Satan’s wiles »« Friday Cephalopod: The Florida squid still think Miami Vice is cool

The name “Kent Hovind” is like a demonic conjuration

There’s an odd phenomenon that crops up now and then. Every once in a while, an old thread is revived and the discussion gets lively again…and often it’s because yet another deluded fanatical creationist has been searching the web using the magic phrase “Kent Hovind” and found my site. And then they’re all offended because I point out that Hovind is a deeply ignorant fraud and tax cheat who was sentenced to 10 years in prison (currently serving his time in Florence, Colorado; expected release in 2015).

By the way, you should listen to his phone calls from jail. Criminal mastermind, he is not.

Anyway, it’s happened again. Some creationist dufus has hurled himself into a three-year old thread. So what I’m going to do is close that thread, and send the conversation here, where everyone can join in and have fun.

Comments

  1. consciousness razor says

    Ethan Siegal (of Starts With a Bang) has lots and lots of articles about the big bang you could search for, but The Big Bang for Beginners is a recent one which is fairly short and to the point. The point being that we know the universe is expanding by analyzing the redshifted light from distant galaxies. That the universe is expanding implies that it was smaller, so if you keep going back in time you come to a state where everything was extremely hot and dense. We can use that to predict the ratios of lighter elements, as well as the presence of the cosmic microwave background radiation. What “caused” the big bang, if anything, is another question.

    As for abiogenesis, we don’t yet know exactly how it happened. If the question is whether it did happen, the only logical option is that it did, since we know that life hasn’t existed forever because the universe as a whole hasn’t been capable of supporting life (as we know it) forever. It had to have come from something nonliving one way or another. There’s no need for it to be somehow “caused” by a supernatural force or entity, since there’s no reason to consider life itself a supernatural phenomenon.

  2. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    That gets explained at what level in the education system?

    Where else, in science class when appropriate. And religion is never, ever, appropriate in a science class.

    Then can “we”/you just end the debate and explain it?

    Fine, start the debate with the conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity…Or shut the fuck up about debate…

  3. Ichthyic says

    Leopards and lions can interbreed with each other, as well as tigers and jaguars. Hybrids of all of these have been observed.

    ah, but can you breed the HYBRIDS together and get back the parent strain?

    no.

    hence, still different species.

  4. consciousness razor says

    …”extremely complex scientific issues”….

    That gets explained at what level in the education system?

    Your education system depends on which country you live in.

    I will say that I’ve known eight-year olds from deep fundy territory in the U.S. who know more about science than you do. That isn’t a compliment.

  5. changeable moniker says

    Nerd, SCOTUS has no force in South Africa. You’re right. But, just sayin’.

  6. winstonsmith says

    Then can “we”/you just end the debate and explain it?

    ds^2 = -c*dt^2 + (a(t)^2)*domega^2.

    R – 1/2gR + glambda = 8piGT/c^4

    Et tu comprendes?

  7. ibyea says

    @changeable moniker
    I at least can recognize the second equation as general relativity.

  8. Wowbagger, Madman of Insleyfarne says

    Heh. I had some fun with the godbots in that thread. I miss the days when I was able to spend as much time posting as I could back then.

  9. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ consciousness razor

    Your education system depends on which country you live in.

    Even in the apartheid era, there was a fairly strong separation of science and woo. At least in the science class. Unfortunately we did have shit like “Religious Instruction” (which one was not obliged to partake of) and of course an endless stream of xtian propoganda from teachers themselves.

    That being said, we where nevertheless inculcated with a love of science and more than enough knowledge of the world to not fall for the kind of views that Daniel has expressed here.

  10. ibyea says

    The first equation, btw, is:

    ds^2=-c*dt^2+a*t^2*d\omega^2

    If you ask me, it looks like space-time interval equation of special relativity, but written in an alternate way.

  11. sudomabin usri says

    So, heavenhelpusdaniel’s first post in this thread was at 10:24am March 2nd, and his maybe but-I’ve-seen-it-before-and-it-wasn’t-true last post was at 10:42pm March 3rd. Was there any break for sleep anywhere in there, or did he just post non-stop for 36+ hours?

  12. omnicrom says

    So Danielhaven

    You took grave offense when I invited you to answer what you actually believed to set the record straight and then wrote a second post were I dismissed you for not replying in 24 hours after you had pointedly replied to several people whose posts came after mine.

    You said that I had jumped to conclusions and attacked me for my “Hacker Buddies”, being in this case people with basic internet knowledge. You then said you would take me up on my invitation to explain your belief.

    You did not however tell us what you actually believe. You made your usual muddled tone troll/martyr complex/smallest violin defense about my nonexistent hacker friends and continued to trundle right along down the thread.

    I know that self-awareness is not your strong suit but can you possibly imagine why people don’t like you? Hint: It’s not for your religion. It’s because you ignore questions and facts, send out nearly incoherent posts, and spend most of your time lamenting the mean and nasty treatment you receive at the hands of those evil atheists and their hacker friends or whatever.

    Oh and as for your actual substantive arguments whenever someone can successfully decipher one of your posts it turns out to be old news. The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution are not 3 parts of a big theory but three entirely separate theories, therefore if the Big Bang is discovered to be outmoded and a new and better theory replaces it Evolution will not suddenly disappear. Also if the Big Bang is replaced by a new theory it will certainly not be “Goddidit”.

    You also make the tired old “Scientists secretly don’t believe in evolution but are scared because its Dogma” claim and say Evolution is outmoded. You then attempt to martyr yourself for those poor put upon scientists who secretly want to spring free of the Dogma of evolution. This is hard to do since those scientists don’t exist. Evolution is not some wild guess, it’s something we can actually see happen. There are actual real arguments going on over evolution but when scientists argue they do so with facts and experimental data, they also aren’t arguing that Evolution is wrong on its face and actual scientists CERTAINLY aren’t arguing in favor of divine intervention.

    Also are you seriously saying that since you believe in God we think you believe in all religions? That’s what you said further up the thread I think. And it’s very wrong and very weird.

  13. SallyStrange: bottom-feeding, work-shy peasant says

    This thread was quite entertaining and educational. Thanks, y’all.

  14. firstapproximation says

    If you ask me, it looks like space-time interval equation of special relativity, but written in an alternate way.

    Actually, it’s the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric, the metric for the universe. Also, it’s written:

    ds^2 = -c^2dt^2 + a(t)^2d{\Sigma}^2

    You’re right that it looks like the “flat” Minkowski space of special relativity. This is no accident. We expect a small enough region of curved spacetime to look locally like Minkowski space, sorta like how on a small scale the Earth looks flat.

    Note: I used d{\Sigma} instead of Mr. 1984’s d{\Omega} for the spatial part of the metric because d{\Omega} usually refers to the metric of the unit sphere: d{\Omega}^2 = d{\theta}^2 + \sin^2 \theta d{\phi}^2.

  15. mikelaing says

    danielhaven goes off, up he isn’t said, but then [¿puzzles inside?] March 17 cries ≠ victory of discussions¡ Then, pride against dishonesty, for this purpose when its time to say was fucking penalty! Others, offside then insults of choices [Leeds laughing at - not by degrees]° raised flags! but not (twice)²

    Is my time¿ not well but spent with the laughers not understanding but hoping in bunches the ones that ridicule.

    Helping that Leeds even more to Southampton as Western [ham] ridicule restores as Hull freezes.
    Over.

    Fuck, Danny, send me that link again for the translator. What I meant is that Leeds will kick your ass 2 weeks from now. I have faith so I know it will happen, mate!

  16. firstapproximation says

    Start with the dollar symbol immediately followed by ‘Latex’, insert text, then end with dollar symbol. E.g, type “[$]Latex e^{i\pi}+1=0[$]” without the square brackets around $ to get this:

    e^{i\pi}+1=0

  17. Owlmirror says

    [LaTeX tip]

    Also, \displaystyle before your equation/expression/whatever will make the equation/expression/whatever be displayed larger.

    R_{\mu \nu} -\frac{1}{2}R\,g_{\mu \nu} + \Lambda\,g_{\mu \nu} = {8 \pi G \over c^4} T_{\mu \nu}

    vs

    \displaystyle R_{\mu \nu} -\frac{1}{2}R\,g_{\mu \nu} + \Lambda\,g_{\mu \nu} = {8 \pi G \over c^4} T_{\mu \nu}

    [/LaTeX tip]

  18. Owlmirror says

    [LaTeX stuff]

    (I’ve done this before, but so what?)

    \sqrt{\heartsuit} = \text{?}     cos \heartsuit = \text{?}

    \displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}\heartsuit = \text{?}     \begin{bmatrix}1 & 0  \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \heartsuit = \text{?}
    \displaystyle  F\{\heartsuit\} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}  \int^\infty_{-\infty} f(t)e^{it\heartsuit}\,dt = \text{?}


    My\ normal\ approach\ is\ useless\ here.

    </xkcd 55 >

    [/LaTeX stuff]

  19. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ omnicrom

    Also are you seriously saying that since you believe in God we think you believe in all religions?

    It is also not a case of denying other imaginary skygods. It is just that Daniel’s imaginary skygod is BIGGER than anyone else’s. Linky.

  20. consciousness razor says

    Yep, I would recommend loving math to anyone, but generally not mathing love.

  21. consciousness razor says

    It is just that Daniel’s imaginary skygod is BIGGER than anyone else’s.

    Could Skygod make a ruler so big that even He couldn’t measure His penis with it? And would that make the other skygods laugh or squirm in their skythrones uncomfortably?

  22. modeller says

    @capetownjunk: My respects to you, sir, for being a model of restraint and kindness, and indeed help to others such as myself, on this thread.

    @Dr Audley comment 406 – You waved the sexist card citing wrong evidence. Capetownjunk did reveal his sex earlier in the thread while discussing his SA army history @209. I’ll grant you it was 200 comments earlier and you had to be paying close attention…

    @jadehawk, comment 249: While I agree with almost everything you said, soil does itself fossilize and also does frequently bear fossils, both trace and also of plants and animals. Coal is an example. Paleopedology is its study. Here is a link to some remarkable trace fossils of rodent burrows, but there are countless more.

    I have to take a wild stab at WTF DH was on about with the soil erosion comment, but my guess is that maybe evolution cannot be true because ‘conveniently’ the fossil record is incomplete.

    DH has made a strong case today of being fairly oblivious to the world around him, so it is no surprise that he has not seen carcasses on the SA veldt. Within hours there is little left but bone, and a few days to weeks reduce most of that to scattered fragments. Why would the world of dinosaurs be any different? (and let’s completely forget about seas and lakes, ‘cos obviously they don’t count ).

    Or maybe tons of sediment should regularly drop from the sky to entomb animals happily living their lives, and do so capturing both soft-bodies and hard-bodies equally and the correct ratios of predators and prey. And do so a regular intervals over millions of years to see changing abundance of species and changes in their morphology. Shhh, don’t mention the Burgess Shales.

    Or maybe it’s convenient because ebil evolutionists have cleverly been destroying all fossils that don’t agree with their ‘religion’, somehow suppressing the urge to become fabulously famous by finding the precambrian rabbits.

    Urg, I feel a bit sick now, responding to the troll

  23. says

    Daniel #433:

    To CapeTownJ… [I just cannot add junk to the city]

    Give it a rest, Daniel. It’s not like my alias is saying Cape Town is junk. That is not what it means. If I chose the name CapeTownSucks, you’d have a (rare) point. But I didn’t, so you don’t. You’re acting offended at my choice of name because it helps to make you look like a victim. Classic Christian martyr complex.

    You say that I am limited in my beliefs, It’s simple and I have stated my beliefs and been quoted. You enforce viewpoints that are totally inaccurate that I have to believe in every religion just because I believe.

    The main reason you’re a Christian is that you grew up in a community and culture which was dominated by Christianity. Your reasons for believing in your current choice of religion could be applied to any other religion.

    The dumbest answer I can give you is that the sun revolves around the earth and that the earth is flat.

    Why would you even want to waste your time and energy on trying to be as dumb as possible? That’s a strategy with very limited practical application, like deliberately losing to your boss at golf.

    Posted before, parts of evolution theory/fact is now a defunct conversation.

    You’ve not exactly come across as our resident expert on evolution. You might want to learn more about the topic before you start issuing your decrees on the current state of evolutionary theory.

    You all brag about three but talk only about one. Even then, the insults are ludicrous. The conversation is about all your missing links, ie the other 2.

    I’m concerned about your ability to deal with information overload. If you had to pick one area you’d like to understand better, which would it be? The big bang, the origins of life on earth, or evolution? I’d advise you to pick one, and focus on that one for now.

    By the same token, no human should be Charles Darwin’s mole.

    This is excellent news for anyone wondering about Greatest Hits Volume 2! (Kudos to feralboy12 #407 for Volume 1!)

    P.S. Totally anonymously, you made previous ascetations. What was your role during that period that 20 years later you have to place the guilt trip in this environment?

    I’m not passing judgement on you for your time as a national service conscript, nor am I apologising for mine. I mentioned it because I wanted to draw attention to apartheid South Africa as a totalitarian state. Did you do your national service because you wanted to, or because it was the law? My point being that the apartheid government [Warning! Understatement alert!] wasn’t big on concepts like freedom. Their idea of religious freedom was allowing you to choose which Christian denomination you wanted to belong to.

    Christianity was a dominant social and ideological force when we grew up, and I was using national service as another example of how the apartheid government sought to control how the population thought and acted. While you were growing up, your beliefs would have been shaped by the prevailing culture, and that culture was one of biblical infallibility and obedience to authority. You’ve struck me as an example of a distinctly South African brand of biblical creationist, and my goal here was to shed light on the culture that shaped that mentality.

    Daniel, you seem to think that we’re all ganging up on you here. It’s nothing personal. We just don’t like being lied to by people like Kent Hovind, and we’re happy to point out his lies to you. If you were to leave here with a better understanding of how evolution works, the theories we have for the origins of life, and how the big bang is a theory that fits our observations, how could that possibly be a bad thing?

  24. says

    theophontes #519

    Even in the apartheid era, there was a fairly strong separation of science and woo. At least in the science class. Unfortunately we did have shit like “Religious Instruction” (which one was not obliged to partake of) and of course an endless stream of xtian propoganda from teachers themselves.

    I have memories of every school day (at a government school) starting with a prayer. I don’t have memories of learning about anything other than Christianity during religious instruction. Yes, I know we’re just playing duelling banjos with anecdata, but I don’t feel like I’m living in a country filled with a population that understands the basics of evolution.

    That being said, we where nevertheless inculcated with a love of science and more than enough knowledge of the world to not fall for the kind of views that Daniel has expressed here.

    I suspect you may have been lucky enough to have excellent teachers, and that you, not Daniel, are the exception to the rule.

  25. says

    danielhaven #462, re: my Deep Rift with changeable moniker:

    I’m so glad you guys agree

    We’re probably just looking at this from different angles. I suspect that changeable moniker was being overly charitable to you and addressing specific elements of your postings. I’m looking at this from the big picture of the fundamental incompatibility between religion and science, without which you wouldn’t be here singing from Hovind’s hymnsheet.

    changeable moniker #473:

    Well, we haven’t discussed it, but were we to, I’m sure we could agree on the fact that you can’t read for comprehension.

    I disagree. I think Daniel can’t read for shit! :)

  26. says

    While I agree with almost everything you said, soil does itself fossilize and also does frequently bear fossils, both trace and also of plants and animals.

    huh; I hadn’t thought of this from the perspective of soils turning into fossils, I thought he just meant finding fossils in the ground, and calling that ground “soil” because he can’t tell the difference between a soil and a rock

  27. modeller says

    @jadehawk: good point :) this might just be me knowing a little too much for my own good.

    @Daniel: Concerning your comment on Soil comment @239.

    Dig up a few bones that only took ‘Millions of years’ to just sit there for us to find, oh so conveniently. Soil erosion/No change/Soil expansion?????

    This is a statement with what I am taking is an implied issue (when you say “oh so conveniently”). We are not sure of what the issue is, and what the next statement (“Soil erosion/No change/Soil expansion”) is about.

    Could you expand on your original question and provide some context? Thanks. I really would like a stab at answering it, which I will do fairly and remain on-topic.

  28. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ CapeTownJunk

    I have memories of every school day (at a government school) starting with a prayer.

    This was also true of our school. I used to skip assembly.

    I don’t have memories of learning about anything other than Christianity during religious instruction.

    Also true of our school. I was with the group of Jews and otherwise others who where allowed to do schoolwork rather than endure RI.

    Yes, I know we’re just playing duelling banjos with anecdata, … I suspect you may have been lucky enough to have excellent teachers, and that you, not Daniel, are the exception to the rule.

    Our school was special in that a fair number of the staff where Broederbonders. The kids that went to school with me where for a large part close to the inner circle of Afrikanerdom. In that context I was indeed (relatively) lucky that enough of my key teachers focussed on our education (at least at high school). The balance of power of the verligte vs the verkramptes was fortunately more in my favour. (I realise very well I was luckier than most. In spite of all the lies and propaganda, we where better off at our school than the average.)

    [translations: Broederbonders - Afrikaans brotherhood. A type of secret society of the inner circle of ruling Afrikaners. Key people in government and education tended always to be part of this.
    verligte- "enlightened" - perhaps not by our standards.
    verkrampt - "conservatives" - wanted a very strict and very Calvanistic vision imposed. These guys tended to be the most bigotted and religious.]

  29. tomfrog says

    @Daniel:

    If you really want to learn about the Big Bang, what the theory is about, why we think this is currently the best possible theory (as scientists do) and even go in great details, there is a lot of information available for free on the web.

    Some people have already tried to direct you to such sources of information. Wikipedia will obviously be a good start but sometimes those wall of texts can be quite intimidating if, like me, you want to understand but have a hard time when trying to grasp some very basic and important concept.

    Videos can be of wonderful help in this domain. I guess strolling on Youtube you’ll be able to find lots of interesting videos made for the layman like you and me.

    One good source (I find) for such video “tutorials” about sciency stuff is the Khan Academy.
    You’ll find there a lot of awesome videos on a multitude of subjects.

    Concerning our current subject(s), you’ll want to look at some biology videos (like this Introduction to Evolution and Natural Selection ) and some cosmology ones starting with the Scale of Earth and Sun, and going… really, this stuff is so powerful and it just blows my mind.
    A few videos later in the cosmology “course” , you’ll find a Big Bang Introduction.

    Later on, there’s even a Beginnings of Life video.

    Personally, I think the best is to start at the beginning of a course and continuing to the next video (I think of usually around 10min each) because the knowledge from one often builds up on the previous ones’. But you do whatever you want obviously.

    On many videos you’ll also find some pretty interesting questions asked and answered.

    Anyway, this is just one suggestion among many but if you sincerely want to learn about this stuff in a fun and light way, you might end up with your mind blown away.

    Just my 2 cents, cheers.

  30. mikelaing says

    tomfrog

    One good source (I find) for such video “tutorials” about sciency stuff is the Khan Academy..
    You’ll find there a lot of awesome videos on a multitude of subjects.

    tomfrog, that site is beyond amazing!
    Thanks :)

  31. Ogvorbis: Now With 98% Less Intellectual Curiousity! says

    While I agree with almost everything you said, soil does itself fossilize and also does frequently bear fossils, both trace and also of plants and animals.

    huh; I hadn’t thought of this from the perspective of soils turning into fossils, I thought he just meant finding fossils in the ground, and calling that ground “soil” because he can’t tell the difference between a soil and a rock

    Sub-sea soil fossilization can also be a handy tool in determining prehistoric biodiversity (not sure if it works on land or not, but fossilized burrows are known (see, for instance, the spiral burrows preserved at Agate Fossil Beds National Monument)). Below the PT boundary layer, the ocean bottom is filled with tunnels, areas that have been dug up, burrows, etc. Above the PT boundary, the layering is much more visible because there were almost no animals digging around in the bottom of the ocean.

  32. Ogvorbis: Now With 98% Less Intellectual Curiousity! says

    soil does itself lithify and also does frequently bear fossils

    Makes even more sense.

  33. Gregory Greenwood says

    Having looked through danielhaven’s posts on this thread, I have come to the conclusion that, just as the level of a commenter’s tendency to be bonkers is measured in the time-honoured unit of Time-Cubes, so should a new scale be implemented – the DH scale.

    This scale would be used to measure the degree of indecipherable word-salad contained in a post, with one complete DH being the benchmark set by danielhaven in this thread, with lesser exponents of unintelligable blather being measured as decimal points on a scale, with 0.1 DH being almost readable, and 0.9 being a masterclass in how to torture language and abuse punctuation.

    So, what is the opinion of the Horde? Will the DH scale be adopted? Does it need a better name? Am I throwing stones in a big ‘ole glass house by mocking another poster’s writing style?

    Maybe I should be quiet now…

  34. says

    @Gregory Greenwood #549:

    It would be most fitting to name and calibrate the scale in his honour. He deserves it for his services to the posting of utterly incomprehensible drivel. He’s elevated it to an art form, and his greatest hits compilation is a thing of perversely absurd beauty.

