. Horror of horrors! Someone wrote a review of the sneak peek and didn't sign the nondisclosure agreement!
Horror of horrors! PZ's openly challenging the makers to release the whole, unedited interview they performed under false pretenses. What do they do? Chicken out.
If you watched the movie before attacking it
five bucks says "mo" hasn't actually seen the movie.
takers?
It just sounds SO much like all those demented fuckwits who criticize the God Delusion, and have never actually read a single page, or the critics of "Origins" (like our recent Canadian moron who challenged the title of the book) who also have never read a page of it.
... to clarify, it's the arguments that sound the same, regardless of whether we are talking about something they criticize (Darwin), or something they support (Behe).
doesn't matter - it becomes readily obvious they never bother to actually peruse either.
they just project dogma and authoritarianism. It's in their nature to do so.
In other words, all of the supporters for Expelled! have been repeating the same thing:
Heh.
essentially, if you substitute peer pressure and conditioning for programming, that about sums it up in a lot of cases, I think.
seriously, how many times have you seen a creobot come here (or pick any science blog, for that matter), rag on Dawkins or Darwin, and we quickly find out they have read neither.
gotta be in the hundreds over the last 3 years or so, yes?
same with Behe and Dembski, but instead of crticism, it is unqualified support.
none of them have the slightest clue what NFL even means (past it being an abbreviation for a popular american sporting league).
what's more, in this specific case, as was noted far earlier in the thread...
I don't actually see PZ attacking the movie "Expelled" anywhere in this thread.
Instead, what PZ did is attack a PUBLISHED argument put forward by the producers of the movie. A well thought out attack, based on actual reading from what the producers wrote themselves, I might add.
now if they wanted to attack PZ's actual argument wrt to the subject of THIS thread, at least that would be relevant.
Instead, It's like watching a bunch of idiots complaining about something Hitchens said 20 years ago at some random public appearance, on a thread devoted to analyzing a specific argument presented in Dawkins' God Delusion.
IOW, interesting from a sociological perspective, but that's about it, really.
...PZ also notes a similar pattern in the producers of "Expelled":
yup. succumbing to the mentality of a cult tends to make one insane alrighty.
Heh.
essentially, if you substitute peer pressure and conditioning for programming, that about sums it up in a lot of cases, I think.
Heh, I was gonna say peeyar pressure.
But it's almost gotten to the point on this one of, who gets comment 1000? Is there a prize?
IOW, interesting from a sociological perspective, but that's about it, really.
As a sociologist studying public discourse, I can dig into the strategies, but lord, it's so repetitive and wrong that it just becomes tedious. This is one of those areas that I would hate to have to develop a coding scheme. It would be easy, because the deflection strategies are so blatant (people really are talking past each other), but then you just get the batshit crazy people like our neoconfederate friend above. I've done some study of those folks in my MA work (I was focusing more on the Right as an MA student), and, well, wow. One of my teachers from a long time ago studies the Klan. They know her. They know she despises everything they stand for. They still got her back at rallies. It's bizarre, and it takes a special kind of researcher to be able to dig into those types of movements with any real depth. I've pretty much given up on specifically studying the Right, although since sexual politics have always been and tend to remain my central focus, they're always going to enter into the issues I'm researching.
But, even as a sociologist these folks bore the shit out of me.
Heh, I was gonna say peeyar pressure.
LOL
it's so repetitive and wrong that it just becomes tedious
you don't do enough research!
repetitive, boring, and tedious describes a perfect data set!
ever try to actually analyze an "interesting" data set?
ugh.
:p
you don't do enough research!
repetitive, boring, and tedious describes a perfect data set!
I have spent far too much time in front of a screen analyzing hplc results--picking the starting and ending points of the assay--and in trying to get exactly the right concentration of acetic acid out of a stream using membrane separations, recording pressure and pump rates--and having a funded professor who just didn't want to deal with the problem of the fucking natural azeotrope--the shit just wasn't gonna work no matter how many things we tried!!!
I have managed to avoid using very much GSS data, though, and I'm grateful for that.
Yeah, I been in the lab watching that shit all night. And I've coded all kinds of boring shit. But I would pity the research assistant I gave threads such as these to, though. Not just tedious, but they'll be dumber by the end of it.