    Similarly, the rest of us deserve medals for our long hours of reading and re-reading his comments in a vain and futile effort to try to decipher just what the fuck he’s been wibbling on about. It’s been the Kobayashi Maru of comprehension battles.

    As for mocking the afflicted: he’s brought it on himself. The scale can be renamed or retired once he’s managed to slide down the scale to a 0.3 or thereabouts.

    (Interesting how he’s managed such a low score on the starfart scale. It’s probably because the starfart scale isn’t designed to measure sulky passive-aggressive behaviour.)

  35. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Gregory Greenwood #549

    So, what is the opinion of the Horde? Will the DH scale be adopted? Does it need a better name? Am I throwing stones in a big ‘ole glass house by mocking another poster’s writing style?

    I should objectify the massivity of this apprehension by particularizing the intellection Mr and/or Mr Greenwood has exemplified pour nous. Alas the voices in my head are reticent to conclusion this patternlike schema.

  36. Ogvorbis: Now With 98% Less Intellectual Curiousity! says

    So 1.0DH would be how many on the Crocoduck scale?

  37. AshPlant says

    Good start Tis, but throw in a couple references or puns that you get, but that haven’t been elucidated clearly enough to make sense in any context.

    As for the DH scale, we do need to be able to objectively measure things other than outright mental breakdown. I propose a three-axis scale, measuring Timecube (connection to reality) vs starfart (level of rage/obsession) vs DH or Havenism (ability to express oneself coherently). Higher levels will correspond to lesser coherence or attachment to reality, ect.

    The key point here is that while high levels of the first two correlate heavily to high levels of the last, it’s not an automatic causation, and individual can fluctuate wildly on any given axis while still remaining relatively grounded in the other two.

    Or of course, they can just flip out on all three, and then… my but we’ll be sniny.

  38. chigau (同じ) says

    Ashplant #554
    three-axis scale
    I can’t decide if you deserve a spanking or The Spanking Couch™.

  39. AshPlant says

    No, I deserve a Nobel Cross for my genius ideas. Don’t get bogged down in details. Sheesh *rolls eyes*. You little-picture people.

    :P

  40. Ogvorbis: Now With 98% Less Intellectual Curiousity! says

    Damnit! Bioturbidity is the word for which I was looking. Bioturbidity in lithified soil or seabed is very good evidence for live and, depending on the types of bioturbation, can even be used to judge biodiversity.

    Don’t you just hate it when a word is there and you just cannot bring it to a useful part of your brain? And has anyone else noticed that, although we often have minor bouts of aphasia, the word ‘aphasia’ itself is never aphaisic?

  41. says

    @ Ms. Daisy Cutter

    It’s not as bad as saying “Candleja

    Yeah, Candlejack is a notorious practitioner of woo. Wait, oh fu

    Can someone please explain to me what that Candlejack business is all abo

  42. says

    @SQB #558:

    Can someone please explain to me what that Candlejack business is all abo

    Seriously, how hard is it to go to google.com, type in the word “Candlejack”, hit the Search bu

  43. consciousness razor says

    No, I deserve a Nobel Cross for my genius ideas. Don’t get bogged down in details. Sheesh *rolls eyes*. You little-picture people.

    There should be a fourth axis in Loon Space, to measure paranoid arrogance coupled with a martyr complex.

  44. AshPlant says

    consciousness razor: ah, it’s all accounted for. ‘Paranoid arrogance’ is quite clearly a disconnection from reality, so it can be factored in on the Timecube axis, with a touch of starfart depending on how strongly it’s expressed. Martyr complex, the other way around, being recorded mostly on starfart as an expression of indignant rage coupled with just a little disconnection.
    Told you it was foolproof. Although it might be possible to give the axes better, more descriptive names, and extend them into both positive and negative numbers, so we could classify by which of the eight quadrants (octrants?) people appeared in.

  45. consciousness razor says

    Hmm, there’s not enough room in the margin to give a proof, but I was thinking of something more or less independent of the degree of delusion, obsession or coherence. It’s more like a measure of self-regard, rather than of the content itself or how it is expressed.

  46. changeable moniker says

    consciousness razor (my emphasis):

    There should be a fourth axis in Loon Space, to measure paranoid arrogance coupled with a martyr complex.

    That’s three new dimensions. We’re up to six. Stringy loon-space, anyone?

  47. changeable moniker says

    Oh! Missed AshPlant’s #562 compactification. Maybe.

    The starfart was exceptional, though.

    The subsequent comments have me weeping with laughter. Even now.

  48. ibyea says

    Err… The scale is getting unwieldy. Do we really need a 6-loon Hilbert space for this?

  49. modeller says

    Thanks, Changeable Moniker, lithify is what I should have said. I was distinctly lethological there.

    @Ogvorbis

    Bioturbidity is the word for which I was looking. Bioturbidity in lithified soil or seabed is very good evidence for live and, depending on the types of bioturbation, can even be used to judge biodiversity.

    Bioturbitidy is a very good evidence of complex life, or life with complex behaviours. There are few types of trace fossils and no burrows in the early Ediacaran. The conventional view is that during the Ediacaran the first burrows appear as simple horizontal tubes just below the microbial mats that were common during this period, then things get all very modern in the Cambrian).

    There are interesting discoveries of more complex burrows in the Ediacaran including curved burrows radiating from a central area (Streptichnus narbonnei) and also recent finds from the White Sea in Russia: see the comments in http://ediacaran.blogspot.com/2011/02/palaeoporn-22.html

  50. AshPlant says

    Do we really need a 6-loon Hilbert space for this?

    We could just start giving them marks in a few separate main categories, rather than trying to hammer it all into some complex figure. Simple marks out of ten for e.g.
    Delusion
    Intensity/Anger
    Pomposity/Arrogance
    Coherence
    Self Absorption

  51. changeable moniker says

    It will never die. It is the undead thread.

    In a year (or so)’s time, a Necromancer will revive it.

    (Just as DH did the Sb thread.)

  52. Ogvorbis: Now With 98% Less Intellectual Curiousity! says

    [OT]

    Ogvorbis, ‘taint aphasia, it’s lethologica.

    Oh.

    But I’ll never remember that one.

    Bioturbitidy is a very good evidence of complex life, or life with complex behaviours.

    Point taken. I guess I need to work on recognizing my modernist privilege. But hey, I’m trained as an historian, which means anything more than about 4,000 years back is out of my realm. For me, Vendian life may as well be another frikkin’ planet.

  53. Ogvorbis: Now With 98% Less Intellectual Curiousity! says

    Simple marks out of ten for e.g.
    Delusion
    Intensity/Anger
    Pomposity/Arrogance
    Coherence
    Self Absorption

    We could do 3d6, yielding a range of 3 to 18, weighted towards the middle and, for those like DH who hit a true natural 18, they could then roll 2d10 to give a 1 to 100 score.

    Wow. Sounds like a neat system. We could build a fantasy game around it, with like dungeons, and all sorts of fanta . . . .

    What?

    Oh.

    Never mind.

  54. modeller says

    @ogvorbis. I’m really a computer nerd, so anything before 1948 is my precambrian. And the vendian is just a convenient machine to get me a can of diet coke (da-da-tush) However I always had a soft-spot for the abiogenesis and early life. Weird.

    But you must be well-read to be able to discuss the changing patterns of bioturbity over the PT boundary. Thus the glory of FtB.

    One interesting aspect about the decrease in bioturbation towards the end of the Permian is the suggestion of global anoxic benthic conditions basically wiping out all non-bacterial life below the continental shelf, and possibly right up to the surface at the boundary itself. The condition only resolved when Pangea started breaking up changing both the climate and world ocean current circulation patterns allowing life to re-radiate thus develop into the triassic and then jurassic flora and fauna.

  55. dewd says

    Have you ever heard the saying “England and America. Two countries separated by a common language”? For some reason I keep thinking of that when reading this thread.

    Of course the difference is I can understand what the bloody Brits are saying. With Daniel…..

    I would like to thank Daniel for his persistence. Because of him, this thread is not only entertaining, it is very educational. Daniel, if your goal was to discredit evolution, you failed miserably.

  56. ChasCPeterson says

    Bioturbitidy is a very good evidence of complex life, or life with complex behaviours.

    It’s evidence only of relatively large lifeforms with some kind of locomotion. Like these unicellular protists, for example.
    (“Complex” is a weasel word with no precise meaning, so you can’t be wrong.)

  57. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    … sulky passive-aggressive behaviour …

    *ping*

    {somewhere in a place far far away from the Mother City, a light goes on in the tiny brain of a miniscule tardigrade}

    Daniel feels the weight of his god and his history crushing down on him. Wherever he turns there is an Authority of some sort trying to force his vitality out of him.

    It got so bad once that he became angry, really angry. So angry that he actually spoke his mind and stood up for himself. High on a lonely mountaintop in the pouring rain he raised a fist to the heavens and screamed: “THERE IS NO GOD!”

    If only he had held onto that little spark and nurtured it he would have been able to grow beyond all the lies and deceit he had grown up with. Instead he let go of the epiphany that could have redeemed him and slid back to his old, familiar ways.

    Now he has stumbled upon a website that criticises his favourite abuser. (A man who verily suffers the same iniquities visited upon Daniel by those in Authority. A man who has retained his faith in God in spite of the vicissitudes of life and the hatred of society…) Such gall! And they are once more telling him what to think!

    Old, nameless feelings of fear and resentment rise up. He is a child again, browbeaten and afraid. How can he fight back against the these endless waves bearing him down. He retracts into himself and draws from the well of suppressed resentment. If he cannot beat them, he will become a thorn in their side. He raises his fist and screams at teh interwebz: “GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING!”

    /drama

  58. modeller says

    @ChasCPeterson:

    Gromia sphaerica undoubtedly leaves trace fossils on the sediment surface, and trace fossils like them have been used (incorrectly) as evidence of multicellular life in the proterozoic, but they do not mix up the sediment to any significant extent.

    Thanks for picking me up on ‘complex’ – it was in retrospect a weasel shorthand to cover a lot of different mechanisms. While locomotion is important, it’s not responsible for 100% of bioturbation. For example, plants put down roots and, though physical growth, the exchange of fluids and chemicals, and finally decomposing in-place, perturb the substrate.

  59. Louis says

    THAT’S IT! EUREKA! I have finally figured out what Daniel is going on about! I have deciphered his complains and concerns, I can answer his questions!

    The issue is…

    Oh I’m sorry, I’ve just come…

    …where was I? Oh yes, the issue is…

    …No, sorry. I do beg your pardon, I’ve just come again.

    I’m going for a lie down.

    Louis

  60. Ogvorbis: Now With 98% Less Intellectual Curiousity! says

    But you must be well-read to be able to discuss the changing patterns of bioturbity over the PT boundary. Thus the glory of FtB.

    Not all that well read. My favourite era is the Triassic. Of course, to understand the Triassic, I need to have some understanding of the PT extinction and, by extension, the Permian itself. Right now, in addition to Lords and Ladies, I am reading Thames & Hudson’s When Life Nearly Died, and Erwin’s Extinction. So not really well-read, just interested.

  61. says

    OK, I’m not going to read all 582 comments to find out if someone else has caught on, but I think I know where danielhaven’s harping on bestiality comes from. It must be a creationist misunderstanding that somehow, evolution produces one of every newly evolved organism. Perhaps I’d better say “animal” because he doesn’t seem to consider plants, sponges, bacteria, parthenogenic rotifers, free-spawning fish, frogs, or an other organism that doesn’t insert penis into vagina. I wonder if spiders and squids, with their spore packets, count for “bestiality”? Consequently, that one new animal could only reproduce by cross-breeding with something in another species preferably another family, order, or phylum by his examples.

    He doesn’t understand that evolution occurs in populations and there are plenty of compatible, same-species mates to choose from.

    Maybe if we told him that there had been a big genetic analysis of all bird species in North America several years ago and discovered, to no one’s surprise, that most of the defined species were in fact species, but some populations that looked different were still the same species and some populations that still looked the same were already different species, just as we would expect from knowing that it often takes thousands of years for a species to differentiate under slowly changing evolutionary pressures.

  62. says

    The whole “punishing children unto the third and fourth generation” was a rationalization to explain why some people who sinned according to God’s laws, e.g. attaining the throne by murder, thrived all their long lives and so did their children, so that the moralists had to wait for grandchildren before some coincidental mishap occurred that could be credited to divine punishment. It’s a riff on “good happens, thank god; bad happens, god works in mysterious ways,” namely, “bad people punished, thank god; bad people not punished, god likes his revenge cold.”

  63. says

    Science does not have all the answers to everything. You do your argument no good by asking us to explain absolutely everything from cosmology to abiogenesis, then crowing because we don’t have all the answers. Science is always provisional; but a new explanation must explain everything the old one did plus things that the old one could not explain. You start with certainty based on your mythological beliefs and then mock us for not being as certain as you. You are certain because you have already chosen a conclusion and reject all evidence that you are wrong. We follow the evidence to an explanation and change the explanation when evidence shows that we must.

    Science has a good, solid answer about evolution, which was tested by Darwin since 1839 and hammered on and has been worked on and denounced and tested since 1859 by everyone. In the 1930s a large piece was added when genes and chromosomes and DNA were discovered: that’s why the main theory is now called the Modern Synthesis. If you want mathematics, start with the analyses by R. A. Fisher in the 1930s-1940s. In the 1960s molecular evolution was added. Molecular analysis confirms, for the most part, the deductions of classical evolution, but in other cases corrects it. It has greatly increased our accuracy in tracing family trees by descent. We can pick a molecule common to a great many organisms, such as cytochrome C, and watch how it evolved through the eons. We can now compare the microfibrils in amoeba to those those in our muscles today: the simplest explanation for why ours are so similar to that they bond to the same macrofibril proteins is that we inherited ours from some of the first single-celled animals on Earth.

    The study of evolution is in part a historical study, uncovering evidence for what happened in the past, where, under what conditions.

    The scientific method includes people discovering facts, making explanations, and publishing their results. At that point other scientists consider, test, and refute or confirm. Scientists get points for being right. If you can refute someone’s claim with new evidence, you win. If you can reproduce someone’s results, you win. If you can’t, they lose because they did something wrong or described it wrong. That is the self-correcting nature of science. We all keep each other honest. We don’t look into a magic book and twist words to make it right.

  64. says

    That should be… “the simplest explanation for why our microfibrils are so similar to those of an amoeba that they bond to the same macrofibril proteins is that we inherited ours from some of the first single-celled animals on Earth.”

    Muscles under voluntary control are “striped muscle,” alternate layers of microfibril protein and macrofibril protein bonded together in sheets. An amoeba moves by extending part of its cell, then forming microfibrils in that part and contracting them to pull the amoeba along. The amoeba’s microfibrils are so similar to ours that they will bond to our macrofibrils. We’re related!

  65. says

    See, Daniel, that’s your problem. Your concept of what evolution is is so seriously fucked by listening to charlatans like Mr. Hovind with the fake degree that actual facts just bounce off your head.

    Your ‘description’ if I may use the term loosely, is less accurate than if I told you Christianity is nonsense because Christians worship donkeys on sticks. And then every time you tried to correct me, I’d yell “Donkeys on sticks!” and run away.

  66. David Marjanović says

    Why this image immediately brings to his mind thoughts of bestiality is a question best left unanswered.

    I laughed out loud.

    It’s good that it’s 22:56 and all colleagues have gone home!

  67. David Marjanović says

    “You’re really smart, sodomy itself in any other manner, the development of species, like many other species of elephant penis”

    Thread won.

    In South Africa, we regard one billion as a thousand million. It seems to me that’s the definition the world is settling on.

    The English-speaking world, that is. All the rest of the West still talks about milliards.

    Things are of course different elsewhere. Chinese and Japanese lack a word for “million”, but have a single word for “ten thousand” and another for “a hundred million” – I’ve seen the age of an Early Cretaceous dinosaur stated as “1.2 {hundredmillion} years” and the time of the Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary mass extinction as “6500 {tenthousand} years ago”.

  68. changeable moniker says

    @Markita Lynda #583: Bingo! (I wondered about that, too.)

    The belief appears to be that speciation happens at the individual level — two H. whateverensis (apologies for the technical terminology!) have a baby that is H. sapiens. Poor baby has to breed with the animals to further the line. (Incest variant: baby has to breed with H. sapiens sister/brother.)

    There’s a great example in my next post, which contains a link that FTB may find offensive. ;)

  69. changeable moniker says

    [meta: Yes, those are Xian biologists explaining evolution to a creationist. The irony, it burns.]

  70. says

    David Marjanović #589:

    In South Africa, we regard one billion as a thousand million. It seems to me that’s the definition the world is settling on.

    The English-speaking world, that is. All the rest of the West still talks about milliards.

    Now that you mention it, Afrikaans is one such language, using the word “miljard”. But I somehow doubt that’s the reason why danielhaven is confused about the age of the earth!

  71. What a Maroon says

    OK, I realize I’m about three days too late to this thread, but it’s been, um, interesting to read through.

    Anyway, to our friend Daniel Haven, first I’d just like to say that 1963 was a great year to be born. Some of my favorite people (including me and my wife) were born in that year.

    But I’d also like to ask you, how do you explain to kids that the earth is about 2,200,000 days old? Or roughly 52,560,000 hours old? Or about 3,153,600,000 minutes old? Or about 189,216,000,000 seconds old? How do you wrap your head around those numbers? Isn’t it easier to think that the earth began in 1963 (only about 1,545,264,000 seconds ago)? Or if you want to keep it on a realistic scale, about 6,000 seconds ago? And really, what evidence can anyone give that it’s any older?

  72. says

    the billion-Milliarde thing has been confused by the German language media so much that recently when they discovered several TRILLION in fake US dollars in Italy, the Spiegel Online article explicitly said that it is really several Billionen (in German trillion is Billion) they were talking about, and yet you had some morons chastising the reporter for not translating billion with the correct Milliarde.

    David M.

    for Japanese and Chinese the confusion is added if the currency is different too. Japan uses the yen, and 100 yen are roughly equivalent to 1USD/1EUR etc. This used to be quote confusing to me.

    So this is what I do:
    100万: 100 man (100×10^4) is 1 million
    10億: 10 oku (10×10^8) is 1 billion
    1兆: 1 chou (1^12), lucky!, is 1 trillion

    For instance, Mazda raised some capital to the tune of 1442 oku (億) JPY. So I divide it by 10 and get 144.2 billion yen. Now the final step is to divide it by another 100 to get 1.442 billion USD/EUR (this is for an estimate only, but of course the exchange rate would be different)

    The Japanese debt is estimated to be 800 chou which is 800 trillion yen. Divided by 100, we get 8 trillion USD/EUR equivalents. A website says that it is equivalent to 600man JPY for each citizen. That’s 6 million yen, or divided by 100, 60,000 USD/EUR equivalent.

    The above may sound trivial, but try to keep following if it’s a news programme or detective thriller or whatever where large numbers are being bandied about in rapid succession…

  73. says

    (Luckily these three 万、億、兆 is all you need for now. The next step would be 京 kei, 10^16, and that only appears in crazy claims like Japanese households hold 500 kei JPY worth of gold, which would be 5 quintillion JPY, or 50 quadrillion EUR/USD equivalents. This website says that all the world’s gold should be worth about 8.4 trillion USD, which sounds much more likely to me)

  74. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ CapeTownJunk

    Afrikaans… But I somehow doubt that’s the reason why danielhaven is confused about the age of the earth!

    I very much doubt danielhaven is Afrikaans in the first place. He is just being evasive and hiding behind the impression that English is not his first language.

    @ pelamun & DDMMF

    That always causes me untold suffering. Trying to explain the concept of a million. Writing it out, 1,000,000 or 10^6 just doesn’t cut it. We are all supposed to be on SI damnit!

    {theophontes taps out 1,000,000 on calculator}

    A: “Aah, 100 万”

    theo: “But that is what I wrote!”

    (Shades of the “Rooom / Zimmer” scene in the Pink Panther.” My ability to communicate is a joke.)

    @ What a Maroon

    I’m about three days too late to this thread

    Not at all. I was hoping we could make it to #665 before leaving the thread open to Daniel.

    [whispers to WaM] It’s a trap… kekeke. [/whisper]

  75. chigau (同じ) says

    I really wish we™ could use “scientific notation”.
    10^6 = 1000000 (6 zeros)
    10^9 = 1000000000 (9 zeros)
    totally unambiguous

  76. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ danielhaven

    I have a pro-forma apology ready for you to save you the trouble. It is taken from the discussion between Euthydemus and Socrates, after Socrates demonstrated that Euthydemus was in fact rather ignorant of his own ignorance:

    “I must give consent to all you say,” answered Euthydemus, “for I am too ignorant to contradict you; and I think it will be best for me, from henceforward, to hold my peace, for I am almost ready to confess that I know nothing at all.”

    Having said this, he withdrew, full of confusion and self-contempt, beginning to be conscious to himself that he was indeed a person of little or no account at all. Nor was he the only person whom Socrates had thus convinced of their ignorance and insufficiency, several of whom never came more to see him, and valued him the less for it. But Euthydemus did not act like them. On the contrary, he believed it impossible for him to improve his parts [abilities] but by frequently conversing with Socrates, insomuch that he never left him, unless some business of moment called him away, and he even took delight to imitate some of his actions. Socrates, seeing him thus altered from what he was, was tender of saying anything to him that might irritate or discourage him; but took care to speak more freely and plainly to him of the things he ought to know and apply himself to.

    You may take the words of Euthydemus as your own and address them to The Horde (ie, the Pharyngulites who in the above, have so kindly stepped in to take the role of Socrates.)

  77. says

    SI wouldn’t help Theophontes, in China it would add to the confusion.

    兆 is

    1. the Chinese numeral for 10^12
    2. in China it’s the SI name for Mega or 10^6.
    3. in Taiwan there is no SI name for Mega, they use 百萬 (100×10,000) instead. So what do you do in a language that hasn’t got dedicated terms for 10^6?

    But the Indonesians, while using a 10^3-based system are mixing Dutch and American names:

    1. 10^3: ribu “thousand” is from native Austronesian
    2. 10^6: juta “million” is from the Sanskrit word for “ten thousand”
    3. 10^9: milyar “billion” is from Dutch
    4. 10^12: triliun “trillion” is from American English
    5. 10^15: kuadrilun “quadrillion” is not very popular, I’ve seen many websites use 1000 triliun instead.

    And in Indonesian, you really need the big numbers, seeing that you can be a millionaire at $100 already…

  78. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    {theophontes reads pelamun’s comments}

    Wo de Tian Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa….aaaaaaaRRRGH!

    *sobs*

  79. greame says

    Late to the party I know, but danielhaven seems to me more like a bot. An automated response, picking up one or two words and throwing any old thing out that might be related to them.

    If he is a real person, which I doubt, I don’t think he understands the majority of whats being said to him.

  80. David Marjanović says

    I’m sure he’s a real person, and I’m sure he walks around carrying extremely little knowledge. So, yes, he understands very little, because he’s got all those ready-made strawpeople in his head: evolution, abiogenesis, the Big Bang and everything else that contradicts the Bible as a single, tangled, inseparable package; the theory of evolution by hybridization; and so on.

    I haven’t caught up, BTW. I worked surprisingly much!

  81. What a Maroon says

    [aside to theophontes]got it, I won’t tell anyone[/aside]
    So anyway, Daniel, in the time it takes you to say “One Mississippi”, a cesium atom will oscillate about 10,000,000,000 times. So why should a cesium atom believe in you?

  82. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    [whisper] We have only 60 comments to go to have the trap ready for the Second Coming… [/whisper]

  83. chigau (同じ) says

    We could just let this thread die.
    or, perhaps, hit it on the head with a shovel.

  84. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ chigau

    We could just let this thread die.
    or, perhaps, hit it on the head with a shovel.

    Patience people. {hands out frosty beers}

    We are almost at comment #665. We can then leave it as a trap to catch DH. He shall forever bear the Mark of The Beast upon his forehead comment header.

    In the interim we can indulge in phatic conversation. How is the weather Down Under?

  85. chigau (同じ) says

    theophontes
    #611 is quite far from #665 but I can do phatic.
    In the Dead Like Me movie the Reapers got rid of their sort-of-undead boss by butchering him, burning the remains and launching the ashes into orbit (along with those of Murray the cat).
    I don’t know that that would work on a thread.
    The weather in Edmonton is quite nice. They™ are predicting +11°C by Friday.

  86. John Morales says

    [OT]

    “It’s astounding, time is fleeting
    Madness takes its toll”

    “Slumber, watcher, till the spheres,
    Six and twenty thousand years
    Have revolv’d, and I return
    To the spot where now I burn.
    Other stars anon shall rise
    To the axis of the skies;
    Stars that soothe and stars that bless
    With a sweet forgetfulness;
    Only when my round is o’er
    Shall the past disturb thy door.”

    “I have seen Yith, and Yuggoth on the Rim,
    And black Carcosa in the Hyades.”

  87. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    Chafing with rage repress’d; no more he sought
    The honour’d council, nor the battle-field;
    But wore his soul away, and inly pin’d
    For the fierce joy and tumult of the fight.

    In other news, Shenzhen is overcast and muggy.

  88. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ chigau

    Sadly I cannot open youtube in China. :'(

  89. chigau (同じ) says

    theophontes
    The link is a Monty Python Holy Grail scene.
    If you are familiar with the genre, you probably know which one.

  90. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ ibyea

    So… Is this place like the second endless thread now? :)

    No, not at all. We are supposed to mothball this thread at comment #665. It will then await the Second Coming of Daniel. This might take as long as three years.

  91. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ chigau

    Always look on the bright side of … Death!

    We used to have an annual Pythonfest at varsity, accompanied by copious amounts of beer. When Mr Creosote exploded, someone projectile vomited in unison. Eeeeuw, the good old days.

  92. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ ibyea

    But what if some idiot who didn’t read that part ruins it?

    My deepest, most visceral fear.

    We must be careful and perhaps warn people. Something along the lines of Pooh Hunting the Heffalump. We will have to put up a sign at comment 665 that scares off the Pharyngulites but attracts goddists.

    I do not recommend honey.

  93. chigau (同じ) says

    I will not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.
    I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
    When the fear has gone, I will turn to see its path.
    Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
    Only I will remain.

    From memory.
    Honest.
    gad. I fear some of my youth was mis-spent.

  94. John Morales says

    theophontes,

    I do not recommend honey.

    Take a leaf out of Kent Hovind: you catch more flies with shit than with honey.

  95. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ chigau

    little death

    *snarfle*

    @ John M

    you catch more flies with shit than with honey.

    But how do we shit on comment 665? (Can we embed a picture?)

    (We are also going to run out off comments if we can’t come up with a solution soon. The pressure is becoming tangible.)

  96. chigau (同じ) says

    “little death”
    Yeah, I know.
    I can’t believe Frank Herbert was unaware.

  97. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    Hey everybody! What’re y’all doing in here?
    I’m totally doing my work and NOT STALLING AT ALL.

  98. chigau (同じ) says

    Hi CCCOM
    We seem to be trying to stretch this thread to 666 in order to invoke a demon.
    and the moon is full

  99. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM

    Aaaaargh! CCCP, be very careful which comment number you step on.

    [whisper] Shhh, we are currently rigging this entire thread up as a trap. Tread quietly and look at the last dozen comments. Pass on this message quietly without giving the game away…hehehe[/whisper]

  100. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ chigau

    We seem to be trying to stretch this thread to 666 in order to invoke a demon.

    Nonono… here is the plan:

    We are trying to fill up the thread to comment #664. John will then embed a picture of a turd to keep curious Pharyngulites away and to attract godbots. It will then be left very quietly for a few years. We hope to catch a DH in this manner.

    (As we do not have enough comments left in the thread to hold a vote, I am forced to nominate myself as Benign Dictator For Life ™ in order to ensure all our plans come to fruition. )

  101. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    We are trying to fill up the thread to comment #664. John will then embed a picture of a turd to keep curious Pharyngulites away and to attract godbots. It will then be left very quietly for a few years. We hope to catch a DH in this manner.

    Oh I see. We are very sneaky.
    *hides with everyone else*

  102. chigau (同じ) says

    theophontes

    I am forced to nominate myself as Benign Dictator For Life ™

    I second the nomination. (as long as I get to be Second In Command (2ICBDFL)).

  103. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    Oh man, can I be appointed the official Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher) Psomething of the new order?

  104. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ chigau, CC

    {thinks: Mwahahaha… My nefarious ploy is working better than I ever expected. Make sun while the hay shines…}

    But of course, all participants in this ruse will receive Titles and the Spoils of the hunt.

  105. chigau (2ICBDFL) says

    Oh man, can I be appointed the official Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher) Psomething of the new order?

    It’s OK by me and if theophontes is asleep, it’s a done deal.

  106. Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM says

    We’ll do you one better and give you a sniny title!
    Well, if the Benign Dictator for Life says it’s okay.

  107. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    It’s OK by me and if theophontes is asleep, it’s a done deal.

    {thinks: Damn, what is that chigau just said? I better head this insurrection off at the pass!)

    Why of course chigau, as Second In Command Benign Dictator For Life (written in nice, sniny italics), it is you privilege to pin the title of Puellae onto worthy recipients. [smiles at CC]. In the meantime help yourself to this here very large keg of grog.

    @ pelamun

    Give me a shiny title too please.

    But of course! Step aside from the bar for just a moment so that we can discuss this privately.

    {Smiles and waves at chigau and CC}

    [desperate whisper] Tell me I’m just being paranoid, but I suspect there is a usurpation in the offing. We may need reinforcements. …and don’t use up too many comments, we don’t want to spoil the trap. [desperate whisper]

  108. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ pelamun

    {Urgently} As Benign Dictator For Life, I hereby confer upon you the title:

    The Linguist of Doom… in sniny italics and furry bolding. With optional CAPS for special occassions.

    {thinks: Just please hurry up and get help. Oh why did I not close my brackets properly? Now they saw what I was thinking.}

    And don’t use up too many comments!

  109. chigau (2ICBDFL) says

    theo, baby, I`m on your side!
    and it`s after 2AM for me, so I`m for bed.
    Don`t do anything … um … foolish while I`m asleep.

  110. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ chigau

    {thinks: Another ruse? Am I being paranoid? But second-in-commands are always trying to depose… Or not? Oh the grave load I must carry in my quest for supreme power!}

    Sleep tight!

    {guzzles remainder of the very large keg of grog.}

  111. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    {mumbles to self} Oh noes, I hash … burp … pushed awayz teh allieshhh. *hic* I just resht teh eyesh for little bitty. No shleepsh….

  112. says

    Thank you o wise Dictator. So naturally I was compelled to change my ‘nym and FtB being what it is this takes effect across all the blogs on here….

    Bows again, slightly less than 90 degrees though, because as a staunch anti-monarchist, 90 degrees I cannot do…

    (you do know what happened to the first person whoever called themself “Dictator for life” (dictator in perpetuum) though right?

  113. John Morales says

    pelamun,

    you do know what happened to the first person whoever called themself “Dictator for life” (dictator in perpetuum) though right?

    Their stenographer quit in a snit?

  114. What a Maroon says

    you do know what happened to the first person whoever called themself “Dictator for life” (dictator in perpetuum) though right?

    He lived up to the title, right?

    Now that pelamun has stolen my rightful name, I’ll have to think of something else.

    How about “applied linguist of slight foreboding”?

    I guess I’ll have to think some more….

  115. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ What a Maroon

    As Benign Dictator For Life ™ , I hereby confer upon you the title:

    Applied Linguist of Slight Foreboding… in sniny italics and furry bolding and stuff.

    (Hell, I’m getting good at this! I must find a way to monetise…)

    ……

    Ploy: Perhaps we can get PZ to shut down this thread at 665 for all but teh DH IP number. (I worry that a Pharyngulite might stray into our trap. And turn into the antichrist or Beast or something.))

  116. says

    theophontes:

    I worry that a Pharyngulite might stray into our trap. And turn into the antichrist or Beast or something.))

    That’d be like me turning into nigelTheBold, wouldn’t it? I mean, that which is, cannot become that which is. Or some shit like that.

  117. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    nigelTheBold to the power of nigelTheBold?

    Even Cthulhu quivers in fear!

  118. says

    I said I would off and I said I will not up.

    Hah, but there is just so much phsychobabble here, it is just too simple to irressist. [and yes, I am typing with the gloves on]

    So get to 665 already.

  119. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ DH

    Aaah, what perfect timing!

    The stars are coming into alignment,
    I hear the music of the spheres
    god is in her heaven
    and all is well with the world!

    Feel free to place a dozen comments in succession…

  120. says

    Just to add, I did mention I am SAfrican.

    In the name of Science and this blog, a whole bunch of other phrases occurs as if I were coherent, possibly inferred but not said.

    Waiting for 665 and then your actual fun starts.

    P.S. Just trying to help to get to 665. Contest, who will 665 be?

  121. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ DH

    chmd 665: I deny the father, the son and the holy ghost.

  122. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ Daniel Haven 666

    YESSS!!!

    Baie dankie skattie!

    Welcome to the dark side. We are sending you booze and cookies through the interwebz.

    Now that you officially have The Mark of The Beast permanently attached to your name, you might as well spend the rest of your life studying reality. We are legion and here to help you if you honestly want to learn about this beautiful universe that we all live in. Don’t waste this opportunity on the deus du jour.

    (I can help you with understanding where your former god came from – the very people in history who invented the stories in the bible. Even more exciting are all the different scientists here who can help you understand all the things that the apartheid government and the church deprived you in your youth, and since . All you need to do is be honest and open.)

    Congratulations!

  123. mikelaing says

    Yeah! danielhaven@666, you are a good sport. I was going to post a reward for anyone that dared use comment #666, an all expenses paid trip to the Iron maiden, but that place is just a myth. All the more appropriate, I suppose

  124. says

    Okay, I am not 665 and I now am officially 666.

    Say I believed you all that you all want everything proven.

    I would stand there and say the big-bang happened which we cannot prove but we “Scientists” all believe.

    Abiogenesis is a theory we believe happened (mutatation, for sure) and it becomes as part of a theory we cannot prove to show how we can prove the next theory.

    And then evolution occurred which is a debate that has been won by scientists. [the little worm with some form of a spine proves....latest update....please add it to your facebook/site picture]

    This started 4.5 billion years ago and is true today, as has been proven by scientists and peers.

    That other story people tell, pure garbage. In our ‘Tree of Life’ we will even show you when right and wrong, love and hate, shame and respect and how all the feelings evolved over millions of years.

    You must understand that this can change all the time as we keep learning new things.

    Yip, yip, yip add ito to your family portrait.

    P.S. IP addresses can be traced but if you want more direct info, just ask. Somewhere in this I am not communicating in English and I am incoherent.Also, as you change and evolve, so too must the ratings table.

    PICK AND CHOOSE

  125. What a Maroon, Applied Linguist of Slight Foreboding says

    Just trying out my new moniker. Thanks, Theo! (I can call you Theo now, right? We’re on a first name basis–feel free to call me What.)

    And Daniel Haven, 666, you get points for being a good sport.

  126. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ Daniel Haven 666

    Say I believed you all that you all want everything proven.

    Yes, for as far as this is possible. We are also perfectly happy to say “I do not know” if we lack the data to prove something. Scientists are more pragmatic than dogmatic.

    I would stand there and say the big-bang happened which we cannot prove but we “Scientists” all believe.

    No. The big-bang is currently the best description of what likely happened when we consider the current proven data at our disposal. It is simply the best, “most focussed” picture that we have at present (and it is improving daily).

    (Why do you think that “god did it” explains anything? Why not “Zeus did it” or “Shaka did it” … ther is just as much evidence for those last two gods as yours.)

    Abiogenesis is a theory we believe happened

    Not “believe”. Actually, we know for certain that life started because we are here AND we are alive. (QED … quad erat demonstrandum … Translation from Latin: “that which we set out to prove”)

  127. says

    Don’t give me time to answer.

    #668 ‘different scientists’?

    YOUR GOD IS MY BEAST, MY GOD IS MY GOD.

    #669 Actually like a couple of Iron Maiden songs plus many more bands. What more can I say on this?

  128. mikelaing says

    danielhaven says:


    8 March 2012 at 11:04 am

    Okay, I am not 665 and I now am officially 666.
    Say I believed you all that you all want everything proven.

    Sshhh! Quiet, not so loud! Now that you are on our side you have to pretend that we CAN prove everything we say, so just go along with it, don’t tell anybody. We will teach you all the right things to say, like this stuff, The_Origin_and_Evolution_of_the_Neural_Crest, and here is another secret location we get our ‘sayings’ from, tee-hee, like History of evolutionary thought, and this nice story about transitional fossils, LMAO! Our buddy Tom has a bunch of stuff you can use, too, and it has a video an everything! It’s here(but don’t tell anybody or they will catch on to our tricks!): How Evolution Works
    You’ll be a great addition to the team. Way to go, my man!

  129. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ Daniel Haven 666

    And then evolution occurred which is a debate that has been won by scientists.

    Yes, but that is very old news.

    the little worm with some form of a spine proves….latest update….please add it to your facebook/site picture

    Irrelevant. Evolution has been proven many times over. We do not really need to add more examples.

    This started 4.5 billion years ago and is true today, as has been proven by scientists and peers.

    This is the closest estimation, given what we currently know about the universe and the earth. (Bear in mind that we know incredibly more in this regard than a group of credulous, bronze-age sheep herders in the middle east.

    we will even show you when right and wrong, love and hate, shame and respect and how all the feelings evolved over millions of years.

    In principle, yes, you are correct. We are a fair way down the road in this regard, but still have a way to go.

    You must understand that this can change all the time as we keep learning new things.

    Exactly, you understand this bit at least.

    Yip, yip, yip add ito to your family portrait.

    If you study science you will indeed get a better picture of our place in the bigger scheme of things.

    P.S. IP addresses can be traced but if you want more direct info, just ask. Somewhere in this I am not communicating in English and I am incoherent.Also, as you change and evolve, so too must the ratings table.

    This is not clear. I trust you are not returning to being facetious.

    PICK AND CHOOSE

    This does not scan.

  130. Rey Fox says

    …You must understand that this can change all the time as we keep learning new things.

    You seem to find all that distasteful. Why?

    (Also, I am seriously disinclined to wade through this thread, has anyone explained the whole philosophy of scientic “proof” thing to daniel yet?)

  131. Therrin says

    #668 ‘different scientists’?

    Original:

    Even more exciting are all the different scientists here who can help you understand all the things that the apartheid government and the church deprived you in your youth, and since . All you need to do is be honest and open.

    Different scientists, as in biologists, chemists, physicists, botanists, paleontologists, geologists, psychologists, etc.

  132. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ Daniel Haven 666

    YOUR GOD IS MY BEAST, MY GOD IS MY GOD.

    Again , this does not scan. I notice that when we discuss reality, you make progressively more sense. When you bring your god into it again, you lose coherency.

    You can leave your imaginary god out of these conversations – he perturbs the clarity of the discussion.

    Really, it is quite alright. He does not mind. (Hell, he does not even exist, how can he mind? I know you are not thinking about him all the time anyway.)

    Hey, why am I even referring to your non-existent god as “he”?

  133. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ Rey Fox

    thread, has anyone explained the whole philosophy of scientic “proof” thing to daniel yet?

    I am more than willing to go over this again and to answer whatever questions Daniel has. The only proviso is that he is honest and open in his dealings with me.

    (but first I am going to snooze)

  134. says

    AS far as I have been incoherent,

    # 673 is coherent. Stretching the English language ‘as far as this is possible’ is very coherent and no, I will not add s……..

    ‘Currently the best?’

    Abiogenesis – we know for certain because we are here. The children will love tis as evolution becomes simpler.

    P.S. ‘QED’ – setting out to prove/discover does not prove/discover anything (Although, it depends on where we hid the bones)

  135. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ Daniel Haven 666

    ‘Currently the best?’

    Abiogenesis – we know for certain because we are here. The children will love tis as evolution becomes simpler.

    Do not conflate abiogenesis with evolution.

    ….

    You are starting to do that thing again. Think carefully how you come across to other people. Read your comments out loud before posting to check if they make sense.

  136. What a Maroon, Applied Linguist of Slight Foreboding says

    Πέλα,

    Who? Um, I mean, right, just remember that I’m on second. We linguists have to stick together.

    Pela luz dos olhos teus….

  137. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I would stand there and say the big-bang happened which we cannot prove

    Yes we can’t. Microwave background anisotrophy. Where is any equivalent evidence for your imaginary deity?

    Abiogenesis is a theory we believe happened (mutatation, for sure) and it becomes as part of a theory we cannot prove to show how we can prove the next theory.

    This is an incoherent statement Daniel. Abiogenesis leads to evolution, which has a million or so scientific papers to back it up. Compared to zero papers showing your imaginary creator exists…

    And then evolution occurred which is a debate that has been won by scientists.

    Yep, a million or so scientific papers confirm that. Whereas you can’t prove your babble is inerrant. You can only claim it is without evidence.

    This started 4.5 billion years ago and is true today, as has been proven by scientists and peers.

    Fixed that for you oh incoherent one. Where is your scientific evidence otherwise? It isn’t in the babble, a book of mythology/fiction.

  138. says

    P.S #676 you are actually arguing your theory, not to well I might add. “IRRELEVANT” yet after many years of studies it is claimed as ‘the missing link’ (although all that is news published quoting a journal. It may not be accurate or it may be accurate, but that is what is disseminated)

    And for want of other discussions, I shall stop saying God and attempt to use the ‘other side’, for coherency reasons and not to offend you.

    Between #676 and #678, I have to study all fields. Just as you both have?