And before you yell at me, yes I was writing shit for my dissertation earlier tonight--doing that meso-macro theory connection shit....I'm working, i'm working.
...I've done some study of those folks in my MA work
well, there ya go, then. You know that when you see a dataset that is so consistent you don't even NEED to run statistics on it, that's an interesting and valuable dataset. It's the only way I can look at these folks without pulling my hair out (not that even that always works) - they're of little more interest than another point in a dataset.
I'd like to say I intend to publish a paper on the phenomenon (I actually was compiling a real dataset over the last few years), but there are several that have beat me to it already, in at least two different disciplines.
my favorite being the Science paper that came out last year, which I'm so fond of citing, I'm going to do it again right now, just for the hell of it...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5827/996
now, back to Carlin, who has a new special on HBO as we speak.
"Where would we be without our bullshit?" he said as I write this...
Ichthyic,
I do not have access to that paper at home.
How do they define "transmitted by trustworthy sources".
I assume they mean sources perceived as trustworthy?
I'm thrilled this movie is being made. Within my first 3 months of studies, several years back, it became apparent to me that very little in science actually added up to anything credible, especially the theory of evolution. I'm proud to see the brave non-conformist's (non-sheep?) in the scientific community are willing to stand up for what's right and contribute to the making of Expelled even at the risk of their own careers.
It's really quite simple folks; if there's nothing to hide, then there's nothing to be afraid of. If the subject Expelled is dealing with is as preposterous as you claim, then you have nothing to worry about. That makes perfectly good sense. Yet one can't help but notice
the peculiarity of Mr. Myers multiple, lengthy responses. This is clearly a major issue to him. What could he have said that's apparently consumed the majority of his thoughts and has him so on edge? I can't wait to find out. Of course I don't wish harm on anyone, so I do hope he's not blackballed from his profession and from the scientific communities because of his comments.
As for the notion that the interviews included in Expelled are obsolete because the interviewees were being misled about the subject matter (something the producer denies) - why is that? Should one not expect the same honest answers regardless of who's asking the questions? The fact that Mr. Myers (and others) is using this as a cop-out clearly indicates he's made a major boo-boo and is desperately grasping at anything to try and relinquish responsibility for his own actions. In other words - he looks an awful lot like the child caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
I'm also quite amused by the majority of the responses here. The level of anger, frustration, blind arrogance and embarrassing immaturity being projected tells me that Expelled has struck quite the nerve with most of you. Either that, or the majority of responders here are between the ages of 6 and 12. Maybe a little of each. *laugh*
As for those of you saying I.D. is ludicrous - you do realize that there are proponents of I.D. that are far more accomplished and educated than Mr. Myers, and certainly more accomplished and educated than any of you, right? You'd have to be deluded by your own ego to disagree with that statement.
Anyways, I've rambled on a bit so I'll sum it all up: If someone accomplished and knowledgeable has an opinion, regardless of whether or not it differs from your own, it should still be respected. To do otherwise, that's the definition of being close-minded. You can argue I.D. until you're blue in the face, but you can't argue whether or not you're close-minded, because that's painfully, and sadly obvious by each and every reply in this blog.
Just once I'd like to see someone with the maturity and the decency to argue without feeling the need to use insults to mask their own frustrations and self-doubt.
Fuck off Savant.
So, Savant, I see you avoid using insults. Ah, but I see that you saw through all the BS in science after less then one term in college. I stand in awe of you. No. Really.
As for respecting ideas, if the ideas is based and bad information or flat out lies, it deserves none.
Hello, IDiot Savant.
IdiotSavant, you're wrong. I can say so because I'm much smarter than you. How can we tell? Simple. My signature proclaims my intelligence to a far greater degree than yours does.
I wanna go to IdiotSavant's Church. Being interesting in the truth and thus having nothing to be afraid of, I'm sure they must offer an unparalleled comparative religion education.
Posted by: TheSavant80 | March 3, 2008 11:57 AM
BINGO!
What do I win?
I'm going to cut the IdiotSavant some latitude here, since I've got more than twice the education than s/he does and thus s/he should treat my experience and opinion with respect.
We're used to the quote-mining by creationists. We know they bluster and speak in sound-bites, since, like the snake-oil salesmen they're descended from, they have absolutely no respect for those they're trying to mislead. The only antidote to their poison is information, hence our frustration at the likes of people like, well, you, for instance (I tuk some scool bud i dind';t like the lernen' sos i went back to pappyus farm where tehy dont tell us werre frum monkesy).
Now, so far, I've avoided using insults in order not to obfuscate my answer. But now that I've dispensed with that, and sice I care not a whit what a disingenuous faithbot like yourself thinks, kindly go fuck yourself with a pointy crucifix.
Hmmm. Brownian going all TM on the (so-called) savant's ass. Which reminds me, almost a thousand posts and no TruthMachine in sight? I told you guys that paying it respect would break it!
Astonishing hypocrisy from Savant. Well done, Savant! You have exceeded expectations! Collect your prize at the door on your way out.
If we're going to make the magnitude of the response an indicator of an absence of substance, I'll note that the opposition is spending millions of dollars making and distributing a movie. I'm afraid the effort I've spent in rattling off a bunch of refutations on a blog is nothing compared to what the Expelled liars have done.
Two questions, Savant:
1) Please describe all of the contributions Intelligent Design "Theory" has made, and please explain in detail why they are superior to all of the contributions made by the Theory of Evolution.
2) Why didn't you bother to name any of these Intelligent Design proponents who are more accomplished and more intelligent than Professor Myers? One would get the impression that you are lying.
Very often the truth hurts, and it's as clear as day that my previous reply struck a nerve with many of you for some strange reason. *laugh*
You are all blinded by your own prejudice and ignorance. I don't think a comparison to the Ku Klux Klan is entirely out of order. Different beliefs, obviously, but ultimately very similar attitudes. Of course, if you told the KKK they were close-minded, they'd deny it. Sounds vaguely familiar....*laugh*
"The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order which may or may not be divinely inspired." - Stephen Hawking
P.S. - Janine, that wasn't my website sweet heart, but thanks for checking it out. *laugh*
Yes, it sounds like Expelled, without a evidence, and with the venom of hateful losers.
Keep forcing your laughs, loser.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Or, it could be that people here have no patience for new Intelligent Design proponent shills who repeat the same lies and taunts over and over again.
Among other things, you have not answered either of my two questions, and secondly, all Klansmen are Christians who have rooted their hatred in both their faith, and a sense of warped patriotism.
Yes, it sounds like Expelled, without evidence, and with the venom of hateful losers.
Keep forcing your laughs, loser.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Savant is impervious to reason. Don't waste your time. Starve the troll.
Have you fine people read the story of Guillermo Gonzalez? One of the most sickening things I've read in quite a while.
From the article.....
Gonzalez is a more-than-capable research astronomer. According to a Smithsonian/NASA astrophysics database, Gonzalez's scientific articles from 2001 to 2007 rank the highest among astronomers in his department according to a standard measure of how frequently they have been cited by other scientists. He has published 68 peer-reviewed articles, which beat the ISU department's standard for tenure by 350 percent. He has also co-authored a standard astronomy textbook, published by Cambridge University Press, which his faculty colleagues use in their own classes.
Yet in turning down Gonzalez's appeal, ISU president Gregory Geoffroy claimed that the astronomer "did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect."
Repulsive.
Very often the truth hurts, and it's as clear as day that my previous reply struck a nerve with many of you for some strange reason. *laugh*
Not even wrong.
You are repulsive.
Either Savant had grossly incompetent teachers as a student, or he, himself, is a grossly incompetent student to begin with.
Yay President Geoffroy!!!!
I.S.U., '93
Yes, we've heard of Gonzalez.
And yet, Savant does not care to realize that the reason why Gonzales was turned down for tenure was because he demonstrated no desire to do any further research, no desire or ability to get grant money, and did not bother to encourage students to enter into doctorate programs.
Really, why is it a bad thing that he was turned down for tenure because he demonstrated that he wasn't attempting to earn it?
Oh, burn. I suppose the fact that sometimes mathematicians get irritated by Time Cube Guy claiming Pi = 3.20 means that his schizo text must be true.
Savant, have you ever considered the possibility that we're irritated because you're parroting a pack of lies?