    To #677 – Distasteful

    I don’t know…..What you teach today is wrong tomorrow (or as said, more correct than yesterday). Today, we will prove……evolution is strong and alive but tomorrow we will prove….millions of years ago….

    Not distasteful but, by your standards, not proven.

  139. What a Maroon, Applied Linguist of Slight Foreboding says

    certainly, certainly, linguists should run the world.

    Of course, but the real question is, what kind of linguists? I do not want to live in a world run by generativists.

  140. What a Maroon, Applied Linguist of Slight Foreboding says

    Blockquote fail. Needless to say, I forgot to preview.

  141. says

    #687 you actually left the f… word

    Umpteenth time, balance the scales of proof.

    Abiogenesis has a million papers. Should have just said before that your million papers could prove abiogenesis. I would have put that in #666. And yes, Zero was not found and yet many quote Zero. From Zero. WOW

    Apart from the last Zero, are you actually arguing your own theory? #666

  142. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Not distasteful but, by your standards, not proven.

    This is an incoherent statement. By the standards of science, evolution has been shown to be a proper scientific theory several times over, and that evolution occurred is a fact. Science doesn’t prove, but evidence will back up theories. Now, take your inane and unscientific theory that your imaginary creator exists. Where is your evidence???? Be sure to cite the peer reviewed scientific literature.

  143. What a Maroon, Applied Linguist of Slight Foreboding says

    I can call you What, right? You can call me Pela, because I’m Πέλα 문

    So anyway, that’s Greean (Koreek?) for customer door, right?

    Or did Google Translate fail me?

  144. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Abiogenesis has a million papers

    Liar, it doesn’t. Evolution does, and evolution =/= abiogenesis except in your delusional mind. If you lie about that, what else will you lie about. You see, that is the problem with lying. It’s hard to keep track of them all, and you come accross as incoherent.

  145. says

    What,

    Of course, but the real question is, what kind of linguists? I do not want to live in a world run by generativists.

    I couldn’t agree more.

    Let me tell you an anecdote: my visa interview at the US embassy began like this:

    “So tell me about the language acquisition device.”

    I was like WTF?

    Turns out he was an UC Irvine grad. At the end he told me “I believe you that you want to study linguistics. Otherwise you wouldn’t have been able to give these answers.”

    and

    “don’t become a generativist”

    Wise words.

  146. says

    #689 Insightful.

    ALL the other #….I would like to end off with Peter Frampton’s lyrics ‘here’s goodnight, goodnight ….’.

  147. says

    So anyway, that’s Greean (Koreek?) for customer door, right?

    Or did Google Translate fail me?

    I’ve found it necessary to ‘split’ my Indonesian nym into two in places that require first and last name (discriminatory against all cultures where people usually only use one name).

    So Πέλα apparently is a Greek female name, not entirely sure what it means.
    문 Mun is a common Korean surname, as in Rev. Moon. Chinese character is 文.

  148. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Ahh daniel. Still speaking gibberish and conflating different science.

    It’s so cute.

  149. What a Maroon, Applied Linguist of Slight Foreboding says

    “don’t become a generativist”

    These words should be engraved above the entrance to every linguistics department in the world.

    As a US linguist, I’m ashamed by pernicious influence of generativists.

  150. says

    mikelaing,

    really?

    Even in names such as Πέλα Νικολαϊδου?

    An online dictionary gave me πελάτης for “customer”.

    Further research seems to indicate Πέλα is a short form of Πελαγία which means “of the sea”. That’s a meaning I can live with, as I love the sea.

  151. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ danielhaven 666 (aka “Teh Beast”) #688

    And for want of other discussions, I shall stop saying God and attempt to use the ‘other side’, for coherency reasons and not to offend you.

    No need. If you speak on behalf of god, then feel free to say so. We are not offended in the least bit. We just feel a little sad that you have been fooled by bronze age myths that have been refuted over and over again. It is better that you are just open about your views so that we can discuss these. Perhaps we can help you, but only if you remain honest. Ignorance is not bliss, as you may come to realise with our help.

    Between #676 and #678, I have to study all fields. Just as you both have?

    No of course not! Reality is not like the bible where you study every part of it and then choose what you wish to believe.

    Do not see the scientific description of reality as correlating in any way with the bible. And, even worse, do not think there is any correlation between scientific understanding and religious belief. We cannot cherry-pick our beliefs like xtians do. Rather, we are compelled, by careful research and gathering of facts, to accept reality as it is -no bullshit, no fairytales.

    You might have lived your life to date with the handbrake of religion on your mind. Anything you have achieved to date is in spite of biblical lies not because of them. Clear, free thinking empowers you. Don’t give up this chance by following a bible full of lies (plagiarised from Pagan religions in the first place!).

    Each one of us can only study a part of reality. That is the reason we help each other, correct and support each other (not in the creepy way of a church). The scientific community lives and breathes Ubuntu.

    Today, we will prove……evolution is strong and alive but tomorrow we will prove….millions of years ago….
    Not distasteful but, by your standards, not proven.

    Again you are not being clear. You would help both of us if you stated your questions or positions clearly.

    Evolution is not going to go away. This is because it is based on proven and verifiable facts. The theory (the over-arching explanation of how these facts relate to each other) of evolution will, I am sure, have to be adapted slightly from time to time as new facts come to light. But do not expect major changes, we are merely closing in on a more and more definitive explanation.

    (You could of course choose to prove us wrong. Not by quoting the bible, but certainly if you can find Pre-Cambrian rabbits.)

  152. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    @ danielhaven 666 #692

    Umpteenth time, balance the scales of proof.

    This really does not make sense. Perhaps you should rephrase what you mean to say. (I think you are confusing this with biblical scales?)

    Abiogenesis

    There are many hypotheses wrt to how life on earth started. Some are better than others. We know for a fact that this occurred at least once.

    I am personally inclined to think it may well have occurred several times. This is a moot point however as we currently know of only one incident that has propagated to the present day.

    Zero

    Not at all. Scientists have artificially created amino acids in simple laboratory conditions. Amino acids may well have been the building blocks needed to kick start abiogenesis.

    Why we don’t see more advanced stages of abiogenesis nowadays. This may have at least two reasons: The conditions of early life (lack of free oxygen) have changed and the early stages of contemporary abiogenesis are destroyed, as they form, by the earths atmosphere. Furthermore the early stages are also food for existing creatures. Until we destroy absolutely all life on earth in a religiously inspired war, we will never recreate the conditions that would allow the process to take hold again.

    # 698

    #689 Insightful.

    Heh. Good proto-snark there. Kudos (nie die bok nie!)

    ;)

    @ Nerd

    [imaginary creator] Be sure to cite the peer reviewed scientific literature.

    There are libraries full of peer reviewed scientific literature. Unfortunately all available evidence points to the xtian gods being mere inventions of the human mind (and poor plagiarisms to boot.)

    @ pelamun

    “don’t become a generativist”

    Please explain. (I don’t want to google the word.)

    Other people need to call upon the power of the Great Benevolent Dictator to be able to change theirs…

    [whisper] I am trying to fox chigau into taking over the job. My attempts to have authority without responsibility have failed me.[/whisper]

  153. mikelaing says

    pelamun, the Linguist of Doom says:

    8 March 2012 at 2:59 pm

    mikelaing,
    really?
    Even in names such as ???? ???????????
    An online dictionary gave me ??????? for “customer”.
    Further research seems to indicate ???? is a short form of ??????? which means “of the sea”. That’s a meaning I can live with, as I love the sea.

    I was checking Greek, but I know at least Serbian uses the cyrillic alphabet – Russian also….

    I have some friends that are Greek, I will ask them tomorrow(Friday). I started trying to learn a few phrases in Greek, but verb conjugation, of course, boggled my mind. I use google translate for Serbian and it works well – better than Greek.

    One site I went to was for a Greek hotel, and Πέλα was with ‘service’ beside a phone number. It looks like Greek might be wrong, as Νικολαϊδου looks more Russian. I will ask Argi later (female name, no english translation!)

  154. theophontes, Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says

    Wow, this thread is a week old and still the most active FtB thread. Perhaps we should make a Unilateral Declaration of Independence and name ourselves: The Pharyngulitic People’s Republic of South TET. (PPRSTET)

    Now all we need is a flag and a national anthem.

  155. chigau (2ICBDFL) says

    theophontes

    [whisper] I am trying to fox chigau into taking over the job. My attempts to have authority without responsibility have failed me.[/whisper]

    I heard read that!
    No way!
    Responsibility gives me the pip.
    I was only in it for the shiny uniform.

    Unilateral Declaration of Independence

    hhmmm…
    We could set the barricade over there…

  156. David Marjanović says

    That other story people tell, pure garbage. In our ‘Tree of Life’ we will even show you when right and wrong, love and hate, shame and respect and how all the feelings evolved over millions of years.

    Love came with sociality.

    People who have snakes as pets often fail to remember that the snakes aren’t capable of loving them. (Or hating them, for that matter.) Snakes will happily swallow the hand that feeds them and think literally nothing of it.

    Crocodiles are another matter. They care for their babies, they play, and look what can happen.

    Oh, sure, snakes and crocodiles are equally distantly related to us. So you need to look at these animals; our last common ancestors with them lived something like 300 million years ago. So, maybe love is 300 million years old.

  157. mikelaing says

    Yay! I like it when we sound the alarm and yell, “Battle stations! Battle stations!” when a CGB (Christian God Bot) invades the quadr… blogrant! 8)

  158. David Marjanović says

    So, what is the opinion of the Horde? Will the DH scale be adopted?

    Is it linear, or is it logarithmic like the Tc scale? 0.4 Tc is ten times as insane as 0.3 Tc.

    Err… The scale is getting unwieldy. Do we really need a 6-loon Hilbert space for this?

    LOL!

    qu[o]d erat demonstrandum

    FIFY.

    Let me tell you an anecdote: my visa interview at the US embassy began like this:

    “So tell me about the language acquisition device.”

    I was like WTF?

    Turns out he was an UC Irvine grad. At the end he told me “I believe you that you want to study linguistics. Otherwise you wouldn’t have been able to give these answers.”

    and

    “don’t become a generativist”

    Awesome.

    I was checking Greek, but I know at least Serbian uses the cyrillic alphabet – Russian also….

    But Greek doesn’t. (Outside the Crimea at least.) Greek alphabet; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic alphabet.

    Πέλα and Νικολαϊδου are both Greek, as you’ll soon be able to tell on your own.

  159. What a Maroon, Applied Linguist of Slight Foreboding says

    “don’t become a generativist”

    Please explain. (I don’t want to google the word.)

    In brief, a generativist professes some form of generative grammar, as first developed by Chomsky. There are several different generative theories out there, many of them held by Chomsky at one point or another in his career (dude keeps changing his mind), but I think it’s fair to say that they all have most of the following characteristics:

    All humans possess an internal grammar that can generate all and only the well-formed sentences of the language.

    At least some features of that grammar are innate and universal.

    Language is modular–that is, it is independent of other aspects of cognition, and the different aspects of language (syntax, semantics, morphology, phonlogy) are independent of each other.

    The problem with these theories is that they’re based on assertions about the nature of language, language learning, and linguistic input that don’t have much if any empirical support. E.g., children’s first language acquisition is essentially instantaneous; it is impossible for a child to learn a language based only on the evidence from the linguistic input the child receives; there is an internal representation of language at some level that differs from the external representation of it, often in very radical ways; linguistic universals can be divined by deep study of a single language (mostly US English, of course, plus some other Indo-European langauges), and so on.

    The type of methodology they use is suspect, too–since they don’t trust basic empirical evidence (i.e., what people say and write), they instead use reflection and grammatical judgments to build their theories, and are promiscuous with asserting phenomena that aren’t observable but that are necessary to make the theory work (empty categories, traces, etc.).

    In short, it’s a bunch of woo.

  160. says

    Before we begin the one question, many answers….

    #695 You equated abiogenesis leading to evolution via a million papers (previously stated as 41 000 and appears to have grown and been proven in a very, very short space in time).

    I did comment that you left out the f… word but to explain incoherent to a person that can only say ‘incoherent’, begins a sentence with ‘Liar’ and argues his own theory has to be a scientific puzzle that only the #’s can possibly solve.

    #700 You are the one stating the fact about ‘different science’.

    All I stated was that there are many different fields of science and for one person to learn and understand all was…agh, not even a question. Watch this space for the future question, many answers.

    #706 I was politely asked not to. If you all can make up your minds, I can deal with it either way.

    You being ‘compelled’ sounds very ominous.

    As for the ‘pre-cambrian rabbits’, check out out the first one question, many answers coming soon to a blog near you.

    #707 To the #’s, a Creator (Can I mention that?) cannot exist without proof of being tested and observed. To me, I need to believe two unproven theories to believe published papers ranging from xxx to yyy numbers of papers, of which some are disputed, some are disproved, some may change yet the winners claim evolution is a fact. Mmmmmm……

    #711 How do you know snakes are incapable of love? Unless…..

    #713 It takes a ‘HORDE’ to form an opinion on what should be quite evident to the ‘HORDE’.

    And whichever way, you need a beginning benchmark, not a middle of the road 0.3 or whatever. Unless that is the benchmark and we can go billions lower and billions higher.

    So now to the one question, many answers.

  161. kemist says

    You being ‘compelled’ sounds very ominous.

    “Compelled” doesn’t mean coerced. It means that you have no choice but to accept what you’re told given a sound mind and what you’ve observed.

    Think of it this way:

    Imagine you disbelieve the theory of gravitation. You think that if you walk off a cliff, you’ll only fall if believe you’ll do.

    Were you to perform the experiment, in the few seconds before your untimely demise, you’d be compelled to ankowledge that you were quite wrong.

  162. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    You equated abiogenesis leading to evolution via a million papers (previously stated as 41 000 and appears to have grown and been proven in a very, very short space in time).

    Confused illiterate, how does this

    41,000 typing “theory of evoltution” into Amazon.

    and mentioning a million papers supporting evolution have anything to do with the cagtegory error on your part of abiogenesis. They are two separate subjects, and your inane, stupid, and deliberate confusing of the subjects shows how little you understand what you talk about. You convince everybody lurking you are a total confused and delusional fool with such idiocy.

    You are the one stating the fact about ‘different science’.

    They are different theories, and have different support. They aren’t the same except in your delusional mind.

    for one person to learn and understand all was

    That again, is a delusion in your mind. I don’t need to know every piece of information to determine that evolution is good science. You see, scientists are very honest in dealing with each other, unlike you. You are dishonest, lie, and bullshit, and presume all folks are like you. They aren’t.

    Creator (Can I mention that?) cannot exist without proof of being tested and observed.

    Almost correct. You need conclusive physical evidence that passes the tests of scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. But you see, you can’t point at the universe, as there is a scientific explanation for it. You might not like it, but your opinion matters not to science.

    So now to the one question, many answers.

    Only one answer. YOU ARE WRONG! Deal with that offline.

  163. says

    oh yeah I forgot about 707.

    I mostly agree with 715, though some generativists do try to work more empirically, but it still falls short of what I’d want. The progress of neurolinguistic research could go a long way towards debunking generative theory. Also, the death of Noam Chomsky (that’s seriously how some non-generativists talk)

  164. Ichthyic says

    As for the ‘pre-cambrian rabbits’, check out out the first one question, many answers coming soon to a blog near you.

    get on with it, and get out, so the poor people with SIWOTI can ignore your inanity and get on with their lives.

  165. says

    First question and it relates to #706.

    Precambrian, not much is known and of what little that is known….. Now I must find a cute, fluffy rabbit in order to prove what to you? Why pick on a cute, fluffy rabbit? Why not choose something like a … Uhmm… fish or something fishy? Tip of tongue speak… a C….a coelacanth. Late cretaceous and something you can see and observe.

    Now I know this is bad but I recently read a piece of news as quoted in a science journal of a scientist, who has been studying this since the very early 70’s. The discovery and the missing link is that this worm like creature has a spine thus this proves from where we evolved. I’m reasonably confident but may be way wrong in stating this study was linked to finds of the burgess shale which would be precambrian. If anyone can enlighten me as to this issue, please do so. I was a little distracted as to a story a few columns up but we can get to that story later (ie, teaching evolution).

    To the first question, if your mostly theory and [if true], your factual evolution is so convincing to you, you come up with rabbits, insults, the use of ‘possible’, ‘mostly’ and other words that stretch the english language [not that I would even know english] and a division that only you can envisage?

  166. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Now I must find a cute, fluffy rabbit in order to prove what to you? Why pick on a cute, fluffy rabbit? Why not choose something like a … Uhmm… fish or something fishy?

    Well, well, look at the fuckwitted fool attempt to not think. Why a bunny-wunny and not a fish? Simple. Mammals didn’t appear until long after said fish/fish precursors. Makes it even more convincing. But then, you must stupidly and inanely attempt to ridicule, which means you have no evidence. Evidence for your imaginary deity, and scientific evidence to refute evolution. All you have is your stupidity and incredulity. Neither of which impresses science and scientists at all. Nor does it impress the lurkers after we are done ridiculing your idiocy.

    and a division that only you can envisage?

    The division is there for all to see. Abiogenesis.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

    . Not the same to the most inarticulate observer. What is your problem seeing that, other than abject stupidity?

  167. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Daniel, you are making another category error here. We don’t have to satisfy you at all. You have to convince us you are right. And the only thing that refutes science is more science. You don’t understand that concept. You need to come up with a scientific theory of creationism (the present one is religious), which means you need to demonstrate the existence of your creator. You aren’t even trying. All you can do is stumble around playing the fool, end up being insulted because you are never in the game. Science is found in the peer reviewed scientific literature, which is found in the libraries at institutions of higher learn world-wide. Places like this. Places you are totally unfamiliar with. You need to present evidence here, not opinion. Your opinion is worthless except for us to laugh at, it is so WRONG.

    For example, we shouldn’t tell you about the worm. You should show it to us. Your evidence (allegedly, but then I know better).

  168. says

    Sleeping and missing nothing.

    #1017 ‘walk off a cliff’. If I were to conduct the experiment, it would be a small cliff with many safety precautions. Unfortunately, at the end of the experiment there would be no demise.

    Twist it. Never mentioned coerced. By chucking off on a tangent is one way of really getting off the subject.

    #1018 I would never get promoted unless you were there. Thank you. From the title of being ‘incoherent’, I have now been promoted to ‘ILLITERATE’.

    I ‘convince’ who ‘lurking’? Your claim to fame is not actually dealing with any subject matter but hesping insult upon insult.

    ‘Scientists are very honest’ – as you prove and when the Q&A comes up, sit back and relax and give a decent answer.

    For want of not being pre-emptive, I do not need conclusive belief and this too will come up inthe Q&A.

    And since you know it all without pointing, share your proof with mankind for the scientific explanation for the Universe.

    P.S. I admit, my opinion does not matter to science but does this voice speak for the #’s or science?

  169. John Morales says

    danielhaven:

    From the title of being ‘incoherent’, I have now been promoted to ‘ILLITERATE’.

    It’s no promotion, and you’re only semi-illiterate (but more than a tittle).

    And you remain ignorant.

    So, want to tell us again how terrible it is that we pick on Kent Hovind. Do you admire him?

  170. says

    # 1023 You may have missed a post or two, but I was politely asked not to. The direction given to me was to ask one question at a time and receive the answers from the #’s so as to clarify issues.

    And not wanting to be disrespectful, Libraries WORLD-WIDE also have the other side, plus humour, horror, murder, fairy-tales and much, much more. As does radio, TV, the Internet and whatever form of social networks.

    Your fixation that someone else must prove to you that, as an acclaimed scientist, there is something else apart from your theory/fact [of which the first two cannot be proven and the third is claimed as fact], actually belittles your diatribe. Because of this, you can only sit there and heap insults as if though YOU have won anything.

    Cool,you live with that. With enemies like you, who needs friends?

  171. says

    Oh, according to #1022 he speaks for science, scientists, the #’s and the lurkers in proclaiming ‘WE’.

    Say to me in a reasonable fashion to ‘STOP’ and I will stop blogging on this site [and no, not you RH,OM].

  172. chigau (dodged a bullet) says

    danielhaven
    What is going on with the numbers?
    There are fewer than 800 comments.
    —-
    others
    Are we trying for page 2?

  173. John Morales says

    danielhaven:

    Say to me in a reasonable fashion to ‘STOP’ and I will stop blogging on this site

    Hehehee. Nah — do carry on.

    To PZ
    If I am not welcome, I will stop….

    You’re the village idiot and your caperings amuse, cringe-worthy though they be.

    (Whyever do you imagine anything has changed?)

  174. says

    Ahw gee, #1025

    John Morales:

    Did you have to spoil it and end my dream with a semi-?

    And then, ‘pure joy’ as I discovered I was promoted even higher to the level of ‘IGNORANT’. I guess the #’s have something going for them and evolution works.

    As for Kent Hovind, I have posted before and I will repeat for your benefit. Watched his DVD’s, chewed the meat and spat out the bones. As with anyone else (Politician, Judge, Scientist….) who commits an offense or a crime should be made to pay for that offense/crime, irrespective. To generalise a cause to a person who is convicted and lump anybody else in the same bracket is not just plain stupid but ……

    Sort of brings us back to the beginning, sort of.