Heh! You're a pathetic joke, IDiot Savant. It's clear that you're not even able to evaluate how "accomplished and educated" the participants to this debate are. You won't find anyone here who'd want to trade places with (e.g.) Dembski or Behe, and there are many of us who would be only too happy to have our CVs compared with theirs.
*sigh* It's kind of sad that people like you think their uneducated opinion matters for anything. I'd suggest that you actually try to go learn something about the real world, but it's pretty clear that suggestion would fall on deaf ears.
Alas, the poor little IDiot Savant, who did not even need to continue his education, does not understand how tenure work.
Here is a question for you, do you think Stephen Hawking would agree with you?
Who, we are like the KKK? Please, oh one of superior intellect, when was the last time you heard of people like us lynching someone like you. What is it with creationist and awful analogies?
One last thing, you misogynist creep, you do not call women you do not know "sweet heart".
Oh yes, I meant to point out that Hawking is (of course) on the list of Steves. But Kseniya is right, we really shouldn't be feeding the stupid misogynist troll. It's clearly incapable of learning.
Another thing about the Expelled crew I keep feeling like drilling them on: Why are they so afraid of PZ's whole interview getting out? Why are they so horrified that someone gave their sneak peak a bad review?
But Kseniya is right, we really shouldn't be feeding the stupid misogynist troll.
Can I eat 'im then, huh, can I, please can I?
I watched Dexter last night, and I'm feeling ravenous.
I guess there's still a little Catholic in me after all.
Savant Statement A:
Savant Statement B:
As I said: Astonishing. With the infinite wisdom available only to a first-semester college freshman, he rejects virtually all of science - then comes in here and preaches humility and respect.
OK, Brownian. But only ONE troll! It's almost supper time.
I would recommend against it. They tend to be pretty stringy, and the meat is very, very bitter. You need a long cooking time and lots of spices to make it even remotely palatable.
Better for the feral cats behind the barn.
@ Kseniya (#955): Yes, astonishing. But on the other hand, such hypocracy could be expected from someone as moronic as the "savant." I imagine he still doesn't see the contradiction even after you've explicitly pointed it out. As you said, he's impervious to reason. Some folks just can't be educated; he's obviously one of them. Very sad.
Stanton, my angry little friend, what does quoting Paul Zachary's earlier blog on Mr. Gonzales prove? Other than the fact that he's the shepherd and you're a member of his flock, nothing. There is no factual evidence presented inside Paul Zachary's blog, just diversion tactics masquerading as fact. If you would've read the original article, you would've seen that one member of the I.S.U. faculty had already admitted to voting against Gonzalez due to his beliefs.
Oh yeah, and then there's THIS.
*SWOOSH* (that's the sound of any false claims that Gonzalez was fired for something other than his beliefs being flushed down the toilet)
So close-minded......*shakes his head in disgust*
I can't believe that a scientist, making tenure decisions, would be so bold as to say something like, "I don't want someone doing nonscience in my department." That's a pretty insane thing for a physicist to do, to keep pseudo-science out.
Shocking!
Amazing!
Scandalous!
Excuse me, not Stanton, but Bronze Dog.
Stanton, do you have anything to back up your claims? Either post a link to a credible news report, or I'll have no choice but to flush your claims down the commode as well. Neither of us want that, but without evidence (such as the mountains of evidence for I.D. that's swept under the rug) I'll have no choice but to do just that.
It's not about that.
I went treeplanting in northern British Columbia when I was merely a young whelp. After being tormented by black flies for months, after awhile I came to the conclusion that it wasn't enough to merely kill them or slap them away: like creationists, they only live to irritate sentient mammals, and so lay thousands of eggs, the destruction of a few of which is like ladling out the ocean with a teaspoon. However, I found some measure of satisfaction when I began biting (and eating) them back. I can only assume the same stratagem would work just as well with creos.
I went treeplanting in northern British Columbia when I was merely a young whelp. After being tormented by black flies for months, after awhile I came to the conclusion that it wasn't enough to merely kill them or slap them away: like creationists, they only live to irritate sentient mammals, and so lay thousands of eggs, the destruction of a few of which is like ladling out the ocean with a teaspoon. However, I found some measure of satisfaction when I began biting (and eating) them back. I can only assume the same stratagem would work just as well with creos.
This I understand, and I also see that it is free of the peeyar that makes this place so perilous.
Munch away.
Neither of us want that, but without evidence (such as the mountains of evidence for I.D. that's swept under the rug.
Hey Savant, Since they've got their own ID journals, reviewed by ID-friendly peers, and still can't manage to publish anything of substance, one has to ask who's doing the sweeping.
Indeed, your emperor has no clothes.
And you're boring. You call us sheep, and yet you cannot come up with one original argument you haven't cribbed from the spin sheets of Dembski himself. Of course you won't answer Kseniya's claims about your hypocricy, because that's what your kind does. After spending enough time in such discussions, I wonder what it is about creationists (and their Uruk-hai half-man, half-mud versions, IDists) that in discussions with them they cannot pass the Turing test for sentience or intelligence.
So, for my own interests as noted above, I ask you: what's your weight and BMI? I've got an earth-oven in the backyard, but I need to make some cooking-time approximations to estimate how many stones I'll need to heat.
I can't wait until April 18th. Sorry fellas, but the gig is up. This movie is well on its way to legendary status, a true landmark in the history of society. The hoax known as evolution is about to be exposed to a mainstream audience. And that scares you. Of course, the past 150 years of science has been built on evolution, so I can somewhat understand the reluctance to give it up despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. No one wants to admit that they've wasted such a large portion of their lives on something that turned out to be a complete sham, or laughing stock if you prefer, which is where the theory of evolution is clearly headed.
I understand Paul Zachary's concerns. He's teaching at the University of Minnesota, a school noted for it's wrestling program and not much else. It's on the bottom rung of the ladder when it comes to nearly every branch of academia. If he loses his job over what he says in Expelled, it's not off to another university. It's off to the local high school.....
As a janitor. *laugh*
And yet another Troll, with no predictions, no evidence, no method or mechanism. Just arrogance.
If only they didn't take that "give away all you have and follow me" line as metaphorical, they wouldn't have the money to try and buy public acceptance. Not that they follow most of the red letter section of the bible as it is.
(And of course, that has nothing to do with ID, as it clearly isn't tied to christians.)
Anyone else notice how Savant has conveniently neglected to answer either of my two questions?
I think we should be shouting this from the rooftops!!!!
I don't know about you guys, but I can't wait for April 19th, when I get to read all the bad reviews.
Oh yes, Stanton. I noticed quite clearly. For as we've seen, if they have to answer the scientific questions, they'll have nothing to say.
So I suppose as long as we're debating this merely on the standards of schoolyard taunting like "whaddya got to hide?" then I suppose that no one on the ID side would mind showing the unedited PZ interview. And surely they wouldn't make people viewing prescreenings of Expelled sign non-disclosure agreements. I mean, if their movie is so great and all, then they shouldn't be so cagey about, you know, showing it and allowing people to talk about it, right?
And please note my complete and utter non-use of insults in this comment. I guess that means I win this argument.
If evolutionary biology really was a sham, it would never have been able to survive over 15 + decades, even with a worldwide conspiracy. Savant is too arrogant to realize that bad science can not survive in the real world, not even with support.
I'm not sure whether it's because they have nothing to contribute to science, or whether because all of their functioning braincells had committed suicide.
"Sorry fellas, but the gig is up."
It's gonna be a really sweet gig too, the venue's got pretty good acoustics for a dive bar and we got the local ska/hip hop combo opening for us. You should come, man, really.
No one wants to admit that they've wasted such a large portion of their lives on something that turned out to be a complete sham, or laughing stock if you prefer, which is where the theory of evolution is clearly headed.
Yep, been hearing this from the creos for the last 150 years.
Of course, these are the same folks who've been claiming Jesus'll be back any day now for the last 2000, so you can clearly see how much stock they put into accuracy in predictions.
Before I go...
If anyone's interested in a Q&A session involving the man I consider the most brilliant in the world (far more so than Paul Zachary) and a group from Darwin's Bulldogs, here you go.... (right click + save)
FILE 1 (32:32)
FILE 2 (18:48)
These are in .mp3 format.