  175. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I ‘convince’ who ‘lurking’?

    Boy, are you ignorant. Your idiocy is not only seen by those who respond to it, but by those who read the thread but don’t post. A majority of those reading the threads actually. So the audience for your idiocy is bigger than you think, and also smarter than you. They point and laugh.

    Q&A comes up, sit back and relax and give a decent answer.

    There is no Q&A. This isn’t a proper debate. You must show your evidence for your imaginary creator, but NOTHING. You see, if you were really debating, and smart, that would be the first thing you talk about. After all, no creator, you certainly sound incoherent talking about creationism….

    I do not need conclusive belief and this too will come up inthe Q&A.

    There is no Q&A. This isn’t a formal debate. It is you showing your fuckwittery, and we laughing and responding to your idiocy. For it to be a scientific debate, you would be citing the peer reviewed scientific literature to back up your inane and idiotic claims. But nothing but opinion. That is you preaching, not debating.

    And since you know it all without pointing, share your proof with mankind for the scientific explanation for the Universe.

    Done that already. Who cares if you don’t like it, your opinion is meaningless to science. Why don’t you present solid and conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary creator??? Or don’t you have any???

    but does this voice speak for the #’s or science?

    This voice speaks for science. Your voice speaks for religion and stupidsticion.

    Libraries WORLD-WIDE also have the other side,

    In the religion and philosophy sections, not the science sections. There is no science of creationism, just the religious philosophy thereof. You aren’t smart enough to see that.

    As does radio, TV, the Internet and whatever form of social networks.

    Again, not science. You don’t understand science. We scientists do. You are WRONG AGAIN. Actually, the question is more “when are you right?”. Not very often, since you fail to provide evidence, and your opinion is not evidence.

    Your fixation that someone else must prove to you that, as an acclaimed scientist, there is something else apart from your theory/fact [of which the first two cannot be proven and the third is claimed as fact],

    Incoherence again. Stop doing that if you don’t like being called incoherent, stupid, and illiterate. You have to stop being so in order for us to stop calling you on it.

    Your fixation that someone else must prove to you that, as an acclaimed scientist, there is something else apart from your theory/fact [of which the first two cannot be proven and the third is claimed as fact],

    Why would I want somebody as incoherent as your for a friend. I want someone who knows something. You don’t.

  176. consciousness razor says

    Daniel, do you want us to respond to anything you say?
    Problem: I don’t know what you are saying and can’t properly respond.
    Solution #1: Stop talking.
    Solution #2: Use better English.
    Solution #3: Use your preferred language.
    Solution #4: Keep saying nonsense.

    #3 seems like a good option, but won’t be worth our time if you aren’t going to say anything interesting or useful. If you can’t translate your thoughts into English, we could try to do the translating ourselves, while trying to be as fair as possible about it.

  177. says

    # 728, 828 or 1028

    Chigau:

    The numbers appeared in full before but in the last 2 hours, only the last two digits (me being the idgit), appear.

    I humbly give my apoligies to the #’s over a thousand who may comment later and the previous blogs do not relate to them.

  178. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I humbly give my apoligies to the #’s over a thousand who may comment later and the previous blogs do not relate to them.

    Your last post was #733. At 800 posts per thread, the first 800 posts will disappear to the previous page (found at the bottom of the thread), and numbering will restart at 1 (801 really). Don’t be surprised. Is there a scroll bar at the bottom of the screen? you might need to scroll right.

  179. says

    Ja, my bra. Ek smaak die lekker ding. dey always say, listen and you can hear the owl hoot. but me, me I say listen….dis is not a volk-storie but I mean real, stru’s bobbies.

    U got a guy that is not redding but cannot read. Some real smart okes who know words starting with an I. But ya, wait there is more and the chappie on de other side chirps.

    I was tuning u a true story but where was I Ja, ne a long time ago, ooh gonnas, can’t remember that far back.

    Hey dude, it’s always better korrek in the second half.

    Jy praat die waarheid, now i can tell.

    ‘n moerse long time ago dere was a cool fireworks display, that no-one, and i am tuning you, everyone missed. thats reason why we have crackers today, ne.

    Eish, sommer gets better. da history says we mutated, sommer like zombies back to humans. sommer tussen, animals larger and more gevaarlik cruised a small area till the gebied moved. Suddenly the first -heid appeared. Die Familie was separated and later found scattered all around die plek. You don’t believe? I’m tuning you it is true. the fact is in the pudding. don’t just ask me, vra anyone.

    and dat is zickactly cause you are here.

    jy wil vra wat?

    who cut the lawn when it first started growing?

    Agh, silly ques, dis die dinosaurs den de others.

    Tut, tut. Daniel, where have you gone?

  180. says

    Gone to watch the cricket…yip, yip. yip.

    Greetings for now, and I am awaiting my next promotion [not the chewing on bones and spitting out the meat sort].

    As the guitar says…..

  181. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    This thread is in desperate need of a sharp poking stick and a smashing rock

  182. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Tut, tut. Daniel, where have you gone?

    He was never here. That requires intelligence and precision of thought…

    This thread is in desperate need of a sharp poking stick and a smashing rock

    I talked to the Lilac Berets™ about killing the thread. They’re looking into what is needed to keep mad and incoherent creationists down. Preliminary research says the creobots, already being brain-dead zombies, are particularly hard to keep down.

  183. consciousness razor says

    I hope this makes sense. I can’t understand Afrikaans, but other people here do. They may correct me if I make mistakes.

    Ek hoop dat dit sin maak. Ek kan nie Afrikaans verstaan ​​nie, maar ander mense hier doen. Hulle kan my reg as ek foute maak.

    jy wil vra wat?

    What do I want to ask?

    I don’t have many questions for you. I don’t believe gods exist, because there is no evidence for them. You have faith god exists, but no evidence it exists. I need evidence, so why should I care about your faith?

    Ek het nie baie vrae vir jou. Ek glo nie gode bestaan ​​nie, want daar is geen bewyse vir hulle nie. Jy het die geloof god bestaan, maar geen bewyse bestaan. Ek het bewyse nodig, so hoekom moet ek omgee oor jou geloof?

    I think you also don’t understand the science, to know if it is true or false. The science is unknown to you. In other words, you are ignorant about it. It isn’t insulting, just honesty. Your ignorance leads nowhere. I hope it doesn’t fool anyone, including you.

    Ek dink jy verstaan ​​ook nie die wetenskap nie, om te weet of dit waar of onwaar is. Die wetenskap is onbekend aan u. Met ander woorde, jy is onkundig oor dit. Dit is nie te beledig, net eerlikheid. Jou onkunde lei nêrens. Ek hoop dat dit nie flous niemand, insluitend jou.

  184. theophontes, Benign Bullet Dodger in Chief says

    @ chigau (dodged a bullet) #728

    others
    Are we trying for page 2?

    Hell yes!

    {surreptitiously} Sadly the moon is waning. We shall have to wait ’til next years Ides to make our move. :'(

    @ danielhaven 666 #730

    I guess the #’s have something going for them and evolution works.

    The numbers merely refer to the comments being addressed. You should refer to the person’s nym for clarity and politeness. I am concerned that your position is not evolving at all.

    To generalise a cause to a person who is convicted and lump anybody else in the same bracket is not just plain stupid but

    Kent Hovind is a liar and a thief, as has been proven by the courts. His religious position is exactly congruent with his criminal behaviour. It is the very core of it in fact. He preys on the religious because they are (willfully) ignorant. It is very sad when he abuses the trust of credulous people like yourself.

    I am not holding you responsible for the lies the apartheid government, in cahoots with the church, inculcated in your mind. Perhaps you should start by acknowledging this problem though.

    @ Nerd & danielhaven 666 #734

    I have experienced similar troubles once, using Internet Explorer. For some reason the browser truncates the comment number down to the last two digits. It is extremely frustrating.

    Daniel, try downloading Firefox, it is a far better and more secure browser: Link to Firefox.

    (And, jislaik oukie, speak either Afrikaans or English NOT Zef slang! *headdesk*)

  185. theophontes, Benign Bullet Dodger in Chief says

    @ CR #739

    Bakgat, jy gooi Die Taal!

    jy wil vra wat? – danielhaven 666

    (Anlisisme?) FIFDH: Wat wil jy vra? (I do not believe Afrikaans is his first language.)

    @ danielhaven 666 (general)

    You have to have a first language. What is it?

    Further to your comments upthread. The “fossil rabbits in the Precambrian” quote is a famous example by JBS Haldane, of the type of evidence that would falsify evolution. (ie: prove evolution to be false). Creationists are forever seeking such evidence and failing miserably. They get proven wrong, but still cite their discredited examples in the media. This is why scientists call them liars.

    If you want to gain from a discussion with us, I highly recommend that you read up on the basics of the evolutionary arguments. I endorse the previous suggestion that you get a copy of Richard Dawkins’s book “The Magic of Reality”. Not only is it simply and clearly written, but it is also beautifully illustrated. It is worth buying for the graphics alone.

    Dawkins is particularly hated by Kent Hovind and Ken Ham because of his gift for writing about evolution in a manner that even a child can understand. At the same time he does this robustly and without being condescending.

    You can order in South Africa via Kalahari: Link to “Magic of Reality”.

    (I am sad to see that they are selling the ‘Merkin print of the book, rather than the British version, which has far superior cover image.)

  186. consciousness razor says

    Bakgat, jy gooi Die Taal!

    That’s a good thing, right? Enthusiasm? I’ll send a thank you note to the robots at translate.reference.com for throwing the language so effectively.

  187. chigau (dodged a bullet) says

    danielhaven
    Do you want us to understand or are you just masterbating in public?

    theophontes
    re: page 2
    well…
    today
    I
    had
    two
    cups
    of
    tea
    .
    .
    .

  188. theophontes, Benign Bullet Dodger in Chief says

    @ CR

    That’s a good thing, right? Enthusiasm?

    Bakgat = Fried Arse … Extreme enthusiasm.

    Actually the translation program is pretty good. Better by far than DH666.

    Afrikaans has an extremely simple grammar (aside for a double negative: “nie … nie”). On the other hand it is incredibly expressive and rich in idiom. Here is one of my all time favourites: An Afrikaans advert for coffee creamer. (You can almost taste the richness in his language.) Jan Spies is swearing, and not, at the same time.

  189. theophontes, Benign Bullet Dodger in Chief says

    @ chigau, DaB

    And here he was thinking he’s a master-debater.

    ….

    I

    h
    a
    d

    t
    w
    o

    c
    u
    p
    s

    o
    f

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    c
    o
    f
    f
    e
    e

    .
    .
    .

  190. chigau (I don't like that bullet thing) says

    theophontes
    You may be pushing the limits a bit.

    On a linguistic note: I am a native English speaker.
    When I hear spoken Dutch or Afrikaans or Gaelic, I always feel that I do (or should) understand.
    Often, I do get the gist.
    (no, I don’t know what gaelic is doing in there)

  191. Menyambal -- damned dirty ape says

    This danielhaven guy was converted to Jesusism by two guys in a barrackroom. And he’s a Hovind follower.

    No logical argument that anybody here can present is going to do a damned bit of good on getting him back. I don’t care if he thinks he’s kicked our asses from here to Christmas, he ain’t worth the fuss or the excellent writing.

    I’d join theophontes in running out the clock on this thread, but my head hurts.

  192. theophontes, Benign Bullet Dodger in Chief says

    @ chigau

    theophontes
    You may be pushing the limits a bit.

    You refer to my comment at # 747?

    .
    .
    .

    … but I was making a point. Three points in fact!

  193. theophontes, Benign Bullet Dodger in Chief says

    @ Menyambal

    This danielhaven guy was converted to Jesusism by two guys in a barrackroom.

    I missed this bit. The army was an important element in breaking down the spirit of young white South Africans and turning them into myrmidons of the state and church. The Stockholm Syndrome runs deep in that one.

    Hou My Vas Korporaal – Bernoldus Niemand

    There is a good article on the song here if you can’t understand the Afrikaans lyrics. Link to article:

    After all, it is a wry joke of a song, a fairly gentle prod at the institution of compulsory military service for young white men: instead of seeing the army as a rite of passage to manhood, the song’s narrator is infantilised by the military. He begs his corporal, otherwise the most violent of disciplinarians (“Hou jou bek!”), to hold him tight, to comfort him; he describes himself as a lost child.

    My empathy for DH666 grows…

  194. theophontes, Benign Marshmallow Dodger in Chief says

    @ chigau

    Heh. I saw what you did. (subtle)

  195. says

    I got a whole lot I want to say but that last post may exactly be how the #’s are deluded by science.

    I was not converted (made up by #’s, but ask me), and there was only one other person in the room at the time. I respect him and acknowledge his honesty and integrity. It had nothing to do with all the garbage the #’s bring up in order to scorn and insult.

    I could just as easily say the #’s came from a rock or soup or crawled out of the wood-work or exploded into life and be cynical and insulting. And for a bunch of #’s that want facts and proof, the #’s really have a secret design of a higher english language in order to articulate the #’s point. If you are a #, you can misspell, misrepresent or miss anything you want except your two cups of coffee. Not a #, except I am 666 [shudder and shake], and the conversation goes on about everything else except the conversation {formal debate, HUH}.

    So yes, if you geniuses can get your facts/points so horribly wrong, then I have learnt that my belief is now stronger than before.

  196. says

    As for the young white South African, your generalisation sucks.

    Some wanted to, some broke, some they could not break, some rebelled and some fled. There may be a couple more “some’s” in-between. If a white person is from the USA, I can infer that you are indoctrinated by the KKK. Each country has it’s own history, so cut out the bulls… and falsehoods. Just tell DH666 to disappear if your only answer is to insult, pretend incoherence or to spread falsehoods. Life is actually that simple.

  197. Menyambal -- damned dirty ape says

    Theophontes said, “My empathy for DH666 grows…”.

    And mine, now. I didn’t realize the strength of the military influence. And it explains a lot.

    DanielHaven666, I’ve been thinking of the military-esque analogy I sometimes use ….

    You seem to think that you and your fellow religionists, and we of scientific minds, are marching to the beat of two different drummers. You keep saying things that reveal that you think we follow Charles Darwin or other scholars, and you think that we believe the scientific papers because we already believe in the theories. In other words, you think science is a religion much like Christianity is, and that we just happen to be in with the wrong crowd because we got caught by the wrong two guys in a barrackroom.

    Here’s my analogy: We science people aren’t marching to another drummer than you are, and we aren’t in a different religious army. We are a band of wandering musicians, playing songs that we wrote, playing on instruments that we make, developing musicianship and craftsmanship as we go bravely on into the world, singing songs we make because we want to.

    The analogy isn’t perfect, or even very good, so don’t go saying we just make stuff up and are wild hedonists at heart. The point is that you really have no idea how different we are. And how science is not a religion.

    For instance, you really think that science works from the top down. You think Darwin said that evolution is true, so we believe it, and then we believe the papers, then we pick the facts. Science actually works from the bottom up–we look at the facts, then we all work at explanations, compare our work and assign tentative values to the explanations. The really good explanations are called “theories” and are not regarded as proofs–but you keep wanting us to prove them.

    Science doesn’t work the way you think it does, no matter what Kent Hovind says. But–and here’s another point–science does fucking work.

    DH666, you seem hung up on three theories; the big bang, the beginning of life, and evolution.

    First, “theory” doesn’t mean what you think it means, and not all of what you call “theories” are theories, even to scientists. And those three are not the same thing, even if Brother Kent uses “evolution” to refer to the growth of a godless universe, from the Big Bang onwards.

    The beginning of the universe–the “Big Bang”–can be said to be a theory, in that is still remotely possible that the universe had no beginning, but that is damned unlikely–the beginning is a very strong theory.

    The idea that the universe had a beginning is based largely on the fact that it is expanding–that expansion can be seen in various ways. Scientists then looked for lingering traces of an abrupt beginning, and they found them. They found the traces EXACTLY as they had figured they would–ex-fucking-actly. Prophecy fulfilled, as a Christian would say.

    So what do you want, DH666? It’s like you see shrapnel whizzing by, hear a boom, look for smoke and find it, and you find that smoke in the direction that the boom and the shrapnel came from, just as you expected, and it is expanding out from a central point. What can you do but assume a grenade just went off?

    The universe exploded into being–we can see that. Deal with it. Theories as to why and how are welcome, and are being developed. (The idea that your god did it isn’t supportable anywhere in the universe or in your bible.)

    Many years after the big bang, some stellar debris formed Earth and some started exhibiting characteristics that we call “life”. (We are made of stardust.) We do not know exactly how life started, but we have MANY good possibilities, and many years in which any one or more of them could have worked. Whatever Brother Kent told you, it isn’t impossible. There are even amino acids out in space, the building blocks of life are everywhere. Not knowing exactly what happened when life began, isn’t a problem.

    Again, there are many traces pointing back to a simple beginning, and nothing else to conclude but that life began, whatever the one way out of many. Saying that your god did it isn’t needed, nor compatible with the facts.

    Once life got going, it changed–that’s called evolution. Evidence for evolution is all over the place, and was seen and understood by people long before Darwin.

    Let me make that perfectly clear to you: Charles Darwin did not invent evolution. He made a damned strong case that evolution worked through natural selection–that was his theory, natural selection, not evolution. The realization that evolution had taken place predates parts of your bible. Again, there is evidence of evolution and means for it to happen all over the world, while your limits and your god don’t figure into it.

    Let me wrap up evolution with a simple fact: You, Daniel Haven, are different from your parents. Your children will be different from you. (Similar in many ways, but nevertheless different.) If those undeniable differences continue to accumulate, that is evolution–inherited differences.

    Now, unless you can come up with something that will prevent those differences from accumulating, you must admit that evolution will take place (and has and does). You are probably going to say that your kids will still be human, to which I reply that they will still be a type of human, just as humans are a type of ape, apes are a type of monkey, monkeys are a type of primate….

    (Your bestiality problem is all your own. Bestiality is NOT part of evolution, whatever you may think. And, IF it was, that wouldn’t mean we’d have to like it or do it or support it.)

    You are also different from all your siblings. And that’s a fact (identical twins notwithstanding). If the difference between you make a difference in how many children you each have, that is selection (Natural Selection if you are a gazelle, Artificial Selection if you are a prize pig, Sexual Selection if you are a butt-ugly guy).

    In sum, the universe shows there was a Big Bang, there are so many likely ways that life could have begun that we can’t say it must have been a certain way, and evolution is a fact, with natural selection as the primary driving force.

    The fact that you don’t understand that, or how there are good theories as to how each one works, doesn’t mean a damned thing. And Kent Hovind–may he be damned–isn’t a good person to follow. And that is a fact.

    (I heard Brother Kent speak, twice, back in 1995. He is EVIL. Or in your words, a false prophet. Leave him, please.)

  198. Menyambal -- damned dirty ape says

    Okay, there was one guy in the barracks conversion event. That was my mistake–I didn’t go back and check the facts as a good scientist should. My mistake.

    I acknowledge my error and appreciate the correction. No harm was meant to Daniel Haven.

    But that makes no difference to the central point based on the account as given. An abrupt conversion occurred, whatever the buildup or motivation, and all since then has been seen and done through the framework of an unsupported worldview.

  199. John Morales says

    DH666:

    So yes, if you geniuses can get your facts/points so horribly wrong, then I have learnt that my belief is now stronger than before.

    Heh.

    (FSTDT-worthy, that)

    Just tell DH666 to disappear if your only answer is to insult, pretend incoherence or to spread falsehoods.

    As my #729 noted, I am not unaware that you’re begging for release.

    (Pitiful)

  200. John Morales says

    Menyambal, cf #121: “No fan-fare, no drum roll….two guys sitting in an army dorm room was my proof. The guy prayed and I accepted.”

    (Two guys, one dorm)

  201. says

    #whatever56 = Menyambal

    The point is not Science vs Religion. Yhay is a separation created so as to achieve some form of supriority (not unlike apartheid, nazism or whatever).

    Words that have meaning are used/abused in order for a whole bunch of physcobabble to be attached to the word and that then gives the physchobabble false credentials. Follow the physchobabbble and believe whatever.

    Let’s use an analogy. Do you tell your children that Santa, the tooth fairy, etc do not exist from th first moment you recognise they will understand? You also never celebrated or did anything like prior to that. If your child wants to go to church with his/her best friend, do you stop them?

    Get over the Kent discussion, made my views loud and clear. I am not a disciple of Kent’s and not everything he said was wrong.

    I am not hung up but questioning. So far, very little meat.

    My God has no limits.

    Your wrap up is correct – inherited differences but still a Haven. I admit to the fact that things evolve as much as I admit that things are created. No argument there.

    This is the middle point I do not get. A long story ending with ‘monkeys are a type of primate…’?