I think you all for giving me a good laugh today. April 18th is almost upon us, the day the theory of evolution goes down in a blaze of glory. Hallelujah!
Shut up, Dude. It's the Stone-Cutters.
Shut up. They can see what you're writing. You don't want to blow the whole thing, do you?
What are they going to do to me?
Shackle me to the Stone of Shame?
Reward me with the Stone of Glory?
What are they going to do to me?
Shackle me to the Stone of Shame?
Reward me with the Stone of Glory?
We're having wings! And you won't be invited any more.
Who the hell is Perry Marshall, and why should we consider someone who so poorly understands the theory of evolution, mangles Barbara McClintock's contribution (hint: she wasn't on your side), and can't even answer a simple question "brilliant"?
Just to clear things up:
1) Evolution will not be exposed as a hoax on April 18.
2) The world will not end on December 21, 2012.
Glad to be of service.
One reason Gonzalez was denied a tenured position in the physics department because, in the opinion of his colleagues, he had abandoned science in favor of non-science. Savant would have the world believe that this implies nothing more than a simple, one-dimensional conflict of "beliefs", as if Gonzalez was ostracized for nothing more than espousing a legitimate minority viewpoint.
Aye, there's the rub, Piglet. The view espoused is not scientifically legitimate. His colleagues characterize ID as "intellectually vacuous" and "a movement that is endangering science." Even Hauptman, who had defended him early on, had this to say:
I should point out for the record that if PZ had actually been incorrect about anything he noted about the lies of the Expelled producers (not Ben Stein himself, btw, as many have assumed), and if Idiot Savant (I doubt the "savant" part) recognized it, he would have actually pointed out such indiscretions.
So I guess what can be meaningfully inferred from his incoherent hatred is that PZ is correct, and that he hates PZ simply for being correct.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Those physics folks are making me even happier to have worn my Iowa State sweatshirt to the meet-up on Friday. Not a bad little school, you know.
April 18th is almost upon us, the day the theory of evolution goes down in a blaze of glory.
WATERLOOOO!
hmm, I'll wager a case of scotch you're wrong.
No one wants to admit that they've wasted such a large portion of their lives on something that turned out to be a complete sham
exactly.
now if you could just stop projecting for a moment...
hmm, I'll wager a case of scotch you're wrong.
If he's right, I want a YouTube video of you performing this...along with Brownian (he can show off his karaoke skills).
By the way, here's a review of Expelled, which I find interesting. It's not so much because the guy is a film student who thinks he learned about the scientific community from a propaganda piece, nor that he can't spell or write very well. It's for a more mundane but more important reason, which is that it seems to try to cover what the film is ostensibly about more than any other review of Expelled that I've seen:
As gullible a twerp as Skylar is, he's still not convinced by the "evidence" in Expelled that evolution is untrue.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I assume they mean sources perceived as trustworthy?
yes, as identified by the subjects themselves.
Because Savant is an idiot too arrogant to realize that Intelligent Design never was science to begin with.
If he's right, I want a YouTube video of you performing this...along with Brownian (he can show off his karaoke skills).
LOL
no, I think I'd rather light myself on fire, first.
that acceptable?
btw, I would have answered the same if we were still in the 70's.
:p
no, I think I'd rather light myself on fire, first.
that acceptable?
So, you'll be performing the Doors?
Shit, I haven't even opened the wine yet tonight. It's gonna be fun :)
btw, for those unawares, or that haven't been following the saga of "ID" since 2000, that reference to a wager of scotch was a poke at Dembski:
Dembski, 2002:
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.07.Scott_and_Branch.htm
uh huh.
btw, IIRC he never paid up (someone correct if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall WD moving the goalposts after the fact).
not the last time he lost a wager of a bottle of scotch on some idiotic prediction of his, btw.
So, you'll be performing the Doors?
You know that it would be untrue...
I thought that was a Michael Jackson reference.
I thought that was a Michael Jackson reference.
I was thinking more along the lines of this:
http://www.ridiculopathy.com/news_detail.php?id=1280
along with Brownian (he can show off his karaoke skills)
No.
I'm pouting.
You let my dinner get away.
I thought it was Richard Pryor.
You let my dinner get away.
He might come back...and there are plenty more where that one came from. You're in no danger of starving.
1000!!!!