    One blogger did pick it up, the rest only insulted. Never said it was part of evolution. The point of mentioning bestiality had to do with random mutation which has now evolved into abiogenesis. And, with the largest IF you can find, it would become a theory/fact in your theory. There are other options, I presume. Single cells formed from amino acids into multiple cells all of whuch had an inherited differnce thus allowing all the various different vegetation, insects, mammals and whatever to be here today to prove the big bang. Speaking of which, all the main chemicals on the chart all came from one big bang? The gasses, liquids and solids (Gold, Uranium)?

    My biggest problem is that what you believe today can possibly be scientifically proven to be wrong tomorrow.

    Would I want to be the one to tell 7 billion people that you can do what you want, within your governments rules, or do what you want wether you are caught or not, then you die and that is it?

    With my belief, you have to make a commitment, not to anyone else but to yourself and your God. My sins are for me to answer to, not for others to judge a faith.

    Separating science from religion is akin to separating the mind from the heart.

    Nuff said

  202. theophontes, Benign Marshmallow Dodger in Chief says

    @ John Morales

    (Two guys, one dorm)

    Sounds nasty, please tell…

    I am suspecting it may be something like the crude schoolboy’s song:

    Ons is drie, ons is dronk
    ons sit almal in die tronk
    ons … [crude discriptions of masturbation]

    was the version of the song that I heard. There is another to the music of “Seasons in the Sun”:

    Ons was jonk, Ons was dronk, Ons was tjommies in die tronk… etc
    (We were young, we where drunk, we were buddies in the jail … ens)

    The more creepy the cult, the more likely its evangelists have to resort to the prisons, rehab centers and the barracks … essentially wherever you find people at their lowest ebb.

  203. theophontes, Benign Marshmallow Dodger in Chief says

    [meta]

    DH666 instead of danielhaven

    It would appear people are starting to accept you on this thread. (There are actually several christians on Pharyngula. They have no problems with discussions of science and critical thinking. You do not have to give up on your imaginary god in order to learn how reality fits together.

    @ DH666 #754

    made up by #’s

    Impressed as I am that you appear to have discovered the concept of variables, spontaneously and of your own accord, could you please define to whom “#” refers.

    {formal debate, HUH}

    No, just a group of friends (and for some, not-so-friends) on the internet chatting about science and politics and making jokes and giving each other cyberhugs. One can play and be serious at the same time.

    So yes, if you geniuses can get your facts/points so horribly wrong, then I have learnt that my belief is now stronger than before.

    Dude, you are the person being all passive-aggressive here. I notice your latest postings are suddenly more coherent. Perhaps you should stop withholding information from us rather than making statements such as this.

  204. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    if you geniuses can get your facts/points so horribly wrong,

    You are the one who keeps getting things wrong. We are perfectly clear on the facts. You aren’t. For example:

    The point is not Science vs Religion.

    Actually that is our point. Religion is a top-down endeavor, revelation by authority. Science is bottom up endeavor, with folks toiling to obtain evidence, which is then put together into scientific theories that explain the evidence. Scientific theories change as the evidence changes. Religion can’t change as it based on the twin delusions of an imaginary deity and an inerrant book of mythology/fiction.

    made my views loud and clear.

    No, you babbled incoherently and without context. Clearly, no.

    My God has no limits.

    Your god is imaginary. Prove otherwise with solid and conclusive physical evidence…

    The point of mentioning bestiality had to do with random mutation which has now evolved into abiogenesis.

    Utter incoherent and delusional thinking going on here. You don’t know what you are talking about. Nothing evolved into abiogenesis. Why you keep making this mistake is beyond the ken of reasonable people.

    My biggest problem is that what you believe today can possibly be scientifically proven to be wrong tomorrow.

    That is the strength of science, it changes with the evidence. But big changes to present knowledge with new theories that totally overthrow old ones? Highly unlikely. Minor modifications is all. Your religion can never change, never admit it is wrong, never even consider its deity is imaginary.

    My sins are for me to answer to, not for others to judge a faith.

    Your sins are imaginary, just like your deity. And you did commit a sin coming here bearing false witness.

    Separating science from religion

    Science is separated from religion. Science is dynamic and ever improving. Religion is static and going nowhere. They exist for separate reasons. They can’t be reconciled. Religion lost.

  205. says

    You are wrong about the unsupported world view.

    The reason I was distracted about the couple hundred worms on the shelf that had a spine was because a teacher wanted to intorduce evolution to her class (something like three weeks worth in the year). She unfortunately found it difficult and she could not believe all the fellow scientists totally disagreed with her. As the parents did too.

    Admittedly, not everyone who goes to church is a believer and some believers do not attend church but the facts do rubbish your claim of a world view.

    I accept you acknowledging your mistake as previously mentioned but read before or read after to get the rest correct as well.

    Spot my not deliberate mistake ‘yhay’ instead of ‘there’ and other typo’s. Paying a bit more attention may work and apart from yhay, the gist is the same?

  206. John Morales says

    theophontes:

    Sounds nasty, please tell…

    What’s to tell? It’s a synopsis of that which I quoted, and refers to the comment to which I responded, to wit: Menyambal’s “there was one guy in the barracks conversion event”.

    To be fair, it’s very likely the dormitory was part of a barracks, and there was only the one guy doing the converting.

    (Oh yeah — don’t Google “two girls, one cup”!)

  207. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    You are wrong about the unsupported world view.

    Religion is a world view, but a static and delusional one. You can’t provide solid and conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity. You can’t provide solid and conclusive physical evidence your holy book is inerrant. Not a solid world view, based on those unevidenced twin lies.

  208. says

    Uh Nerd of Redhead, OM

    The word evolved….random mutation became abiogenesis. From either of those which cannot be proved evolution came about. Am I allowed to say that someone created a work of art or does it have to evolve into a work of art? If not, the word would have to be removed from the dictionary, ie no more creating anything, everything evolves. Using the word ‘evolve’ in a normal context obviously does not mean the same to you. Personally, I think you are fixated with the word ‘incoherent’. Even the description of your own theories and beliefs was ‘incoherent’ to you.

    Religion is only static in your mind. Daily occurences and major events allow fora momentum that you cannot comprehend because the day you pass away, the worms will come back and that would beyour cycle in life. You really want to tell me that if a person rapes and kills and gets away with it here, that is it?
    All the poor must suffer for what? Do it now as there are no repercussions once you are dead. And you want everyone to think like that. Chaos Theory! Not far off, still stuck a bit with dis-information.

  209. says

    Nerd of Redhead

    You cannot prove evolution is a fact based on no physical evidence of the big bang, abiogenesis, random mutation or even agreeing that your dating method would have to be static over billions of years, because your belief cannot be static. There can be no constants. Everything had, must and will evolve. How would you even keep the masses informed of the changes unless you indoctrinate them and by that time, it may change.

    Incoherent, you know the word.

  210. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    You cannot prove evolution is a fact based on no physical evidence of the big bang, abiogenesis, random mutation or even agreeing that your dating method would have to be static over billions of years, because your belief cannot be static. There can be no constants. Everything had, must and will evolve. How would you even keep the masses informed of the changes unless you indoctrinate them and by that time, it may change.

    Incoherent, you know the word.

    Yes, this is as inchoherent as it gets. The big bang occurred,and you presented no other scientific alternative. Until you do so, the big bang is fact. Same for Abiogenesis, evolution, scientific dating (which is based on constants, the half-life of isotopes, which is based the constant for the weak nuclear force, lies all over the place), and you have presented no alternative SCIENTIFIC THEORY to replace these concepts, so they are SCIENTIFIC FACTS until you do so. You point at your religion, but that can’t replace science. Only more science can replace science. What part of that are you having trouble understanding?

  211. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Am I allowed to say that someone created a work of art or does it have to evolve into a work of art?

    Creation and evolution are two separate ideas. A painter creates a painting. A species of life evolves into different species. Creation of something is a one-time event. Evolution is on-going over time.

  212. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    random mutation became abiogenesis.

    Fuckwitted, demented, and incoherent lie. Nothing became abiogenesis. Abiogenesis allowed for the creation of the first replicators. This is the point where evolution begins. Evolution then uses random mutation and natural selection to form life as we know it. And we have a million or so scientific papers to back up the theory of evolution. All without your imaginary deity, for which there are no scientific papers backing up that idiocy. Gee, what a worthless and useless thing it is. And if you were mildly coherent and knew what you were talking about, you wouldn’t make such basic mistakes. You are WRONG.

  213. theophontes, Benign Marshmallow Dodger in Chief says

    @ John Morales

    two girls, one cup

    Eeeeexactly.

    The relationship between sex and religion is quite profound. Religious ceremonies all revolved around sex and then, sadly, finally devolved into crap (heh) like this: Link – Fuck the pope. (NSFW, this stuff is really disgusting and offensive.)

  214. says

    Oh Theo, oh Theo, oh Theo

    Where are evangilists mentioned. In a dorm of 60, a youngster was known as ‘the prof’. I did not know him that well before or after, sort of casual acquaintences. There was a room where our balsaks (translate that) were put in. In a spontanious moment in time, the previously mentioned happened. No previous meetings, no planning, no outside influence. I approached him, asked and that was the only sort of private space. I was not converted. As previously stated, an upbringing influences your opinion. I always had a belief but had never experienced it. For some reason that day, I did. That is why I always said that you can believe whatever it is you want, just as much as I can.

    The problem does come in when a bunch of false propoganda comes into the picture, especially to teach children. Neither side should lay claim to, ‘we are the only ones who are right’. As we now have a choice to choose, so should they also be given the choice. There are many more choices than something coming from a book or journal.

    The way I see this thread is similar to a small incident that happened but the journalist wants to make a big story out of it. Gets printed, misquotes, false facts, made up interpretations and then you got a story. Somewhere hidden in a few words out of many is the actual story.

  215. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    You cannot prove evolution is a fact based on no physical evidence of the big bang, abiogenesis, random mutation or even agreeing that your dating method would have to be static over billions of years, because your belief cannot be static.

    First, as has been explained to you several times, the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution are different things. It’s only because of the lies told to you by liars like Kent Hovind that you continue to have the wrong idea about them being intertwined.

    Second, there is physical evidence for all of these things. Something called “Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation” is evidence of the big bang. The fact that you and I are both alive is physical evidence of abiogenesis. Google “Lenski e coli citrate” for physical evidence of evolution. Just because you’re ignorant about the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution doesn’t mean there isn’t evidence for them.

    We don’t believe in science. We build theories about how things work based on evidence. If new evidence comes up or a better interpretation is offered, then we modify or even discard the theories for new ones. We don’t believe in evolution, we accept that it is the best explanation of how life works.

  216. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    The problem does come in when a bunch of false propoganda comes into the picture, especially to teach children. Neither side should lay claim to, ‘we are the only ones who are right’.

    Actually, yes. You want to teach science, then you need to prove that what you want taught is science. That is facts and theories used by working scientists like myself, not religion. Religion should only be taught in comparative religion classes, philosophy classes, and mythology classes.

    The lies and bullshit that creationism is a science has been thoroughly debunked, and that has even recognized by the US Supreme Court. Creationism is religion, not science, and has no place in any science classroom, except as an example of not how to do science.

  217. theophontes, Benign Marshmallow Dodger in Chief says

    @ DH666

    You are obviously quite oblivious to how evolution works. Hell, you are even quite oblivious as to how any science at all works. If anything you have a bizzare cargo cult science view of these matters. You are so fractally wrong, that I wince every time you mention these subjects. (Plural… again, evolution is not abiogenesis).

    If you want to see how religions came into being, you can actually see it happening within human memory. Read this article: “In John They Trust”. (Note the reference to “In goD We Trust” that the goddists shoved down everyone’s throats shortly after World War 2.)

    Here is one of their religious rituals: Picture. The ritual involves building a replica of an aeroplane, landingstrip and control tower. These people believe in their ritual as much as DH666 believes in prayer to his own particular brand of imaginary god. Sadly, in both cases their gods don’t deliver any better than brute chance.

  218. theophontes, Benign Marshmallow Dodger in Chief says

    @ Richard Feynman [I've quoted his statements on his behalf. Sadly he can't log on right now.]

    Feynman cautioned that to avoid becoming cargo cult scientists, researchers must first of all avoid fooling themselves, be willing to question and doubt their own theories and their own results, and investigate possible flaws in a theory or an experiment. He recommended that researchers adopt an unusually high level of honesty which is rarely encountered in everyday life, and gives examples from advertising, politics, and behavioral psychology to illustrate the everyday dishonesty which should be unacceptable in science. Feynman cautions that “We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in Cargo Cult Science.”

    I salute you, Sir, for your contributions to sanity, science and humanity.

  219. says

    Nerd of Redhead, OM

    If I coherently understand you, there are many scientific papers proving random mutation. From an idjit, please point the direction.

    I reckon that if the Bible is a fabrication, then the ancestor must have had an imaginitive brain. To see people at the time, that is if he/she witnessed the crucifictions and added that into the plot plus many other things then it is one serious creative piece of fiction. You may begin the treasure hunt to see if you were related to this anonymous writer and what royalties are due to you now. Or maybe you are related to the transcribers and they added to the story. As in ‘War and Peace’, the sheer volume of the book would put most off today. Imagine, as quoted before, Hawkins and Potter published the whole series in one book prior to movies, dvd’s, etc. Who would have read that whole book?

    Oh Theo

    The relationship between science and sex is also very interesting. As men, we apparently did not know about the G-Spot. Thought we had it figured out till they just recently announced that there is no G-Spot. Still, the sex is great.

    But I digress, which beings us back to potatoes.

  220. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    If I coherently understand you, there are many scientific papers proving random mutation. From an idjit, please point the direction.

    A science and engineering library at an institution of higher learning fuckwitted idjit. Inside the journals therein.

    I reckon that if the Bible is a fabrication,

    No if. It is a fabrication. All the prophetic stuff post written to make it true. You need to look at how it was really put together. Can you show with solid and conclusive physical evidence it is inerrant? That the exodus really happened, that the world-wide-one-time-killing-everything flood really happened? Much less conclusive physical evidence for jebus? Reality and your babble are divorced.

  221. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    I reckon that if the Bible is a fabrication, then the ancestor must have had an imaginitive brain. To see people at the time, that is if he/she witnessed the crucifictions and added that into the plot plus many other things then it is one serious creative piece of fiction. You may begin the treasure hunt to see if you were related to this anonymous writer and what royalties are due to you now. Or maybe you are related to the transcribers and they added to the story. As in ‘War and Peace’, the sheer volume of the book would put most off today. Imagine, as quoted before, Hawkins and Potter published the whole series in one book prior to movies, dvd’s, etc. Who would have read that whole book?

    Daniel, all of this nonsense and obfuscating you do just increases the obviousness that you don’t really grasp the topics at hand. Really. You just don’t get it.

    You don’t understand evolution so you build strawmen to try and hide that fact.

    You don’t grasp the topics about theology so you build strawmen and speak gibberish to hide that fact.

    You don’t seem to understand much. In fact you seem to be very confused about almost everything that has been brought up here.

    Do you have a point?

  222. says

    Oh Theo, you are quite the dodger.

    As for Richard Feynman’s comments. it is the most sense I have seen to date.

    I second that motion, Sir, for your contributions to sanity, science and humanity.

    The only begging question is, Will it make any difference?

    P.S. Oh Theo, you hammered me on that one.

  223. theophontes 777 says

    @ DH666

    …if he/she witnessed the crucifictions and added that into the plot plus many other things then it is one serious creative piece of fiction.

    Actually the best christian research on the matter fails to show that jeebus was actually crucified (by which I mean not even in the fictional story you call “the bible”). I have written about this here. Also check out the work of Gunnar Samuelsson (a christian) who has done extensive research into the matter (linked to in above).

    Crucifixion? Please present the evidence, because even the best goddist scholars won’t take your opinions for facts. Please read up about these simple facts about your own christian religion before you make such unsupported statements.

  224. theophontes 777 says

    @ DH666

    [Feynman] The only begging question is, Will it make any difference?

    Feynman made a huge difference to the world. And I am not just talking about his science, he was quite a character in his own right. Even though he is stone dead, he continues to inspire and teach through his writings and his approach to science which, in a certain sense, live on beyond him.

    When you get into your car (or bakkie, 2×4 amiright?) you turn the ignition and everything works. That is Engineering at work. Engineering that driven and underlain by Science. The bible doesn’t teach you how your bakkie works. If you try learning that from the babble you will look laughable.

    If you try dismantling your bakkie you may learn something. If you are careful and think about what you’re doing you might even learn a lot (this is in fact a simple form of science… examining carefully and trying to understand things.)

    Engineers (especially automobile specialists) will always know more than you or I about how vehicles work. But still they do not know everything and rely on other engineers, technicians and scientists who have more in-depth knowledge of all that goes into building cars. Some people know more than others. No-one has the complete picture. But these vehicles do work. And work pretty damn well.

    Everything about how vehicles work is underlain by science, science and more science. No imaginary gods were involved.

    Does science work?

    Yes. Every time you turn the ignition.
    Yes. Every time you fly on SAA.
    Yes. Every time you call on your cellphone
    Yes. Even as you are connected to the internet.

    Everything is underlain by science.
    Yahwe … and allah, jesus, Wotan, Shaka, even Almighty Zeus and His Son Dionysus … are simply superfluous to our requirements.

  225. theophontes 777 says

    My #783

    (by which I mean not even in the fictional story you call “the bible”)

    FIFY: (to which I add:… not even in the fictional story you call “the bible”)

  226. chigau (√-1) says

    DH666
    There is a wealth of published information about the origins of the bible.
    A lot of it written by Christians.
    You should read some of it.

  227. theophontes 777 says

    @ chigau

    (√-1)

    Hot dang! Imaginary numbers… How do you always manage to stay one move ahead of me?

    (So much for my trying to actually lead our little breakaway Pharyngulite People’s Republic of South TET.)

    *sulks*

  228. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Daniel, at the end of this paragraph will be a link. It will be blue, and if you put the cursor over it your browser will probably give the location (mine usually appears on either a pop-up balloon or the bottom bar of the browser). If you click on the link, it will take you to a .pdf of a scientific paper by Lenski. He grew e-coli, which metabolizes glucose, on a medium with very little glucose and some citrate as a energy source. After about 35,000 generations (each generation stored in a freezer), one line of e-coli developed the ability to metabolize the citrate through three mutations. They were able to determine when and where the the mutations occurred. Link to .pdf.

    This is an example of a scientific paper. If you notice, it describes the methodology used to make their conclusions. Science is all about sharing how you did your experiments, so others can duplicate your results.

    A link to a paper showing the power of natural selection. These are two papers that supply just a small amount of evidence to confirm evolution. This is why science is confident that random mutation and natural selection are powerful enough to drive evolution. Conclusion based on real evidence, not someone’s authority, holy book, or imaginary deity. Which is why science works to advance knowledge, while religion can’t.

  229. theophontes 777 says

    @ DH666

    I’m fascinated to hear whether you realise that Lenski, and his colleagues, work with e. coli actually proves evolution works. God did not do this. Random mutation and non-random selection by the environment (in this case the environment designed and carefully held constant by scientists) were the drivers of this process.

    No jeebus, no allah, no John Frum, no Almighty Zeus and His Son Dionysus … no imaginary deities at all.

    If you do not at least understand this, then I am afraid that there is little hope that you will ever become enlightened. It will sadden me, but we’ll simply have to accept that the authoritarians have cooked (kooked) your brain for you. Ag Shamepies!

  230. theophontes 777 says

    @ chigau (√-1)

    You were, as always, my inspiration.

    Goddamn! Again you are ahead of me!

    *more sulking*

  231. theophontes 777 says

    @ DH666

    I don’t know if you are still about, but I will post this link for the benefit of any lurkers here who are following these arguments. Link to Answers in Genesis recommendations of arguments even goddists should not pursue.

    Please go through the list and realise that if you have used any of these arguments, that you do not have the support of one of the most extreme and deluded anti-science xtian cults on the planet. If you use these arguments, you are even beyond the pale of the most ridiculous losers the xtian religion has ever vomited up.

    The imaginary gods are embarrassed by these arguments. Hell, turnips and carrots would be embarrassed if you use these. Even your allies are telling you to STFU.

  232. says

    # 781 Dumb Chimp (and yes, my numbers are back)

    A point?????? The first is easy as most of the responses attack the person and do not deal with the issues. Using terms such as incoherent, etc does not give a lee-way to avoid issues. Typo errors do not give a lee-way to avoid issues. Just bypass the first two real issues. Secondly, I would not use the term ‘confused’ or incoherent unless I would not be able to offer an answer. Thirdly, I was politely asked to refrain and then left little choice. Next, I was asked to ask one question at a time, which I did.

    And not particularly anything, a random number spewed out on a blog siyr means ZILCH.

    Oh Theo, still dodging

    Did attempt to read most of your scatterlings. Read below.

    As suggested, go to Wikipedia.

    Crucifixion is an ancient method of painful execution in which the condemned person is tied or nailed to a large wooden cross and left to hang until dead.

    Crucifixion was in use at a comparatively high rate among the Seleucids, Carthaginians, and Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD. In the year 337, Emperor Constantine I abolished it in the Roman Empire out of veneration for Jesus Christ, the most famous victim of crucifixion.[1][2] It was also used as a form of execution in Japan for criminals, inflicted also on some Christians.

    Not my opinion,and you and Gunnar can change Wikipedia.

    I presume by science, science and more science you actually attach non-scientific terms to it in order to give your non-scientific theories value.

    A machine was created and works most of the time as a result of human ability to create and attempt to perfect machines we deem to be useful. Most of all subjects (maths, science, english, any taal, geography, accountancy, safety, hazmat and all the rest) work, sometimes it is us that stops or slows the process.

    You drive a hybrid, petrol or diesel engine. Why? Patented +/- 90 years ago, you could run your engine on water and you would get incredible mileage out of your vehicle. Imagine no more killing over oil.

    ‘Superfluous to OUR requirements’. Typical hindsight attitude, it is so cool being clever after an event. ‘We work backwards’.

    Got that one right, Nige.

  233. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    you could run your engine on water

    *snicker* Water is already oxidized, no fuel value there. As any scientist could tell you.

  234. theophontes 777 says

    @ chigau

    Both!

    [whisper] I have a ploy to lend support for our little venture. Quick! Post some poems ‘n stuff. Spread some cushions and hand out cookies and grog. If we play this right our secession may work. Teh bPPRoSTET is about to become a reality.[whisper]

    TTBN. BRB.

  235. chigau (√-1) says

    I must remember to refresh!
    [[Damn. I don't know any pomes!]]
    There was a young man from Regina…

  236. KG says

    Oh, sure, snakes and crocodiles are equally distantly related to us. So you need to look at these animals; our last common ancestors with them lived something like 300 million years ago. So, maybe love is 300 million years old. – David Marjanovic

    So unless snakes have secondarily lost the ability to love, it’s evolved at least twice within the Amniota. Do any animals outside Amniota show signs of it?

  237. theophontes 777 says

    @ DH666

    Not my opinion,and you and Gunnar can change Wikipedia.

    You quote the article on crucifixion. We are well aware that crucifixion was a common means of killing people back in the day. At least we are on the same page there.

    The problem is that the people who invented the jeebus story failed to specify in sufficient detail what they wanted you to believe. The best we can reconstruct from the original story is that the hero of the fairytale was tacked to a pole. The use of a cross as xtian symbol is therefore totally inappropriate. The crucification story isn’t even a part of the original story. Like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, it was tacked on afterwards.

    (For the love of GAWD ™ please tell me you do not believe in the Easter Bunny. Is there anything you don’t believe in?)

    ‘Superfluous to OUR requirements’.

    People created the gods to achieve their own shallow socio-political goals. They can just as easily get rid of them. (What do you think happened to The Almighty Zeus and His Son Dionysus? I suppose you don’t believe in them. Then you, like me, are an atheist. Daniel, did you know that the term atheist was originally applied to christians because they did not believe in Zeus?)

    Did you read the story I linked to about John Frum? It gives you a clear view about the “abiogenesis” and “evolution” of your imaginary gods. Please read that link carefully before you make a complete fool of yourself.

  238. chigau (√-1) says

    I must go to help prepare sukiyaki.
    I’ll try to check-in but it could be hours.
    Keep up the good fight!

  239. theophontes 777 says

    @ chigau

    {we gotta keep them distracted. Get them to post comments. The nation relies on you. Snooze time for moi. I must keep up my strength for the final putsch.}

    There was a young lass from Cape Cod
    Who thought all babes come from god
    But it wasn’t the Almighty
    who lifted her nighty,
    But Roger the Lodger, the Sod!

    {Maybe cut and paste some rhymes from Cuttlefish’s blog? You’ll be OK, I’ve gotta hit the snooze button. A luta continua!!!}

  240. theophontes 777 says

    YESSS! We have broken through to the other side.

    I’ll try to check-in but it could be hours.

    Wait, wuh, wut? Who is going to steer the ship?

  241. theophontes 777 says

    @ DH666

    As commander in chief of this here thread, I hereby officially deputize you. Keep a good eye on everything. Hand out grog and cookies to the regulars and sweep the floor clear of trolls. {hands over tiller} And keep the kids off the lawn.

    I’ll be back…

  242. says

    #792 Oh Theo

    Thanks for the invite to that site. Did not possibly ask more than one of those questions. Also there, an Aussie place that even PZ has been to. He disputed but it shows your world view is gumf. Go to the age of the world.

    #795 THE NERD

    You done it this time by claiming any (or all) scientists will tell me. There is a minimal conversion and water is a combination of Oxygen and ….I know the great scientist that you are…you can …. you can… no, um Helium is wrong. Just type in ‘run your car on water’ in your search engine.

    And you want children to believe YOU?

    You wanted proof, you have proved that you are a wannabee.

  243. changeable moniker says

    That was odd: a second ago I refreshed and got #800 as the latest comment.

  244. changeable moniker says

    DH: ‘run your car on water’

    Oh, ho, ho. Like this?

    The water fuel cell is a purported free energy device invented by Stanley Meyer [which] split water into its component elements, hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen was then burned to generate energy

    Except:

    If the device worked as specified, it would violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics, allowing operation as a perpetual motion machine. Meyer’s claims about his “Water Fuel Cell” and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell

  245. changeable moniker says

    [I]n 2002, Genesis World Energy announced a market ready device which would extract energy from water by separating the Hydrogen and Oxygen and then recombining them. [...] In 2006, Patrick Kelly, the owner of Genesis World Energy was sentenced in New Jersey to five years in prison for theft

    [I]n 2008, Sri Lankan news sources reported that Thushara Priyamal Edirisinghe claimed to drive a water-fuelled car about 300 kilometers [...] Thushara was arrested a few months later on suspicion of investment fraud.

    Daniel Dingel, a Filipino inventor, has been claiming since 1969 to have developed technology allowing water to be used as fuel. [...] In 2008, the 82-year-old Dingel [was] sentenced to 20 years imprisonment [for fraud].

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car

    Notice a pattern?

  246. says

    changeable moniker says:

    ‘Notice a pattern?’ – yes. as it matches the other so-called proof of evolution.

    I have personally seen a car that has been converted, that was +/- 2008. The initial patent is listed +/- the 1930’s.

    The concept of building hydrogen fuel tanks is a costly concern but I believe there are some in the northern regions of Europe. possibly Finland.

    It has been a while since I paid a bit of attention to this, but I may have some documents laying around.

    And yes, there are boo boys/girls that may not have seen.

    Check out – Test Drive BMW Hydrogen Car …

  247. says

    I fear we are straying from the issues.

    But the task is now handed over to CM to monitor the site.

    Hehe,,,,Hehehe,,,,,,Hehehehehehe [snort] hehe,,,gotta stop laughing ….chow for now

  248. changeable moniker says

    “the task is now handed over to CM to monitor the site.”

    You know, we’re actually in the same timezone. It’s who can stay up latest. I have coffee. You game?

    Test Drive BMW Hydrogen Car

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N675mHss_uQ

    How does one obtain hydrogen (it’s so light it floats out of the atmosphere into space)? Oh, yes, regular energy sources like coal or oil, turned into electricity.

    ‘Notice a pattern?’ – yes. as it matches the other so-called proof of evolution.

    The pattern I notice is fraud, fraud, fraud, and (Kent Hovind) fraud.

    The concept of building hydrogen fuel tanks is a costly concern

    Indeed. This was problematic for the Space Shuttle. (But the SSME is a thing of wild engineering beauty.)

  249. changeable moniker says

    Before you reply, though: question!

    What’s the difference between hydrogen and a proton?

  250. changeable moniker says

    As granpa used to say, wheer there’s muck there’s brass

    Not sure PayPal takes brass, but if it does …

  251. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Just type in ‘run your car on water’ in your search engine.

    And you want children to believe YOU?

    Don’t need to do it. Unlike you, I do have knowledge of chemistry. Water can’t burn, which is why they use it to put out fires. Even you, oh incoherent one, should know that.

    Oh, and I did teach chemistry for a while. You would have flunked, not knowing water isn’t burnable, and not knowing the first law of thermo says you can’t get ahead, and the second says you can’t break even. Tsk, tsk, basic knowledge those who I taught general chemistry learned, and you don’t have.

  252. changeable moniker says

    The concept of building hydrogen fuel tanks is a costly concern but I believe there are some in the northern regions of Europe. possibly Finland.

    I suspect you’re thinking (sensu lato) of LPG: liquified petroleum gas, which is common enough in northern Europe to have its own “don’t drive your exploding car here” road sign:

    http://visitnormandy.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/biker-friendly-bed-and-breakfast-in-normandy-sarthe-french-traffic-signs-highway-code-etc/#comment-339

  253. mikelaing says

    I am watching TV while reading this thread, and on TV runs a promo for the show Intervention, for an episode in which a person is addicted to drinking gasoline. This proves that there is no such thing as a free liquid lunch.

    Oh, well… Back to experimenting with replacements for petroleum evaporation in this curious engine I found. It has Watt stamped on it. I’m also thinking of replacing the fire with a hot plate.

  254. John Morales says

    mikelaing, drinking gasoline?

    Well, duh… hydrocarbons, carbohydrates. Same thing, no? ;)

    (Perhaps sugar in the fuel tank ain’t such a bad idea, DH666)

  255. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    I suspect DH is thinking about fuel cells.

    A fuel cell is a device that converts the chemical energy from a fuel into electricity through a chemical reaction with oxygen or another oxidizing agent. Hydrogen is the most common fuel, but hydrocarbons such as natural gas and alcohols like methanol are sometimes used. Fuel cells are different from batteries in that they require a constant source of fuel and oxygen to run, but they can produce electricity continually for as long as these inputs are supplied.

  256. stanton says

    Before you reply, though: question!

    What’s the difference between hydrogen and a proton?

    A proton is just a proton. A hydrogen has a proton as its nucleus and one electron. There are variant isotopes, like Deuterium, which has one proton and one neutron as its nucleus, and the radioactive Tritium, which has one proton and two neutrons, and has a half-life of 12 years (and decays into “Helium-3″)

  257. theophontes 777 says

    @ changeable

    The pattern I notice is fraud, fraud, fraud, and (Kent Hovind) fraud.

    I noticed this as well. We could even go as far as collecting all the different scams and frauds that DH666 has fallen for (That we know of, the list could be as interminable as a perpetual motion machine.)

    Let me try and list in order (IIRC) the frauds DH666 claims to believe.

    Kent Hovind fraud
    jeebus and skygod ™ fraud
    apartheid schooling fraud
    Magnus Malan (SA Defence forces) fraud
    ID fraud
    “just a theory” fraud (Even the pigster,Ken Ham has started backing away from this bullshit)
    … oh GAWD don’t make me dredge through his drivel a second time …
    water powered car fraud

    Is there a single position he holds that he was not talked into by fraudsters? I must have missed it.

    @ DH666

    I leave this thread for the shortest time and as soon as my back is turned you start jabbering incoherently again. What is that?

    {snatches back tiller}

  258. says

    Just as smug as ever, the only responses are insults.

    As a chemistry teacher, it may depend on what fire you want to put out. Teach your kids to throw water at burning oil?

    Then tell BMW that their hydrogen car sucks, followed up with others. The fact that for production cars and the system to operate may take 20 years to put in place is a cost-exercise.
    Does not detract from the process of how it operates, Uhmm you call it s…….

  259. says

    Page 2 #28

    You really could stop talking about yourself so much and your false projections. You are just jabbering away and adding things to a dumb list in order to make it a list.

    Does this sound familiar?

  260. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    Daniel. Water is not hydrogen. Hydrogen powered cars do work. They combine hydrogen and oxygen, either in a fuel cell (more efficient) or combustion directly (less efficient since limited by carnot principle). The waste product of this is water. Not the input. Water is the output. This is a very simple thing.

    2H2 + O2 → 2H2O

    It is possible to put water into a fuel cell operating in reverse and get hydrogen and oxygen, but you need to put energy in to do so. Due to the laws of thermodynamics it is not possible to keep doing this perpetually. There are always losses in energy into heat/sound/etc. when energy is transformed from one form to another.

    So, yes hydrogen powered cars are possible. If you produce the hydrogen using energy somewhere else. It can be obtained as a by-product of oil refining, or it can be produced in a reverse mode fuel cell, or by electrolysis, but you need electricity going in for that. Renewable energy sources for preference. Then there’s the storage problems. Metal hydrides are being looked into but if you just want to compress it in tanks it costs a fair bit in energy and money to compress hydrogen.

  261. Menyambal -- damned dirty ape says

    Daniel, you can’t run a car on water. You cannot burn water to power a car.

    You can run a car on hydrogen. You can burn hydrogen to power a car.

    A hydrogen-powered car is not the same as a water-powered car.

    Water is burnt hydrogen.

    If you run a car on hydrogen, you get water out of the exhaust. If you pick up that water and use it to run another car, you are doing something impossible, and wasting effort, too.

    If you have a hydrogen-powered car, it puts out water. If water can run cars, you should just run that water through again.

    The question is, what do you get out of a car that runs on water?

    As people keep trying to tell you, you can take water and put a lot of electricity through it, and get hydrogen to run a car–but you have to pay for the electricity and the waste.

    Hydrogen is hard to carry, and it costs a lot to make.

    When you burn hydrogen, you get water.

    Water is burnt hydrogen.

    Water cannot be burnt.

    Daniel, the more goofy shit you believe in and babble about, the worse it looks for Kent Hovind and for Jesus.

    You can go to Hell for making Jesus look bad.

  262. theophontes 777 says

    You are just jabbering away and adding things to a dumb list in order to make it a list.

    Does this sound familiar?

    Do the names in this list look familiar?:

    Patrick Kelly

    Thushara Priyamal Edirisinghe

    Daniel Dingel

    They are all frauds, who have tried to sell water powered cars to people as ignorant as yourself.

    Ariaflame has taken the trouble to explain to you very carefully why what these people tried to sell was not scientific. Take the time to read the comments properly. In case you missed it let me say it simply in Afrikaans: Waterstof is nie water nie.

  263. theophontes 777 says

    @ DH666

    snatching the tiller from CM is not really a nice thing to do.

    Reading comprehension is not your strong point. (Hint: Read my original comment carefully.)

  264. says

    #34 Dirty Ape

    The beginning of the process is water. I understand how difficult it is for you to start from the beginning.

    Then, not through random mutation or natural selection, the reasonably simple conversion that has been added to the vehicle (ie in your terms, the missing link) allows for the process to work.

    As a wannabe s…… figure it out

    P.S. Somewhere previously in the blog mention was made of a potato, butter vs margerine and now the #’s argue this? Serious?

  265. says

    #33 DH666 total twit

    Never said that water is Hydrogen and as dumb as I am in science, the formula for water is what? To clear this up a little bit, the water is added which is then converted utilising the energy source and it is not perpetual. It is a significant variant to the current system.

    As I said, check out BMW’s Hydrogen car.

    Hydrogen Fueling Station Locator Maps
    For those owning, leasing or test driving a hydrogen car right now finding appropriate fueling stations can be quite a challenge. Fortunately, there are now three different resources that drivers in the U. S. can use to find hydrogen fuel near where they live and to where they wish to travel

    My mistake, like i said that it was a a while ago but it is not only a guessing country in northern Europe.

    #37

    ‘your original comment’ – read some of it and yes, cannot comprehend.

    Like I said before. Twist things so that you can dance to it. I have never mentioned a water-powered car. If YOU actually read , from the 2×4 comment. then you may understand. But go for it, your so-called science is not about expanding barriers or learning new things…..it’s just that you evolved from a rock.

    P.S. Quit with the Afrikaans.

  266. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    The formula for water is H2O (ideally the 2 would be subscript but limited tags here). The formula for hydrogen gas is H2. Going from H2 to H2O gives you energy in the presence of oxygen gas. Going from H2O to H2 takes energy.

    So yes, hydrogen powered cars exist. Water powered cars don’t. Methane powered cars exist (CNG or LNG). But CO2 powered cars don’t. You can’t use the waste product as the fuel source. Certainly not in fuel cell cars.

    Hydrogen, anywhere but the sun, is usually less the energy source, and more the energy storage. It stores energy from other sources such as wind or solar or so forth by turning the electrical energy generated by those sources into chemical energy in the hydrogen bond. There are no hydrogen mines on Earth. It is available in water, but the amount of energy it takes to convert water to hydrogen, is much more than the energy you will get back from burning that hydrogen, or combining it with oxygen in a fuel cells.

    Water is not the fuel. Hydrogen is the fuel.

  267. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    DH666 #(8)36

    Like I said before. Twist things so that you can dance to it. I have never mentioned a water-powered car.

    Actually no, you did.

    You said You drive a hybrid, petrol or diesel engine. Why? Patented +/- 90 years ago, you could run your engine on water and you would get incredible mileage out of your vehicle. Imagine no more killing over oil.

    That certainly sounds like you believe in a vehicle that you put water into and it goes. Run your engine. No engines run on water. Turbines yes, but only in dams and rivers and that’s only because we are getting the kinetic energy of the water. Not from its chemical energy.

    You also put:

    You done it this time by claiming any (or all) scientists will tell me. There is a minimal conversion and water is a combination of Oxygen and ….I know the great scientist that you are…you can …. you can… no, um Helium is wrong. Just type in ‘run your car on water’ in your search engine.

    When people did put that search string in that’s when they found all those references to fraud related to people attempting to convince people they had water powered cars, not hydrogen powered cars.

    You know what gets respect around here? Saying things like ‘Oh, right, I got that mixed up. I was wrong about water powered cars’. Not backpedaling and trying to claim that you never said that at all. Because you can’t delete posts here.

  268. theophontes 777 says

    @ DH666

    as dumb as I am in science, the formula for water is what?

    To quote Ariaflame at 33:

    2H2 + O2 → 2H2O

    Note that the reaction is reversible. The formula shown is used by BMW. The electrolysis of water to form oxygen and hydrogen requires prodigious amounts of electical power. It is the oxidation of hydrogen (burning)that releases this energy in the cars. Again, hydrogen may be obtained from water, but this is not the only way. Most hydrogen is actually produced from fossil fuels and not from water.

    Why do you want to talk about chemistry when you don’t have a clue about the science behind it? Jeebus has nothing to teach you here. You could try actually reading what scientists on this blog have to say.

    The way you are describing it is as bad as saying that petrol cars run on carbon dioxide. For a somewhat scatalogical analogy, it is like saying you are powered by shit. Don’t mistake the outputs for the inputs.

    You are the person who suggested:

    Just type in ‘run your car on water’ in your search engine.

    That you could even suggest we look up such rubbish puts you beyond the pale. We know about the hucksters who make such claims.. And also all the sloppy writers who pretend that electrolysis is somehow a new idea and that cars are simply “running on water”.

    Daniel, it is OK to be wrong. It is also understandable that, as many of your posts are written in a confusing fashion, some of the commenters might misunderstand what you are trying to say. In either of these cases it is OK to correct the person. This is not the bible after all, we can make mistakes and learn as we go. You do not get extra marks for how strongly you cling to errors.

  269. John Morales says

    Ariaflame,

    No engines run on water.

    True.

    But then, it’s also true that it takes a lot of water to run a steam engine. ;)

  270. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    True John Morales. A lot of water, and a lot of coal or portable fuel of your choice. And due to carnot’s principle not very efficient.

    But again like in turbines, the water in steam form in steam engines is transferring its kinetic energy to the engine. It’s still water at the end. Just slower, cooler water. It’s still not the fuel.

  271. John Morales says

    Since the obvious apparently ain’t so (how paradoxi… oh, wait!) to DH666, I note that the oxidiser for vehicular internal combustion engines comes from the atmosphere.

  272. theophontes 777 says

    I note that the oxidiser for vehicular internal combustion engines comes from the atmosphere.

    Correct you are, John.

    And let me make things really obfuscated by linking to this: A car that runs on air! Not even water, air!!1!elven!!

    Vat so katvis! Take that you …you … scientists! {theophontes waves piece of The Original Cross ™ at John and Ariaflame.}

  273. mikelaing says

    Ahem

    The water inside the motor is essentially stationary and is accelerated to the velocity at the nozzle expressed by Bernoulli’s equation: P = ½ pV2(the two is squared)

    I wish I wouldn’t have used gasoline in my rocket motor, or at least put my cigarette out first. That was my ‘aha’ moment….I need water!

    I know, it’s late, but reading DH666 makes me giddy. Think I’ll go look for chigau (√-1), see if there’s any alcohol left. Then I can handle jivin’ ;)

  274. theophontes 777 says

    @ mikelaing

    The pyromaniac in me has always wanted to try this (obviously launched from a suitable distance). Launch the (petrol) bottle rocket and ignite the resulting fuel-air mixture. It should result in an interesting bang.

  275. changeable moniker says

    To clear this up a little bit, the water is added which is then converted utilising the energy source and it is not perpetual. It is a significant variant to the current system.

    Ah, something like:

    http://tinyurl.com/7nxtb66 (original link spam-trapped)

    Claims 15-30% efficiency improvement. Not a world-saver, but useful.

  276. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    Ahh yes. Compressed air cars. No problem with them, of course the compressed air is another form of energy storage. Easier to compress air than liquid. But still takes energy.

  277. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    Interesting changeable moniker. Though I’m somehow doubting that is what he was talking about in his original assertion that the patent for an engine that runs on water had existed for over 90 years. I would be interested in knowing the full energy flows for that.

  278. changeable moniker says

    A car that runs on air! Not even water, air!!1!elven!!

    Nice try, but still no cigar. ;)

    Zero Pollution Motors and MDI are among the teams who have committed to participation in the Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize competition. As of September 2009 they do not appear on the list of registered teams. As of October 2009 it appears they did not qualify for the next stage in the competition.
    [...]
    MDI had also reached an agreement with Tata Motors, which were to produce and sell OneCAT cars in India. Tata does not work on compressed air cars anymore, and every link to MDI has been deleted from their website, except in the archives.

  279. changeable moniker says

    Aside: I also got this. The comment section is … strangely familiar.

    obviously you know little about chemistry and science from your statement [...] Is that what you learned in University? Did you ever hear of a Electrical Particle Generator? input small amount of energy and output a higher amount of energy. sounds ridiculous? It has been made, tested and proven already. Actually Mr:Stanley Meyers has build a few, you remember the man who actually build the car that ran on WATER! and was mysteriously killed because of fear that he would make this public.
    [...]
    It is the oil companies and close minded people that stop anyone from coming out with a new sources of energy, they want us to continue to be dependent on fossil fuels. It’s all about the MONEY, they even go to war for oil.

    NASA finally admitted cold fusion is real 8 days ago after over 20 years of denial (liars for profit). Electricians know you do get more out than what u put into it because copper and aluminum on water self generates electricity making hydrogen abundant at VERY low wattage. Genepax demonstrated it on YouTube, the filipino inventor as well. What public knowledge will do is increase the price of copper or water or tax them up more…God knows the evil lurks within these PRIMITIVE corporations who loves to do the same violent cycle for thousands of years, too insecure for change.

    Our current U.S. system of capitalism won’t let it happen. Too many people have been fed myths about the dangers of hydrogen. [...] When I was at NDSU, they decided that Tax Revenue from the Williston Basin “Fracking” Industry was too important to jeopardize – for an HHO experiment to proceed.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism ?

  280. theophontes 777 says

    @ changeable

    Nice try, but still no cigar. ;)

    I should have done a DH on that one. ie: Totally misrepresent the facts of the case and not place a link either. Also put my comment through a blender before posting. I need more practice.

    The original idea of the compressed air vehicle was quite ingenious as concept. They developed a special ceramic matrix that would allow pressures well in excess of those tollerated in a steel tank. Obviously this turned out harder than they imagined. (Temperature/condensation problems? One can only get so much energy into such a small space with compessed air.)

    I suspect the same will happen to the device at the end of your linky. Nice “proof of concept” but too little emphasis on the proof – you will see they have stuck up rather mediocre 3d renderings and not a working prototype. I would wish them luck but not start selling the family silverware to buy shares.

  281. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Teach your kids to throw water at burning oil?

    Teach you kids to believe in phantasms like your imaginary deity without conclusive physical evidence, and tell them books of mythology/fiction are inerrant? Those obvious lies are child abuse, and you know that.

    Does not detract from the process of how it operates,

    It operates on SCIENCE. Not mythology. So, what is your incoherent point?

    The beginning of the process is water. I understand how difficult it is for you to start from the beginning.

    Nope, hydrogen is isolated from oil wells and petroleum cracking plants, but can be made from water by electrolysis. Not very efficiently though. Don’t you know anything? Especially starting points? You seem to confuse midpoints with starting points, and just babble incoherently.

    Then, not through random mutation or natural selection, the reasonably simple conversion that has been added to the vehicle

    More confused incoherence. Random mutation has nothing to do with vehicles, as you well know. You think your incoherent shtick is a teaching tool instead of a tool showing your fuckwittery. And you aren’t funny, just pathetic with ignorance.

    Never said that water is Hydrogen

    Actually you did. You said cars run on water as a fuel, not hydrogen as a fuel. You are an incoherent mess. Your mind is jumble of conflicting information.

    I have never mentioned a water-powered car.

    From post #794:

    you could run your engine on water

    So Daniel, you lie due to you own incoherence. Do try not to make these mistakes with people smarter than you. Which is everybody here.

    But go for it, your so-called science is not about expanding barriers or learning new things…..it’s just that you evolved from a rock.

    No, science is what drives technology, and you know it. You see, engineering is based on science, not religion. Name one invention that was derived from your imaginary deity and mythical/fictional babble. You can’t, because they don’t exist.

  282. theophontes 777 says

    With all these hydrogen and compressed air systems, you see a particular type of thinking – of people with very high energy budgets (BMW: Use shitloads of fossil fuel so they can claim a “green” hydrogen car in their adverts. Bunch o’ arse.)

    The real potential comes from using less energy (Nimby won’t like this) and improving ways to harness sun energy. There has been some amazing work in this regard in the lines of solar cells and organic (algae mainly) systems.

    What is the potential for solar energy?

    When he Sun is directly overhead the insolation, that is the incident energy arriving on a surface on the ground perpendicular to the Sun’s rays, is typically 1000 Watts per square metre.

    (linky) This is closest met on the equator at midday, but is nevertheless an incredible amount of energy.

    My real concern is not so much with the energy per se (I am sure we will resolve this.) The worlds problems are not built around a lack of energy. In fact cheap energy has been a major bane to urban life as we developed a reliance on , for example, the private motorcar.

  283. theophontes 777 says

    @ Nerd

    it’s just that you evolved from a rock.

    I think that was aimed at me, together with this:

    Quit with the Afrikaans.

    A puerile jab (rock[spider] –> Afrikaner). I am so offended that I best just clutch my pearls and head off to the fainting couch.

    Really strange from someone who pretends English is not his first language. This is the first case I’ve come across of someone lying about their language on behalf of jeebus. Bizarre.

  284. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    it’s just that you evolved from a rock.

    I think that was aimed at me, together with this:

    Ah, but the rock statement is so deliciously incoherent. Only a truly delusional fool would say such stupidity. And Lyin’ for Their Imaginary Deity™ is required. So much for not bearing false witness.

  285. kemist says

    There has been some amazing work in this regard in the lines of solar cells and organic (algae mainly) systems.

    Indeed.

    Solar cells can now be printed, as in, on a piece of paper or clothing. Some chemists, one of them at my own university, have developped a type of ink (an organic compound) that produces electricity when exposed to light. Some people now think that in the near future people will wear the means to produce the electricity to power up their phones and computers.

  286. kemist says

    But go for it, your so-called science is not about expanding barriers or learning new things…..it’s just that you evolved from a rock.

    If I translate what you’re saying correctly, you’re using the argument that the theory of evolution has no use in furthering our knowledge. That’s a common and quite ignorant argument put forth by creationists.

    Apart from its obvious applications in medicine to predict mutations and patterns of usage that will lead to bacterial resistance to antibiotics, the mathematics behind evolutionary theory have found many other applications in totally unrelated fields.

    Many computing algorithms based on the idea of mutation and selection (they are called evolutionary or genetic algorithms) have been developped and are used as very efficient optimisation tools in all kinds of problems, from drug development to artificial intelligence. They are among the best (fastest and most efficient) optimisation algorithms in use, which supports the conclusion that evolution does work.

  287. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Time for a recap. Amount of third party conclusive physical evidence provided for his imaginary deity:

    Zip, Zero, Nil, Nothing, Nada.

    Amount of third party conclusive physical evidence for his babble being inerrant, like the exodus really happened, the world-wide-one-time flood, or even his jebus really existing:

    Zip, Zero, Nil, Nothing, Nada.

    Presentation of his theory of creationism:

    Zip, Zero, Nil, Nothing, Nada.

    Needless to say, since he hasn’t presented a theory, he has presented no evidence for one either

    Amount of third party evidence to show his book of mythology/fiction is useful for present day technology:

    Zip, Zero, Nil, Nothing, Nada.

    Amount of evidence showing his ideas are confused and incoherent, and that he has no idea of what he is talking about:

    Each and every post.

    Keep up the good work Daniel, showing the world you are delusional liar and bullshitter. You make our jobs easy for us.

  288. theophontes 777 says

    @ Nerd

    Ah, but the rock statement is so deliciously incoherent.

    Yes indeed. Which I think is why he jambed that word in there out of no-where (in terms of the rest of his argument.) He conflates his emotions with valid statements in a bizarre mashup.

    But there is a point to all this. He has provided a wall of teh stoopid to bounce our ball back and forth off.

    @ kemist

    With our technology are we not turning the planet into a human making machine? More energy = more people and the mugs game remains.
    /cynical

  289. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    Pharyngula pong. Or one of those games where we occasionally get interesting things in a brick.

    I do agree though that along with increases in energy efficiency needs to be a change in outlook on how we use energy, otherwise we’ll be like with risk factors, we’ll just up our energy use because we’re more efficient now. (Paralleling how people have a risk level they are comfortable with and if external factors make them safer they will act less safely to maintain their comfort risk level)

  290. What a Maroon, Applied Linguist of Slight Foreboding says

    are you still in this thread? I need the help of a linguist here…

    Well, I tried. Hope it helped. But of course, I’m an applied linguist (even worse, in my professional life I work in language testing), so it’s sort of like inviting an engineer to a physicist’s fight.

    Or as my niece once asked me, “How do you apply linguistics?”

    Very gingerly, is how I should’ve responded.

  291. chigau (√-1) says

    “How do you apply linguistics?”
    With a shov
    With the finest sable calligraphy brush.
    ;)

  292. changeable moniker says

    Are we done here?
    I don’t think we accomplished all our goals…

    Are we going for 1,600?

  293. John Morales says

    cm,

    (I’m game. It’s like an anti-TET.)

    Were you around for the genesis of TET?

    (It was very, very similar to this)

  294. says

    What,

    Well, I tried. Hope it helped. But of course, I’m an applied linguist (even worse, in my professional life I work in language testing), so it’s sort of like inviting an engineer to a physicist’s fight.

    Thanks. I’ll post there later though. A long reply got eaten up by a crashy computer. But given that person’s stance, it’d be better to just tell them to see a university library from the inside. What do you tell a person who thinks that because they speak a language or two, they know all about how languages work?

    I was also going to say that linguistics was an empirical discipline, but then the generativists would ruin that for us…

    changeable moniker,#

    (I’m game. It’s like an anti-TET.)

    That could become danielhaven’s greatest legacy…

  295. changeable moniker says

    Were you around for the genesis of TET?

    I thought it had something to do with Titanoboa.

    Colour me puzzled.

  296. John Morales says

    cm,

    I thought it had something to do with Titanoboa.

    Indeed it did, it did indeed (and also with the science of Watchmen).

    But then, Alan Clarke and his acolyte were more prolific (if less ignorant (though less unable to express themselves)) than our current specimen.

    (I miss Josh the geologist)

  297. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    (I miss Josh the geologist)

    Amen. We still keep a steak in the fridge and his grog tankard ready if he ever returns at the Pharyngula Saloon and Spanking Parlor.

  298. John Morales says

    cm, it was just like this, but even more so: clueless dingbat on a thread that was filled and closed (but then continued), who was just too amusing for PZ to nuke, and who elicited much collateral learning and a goodly amount of amusement.

  299. theophontes 777 says

    Are we going for 1,600?

    I don’t know.
    Where is our former BDFL?

    {the caped theophontes leaps onto the stage, puff of smoke and:} Tadaaah!

    But of course. I have some plans, oh my droogs, to share. We should do a SWOT analysis and take a look at:

    Strengths:
    1. Ignored by teh poopyhead, We can establish my own power base.
    2. Lots and lots of space.
    3. An unbreakable squeeky toy. We can market this to PZbots in need of a break to sniny their fangs and gloss their coats.
    4. Snazzy “kent hovind” banner at the entrance to attract even more assorted chew toys, godbots, trolls etc.
    5. Accessibility: Visitors are never more than a short Linky away from the mainland TET.
    6. Sunny climate.
    7. Poetry.
    8. Free grog and snacks in perpetuity.
    9. Tax holidays, repatriation of posts.

    Weaknesses:
    1. Small population means potential for genetic drift, leading to thread speciation.
    2. Economy dependent on single chewtoy.
    3. Tendency to becoming an “island” as growing number of new threads open up between us and the latest posts on the “motherland”.

    Opportunities:

    1. Small number of contributors means thread light and quick enough to adapt to knew discussions.
    2. Potential to move into newer dead threads if required (thread squatting).
    3. Lack of banhammer means we can keep our chew toys on life support if required.
    4. The bPPRoSTET can brand itself according to the exigencies of the freethought blogger market.
    5. Poaching: We can poach commentors from (especially from slow) TETs, by seducing them with our engaging repartee.
    6. Encourage lurkers to delurk in this thread by lowering “barriers to entry”.

    Threats:

    1. Mission creep.
    2. Thread closure.
    3. Mutiny by Second-in-Command.
    4. Insurrection.

    With this analysis in hand we can conjure up proposals to extend our independence.

  300. chigau (√-1) says

    theophontes 777 Oh thank …. your’e here!
    (who are all these “people”?)
    –reads–
    Clearly you have given this much thought.
    but

    1. Ignored by teh poopyhead, We can establish my own power base.

    This is very, very shaky.
    All it takes is one keystroke from the Overlord™ and we’re finished.

  301. theophontes 777 says

    @ chigau

    As an old school tyrant progressive and visionary tardigrade of the people, I suggest we send an Emissary to be very obsequious to Teh Ebil Oberlawd ™ and somehow lull him into a sense that we are not in open revolt anything but well behaved Pharyngulites.

    Next up:” The Branding of the breakaway Pharyngulite People’s Republic of Southern TET, a short Manifesto” presented by the breakaway Pharyngulite People’s Republic of Southern TET Higher Revolutionary Council’s Third Directorate for Marketing and Propaganda More Marketting Only Really.

    (See, we are choosing shorter, more anodyne, versions of the original naming terminology to instill complacency from prying eyes. This is not through paranoia (even though I have it on good authority that the Ebil Tentacles ™ are eberywhere!))

  302. theophontes 777 says

    @ chigau (nom de guerre omitted for reasons of national security)

    No, nothing. We have all just democratically voted you for a dangerous peaceful mission to persuade Teh Ebil Oberlawd ™ that we have no hostile intentions are all very well behaved here on this little corner of the Pharyngula universe. No need to check up on us at all. No, not at all.

  303. hatstand says

    Why would any be sorry that they were watching sumo?
    Unless they were some kind of salt conservationist.
    Or possibly a dietician.

  304. chigau (√-1) says

    theophontes
    sure OK whatevs
    your the boss

    hatstand
    not sorry for watching sumo
    sorry for ignoring unimportant non-sumo stuff

  305. Menyambal -- damned dirty ape says

    Sorry, I was over on the Halfbakery (http://www.halfbakery.com/) designing a robot.

    We are going to need robots, aren’t we?

    Sumo? I’ve a bathrobe with sumo wrestlers on it. The story of how I accidentally got it would fill some space here. (I thought that when this thread hit 800 is was going to auto shut-off. I didn’t realize it would keep dragging on for freaking ever.)

    But, yeah, until Kent goes quiet, there needs to be a voice speaking against him.

  306. consciousness razor says

    We are going to need robots, aren’t we?

    *looks over shoulder at warehouse full of robots*

    Of course. All are welcome. If the evil goons from the bPPRoSTET gubmint give you any trouble at the border, meet me in the alley by the porn shop next Thursday at 15:20. No one’s ever paying attention then.

    But, yeah, until Kent goes quiet, there needs to be a voice speaking against him.

    My dream is that one day that voice will be a chorus of robots singing in perfect 96-part harmony.

  307. theophontes 777 says

    @ chigau

    theophontes?
    hello?

    Huh… wut .. where? {knocks over half empty mug of grog}

    I was just resting the eyes a little…

    {removes webbed feet from bar, treads on cats tail…}

    Ouch…

    Robots are a good idea. We really need to stand out and differentiate ourselves in the thread market. CR you are here by made Minister of Robotics…. [whisper] See chigau, it is easier to co-opt potential counter-revolutionaries.[/whisper]

    Our biggest problem right now is that we lack a godbot. DH666 was fantastic and really fitted the bill. Perhaps we are using the wrong model for jump starting a new TET. Within a dimensionless domain such as this,thinking of it as a country or business misses some of the je ne sais quoi we need to capture to move forward. We need some internal contradictions, yin and yang to keep moving. No paradise without a mosquito:

    Come back DH666, all is forgiven. {pours libations, does little dance, raises paws to heavens}

  308. kemist says

    With our technology are we not turning the planet into a human making machine? More energy = more people and the mugs game remains.
    /cynical

    Not necessarily.

    Educated women = less babies = lower population growth

    The most well off people will be, the less they will spawn. Rich countries’ demographics pretty much demonstrate this. Desiring best living conditions for oneself and understanding how uncontrolled births will be catastrophic for that goal tend to limit one’s enthusiasm for quiverfull-type families.

    Stopping the development of clean energy will not stop population growth since most humans are not logical and will produce more offspring in worse conditions.

  309. chigau (√-1) says

    This looks like it will be a busy day in The Rest Of Pharyngula.
    It might be a bit slow here.

  310. changeable moniker says

    That’s a shame.

    Creationists are a bit thin on the ground on the old Pharyngula, too, though there’s one being chewed on here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/the_five_best_arguments_for_cr.php

    And a Qur’anic embryologist here (I’m waiting to see if this one has staying power):

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/12/hamza_tzortzis_on_the_intellec.php

    @JM, I had to look up Titanoboa!. Was that AC’s debut? It looked messy.

  311. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I had to look up Titanoboa!. Was that AC’s debut? It looked messy.

    Yep, very messy, very repetitive (his posts went in circles, you could predict his next “evidence” after the first circle. Never, ever, cited the peer reviewed scientific literature.

  312. Owlmirror says

    Never, ever, cited the peer reviewed scientific literature.

    I beg to differ.

    Sometimes he (or Roger S) quote-mined the peer-reviewed scientific literature, among other intellectually dishonest shenanigans.

  313. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Sometimes he (or Roger S) quote-mined the peer-reviewed scientific literature, among other intellectually dishonest shenanigans.

    Concede the point. Quotemining par excellence by that duo.

  314. What a Maroon, Applied Linguist of Slight Foreboding says

    What do you tell a person who thinks that because they speak a language or two, they know all about how languages work?

    Sadly, that seems to be an endemic disease. Anyway, I’ve tried to give them (them, goddamit, not hir; I really wish Pharyngula would embrace the old and proud singular they, instead of some ersatz neuter, but now I’m being prescriptivist) some food for thought.

  315. theophontes 777 says

    @ kemist

    Stopping the development of clean energy will not stop population growth since most humans are not logical and will produce more offspring in worse conditions.

    Agreed. But we often see a lot of emphasis on a technological solution where the real issues are really social. If we look at the worlds ill’s the greater problems are really those of education and women’s emancipation. I am 100% with you there. Studying the issues I have a tendency to sexism: I think women really will run the show far better than the menz.

    @ chigau (√-1)
    This looks like it will be a busy day in The Rest Of Pharyngula.
    It might be a bit slow here.

    A good point you have there. For Pharyngulites on the “wrong” side of the puddle -like John, Alethea, Tigger, Kel, Rorschach and myself – a stripped down (“chopped hog”) version of TET could be just the ticket. We have had dual TET’s before (think of the “Love” and “Hate” threads from around the time TET went on holiday.) Here’s to building an asynchronous alternate TET. {slugs grog}

    @ CM

    Is there any way we could thread-jack those links you pointed at. Perhaps we could lure the godbots here. Imagine a Battle of the Bots, between DH666 and a Qur’anic embryologist. Wow, that would seriously bring in the punters!

    @ chigau (√-1)

    Is there any action here tonight?

    We are a little low on godbots right now. I would not worry to much. Quiet times are good times to develop ideas for kitting out this thread and coming back with a bang. More ideas soon…

    {theophontes heads off to his local Korean mom-and-pop to appropriate some rice rolls and kimchi (careful, the stuff is addictive)} BRB.

  316. theophontes 777 says

    *burp*

    {theophontes returns on an endorphin high}


    Name:

    Our official name, The breakaway Pharyngulite People’s Republic of South The Endless Thread, may strike some of the younger audience as a little archaic and fuddy-duddy, cold-war era-ish. To get really hip and with it, we should consider branding ourselves in the style of The Zombie Thread. This should really bring in the younger audience (zombies are very trendy right now) and may lure in godbots thinking it is a thread about jeebus. Shorthand: TZT.

    This is also very appropriate, as we are recycling an existing dead thread, rather than (wastefully!) reissuing brand new TET’s every week or so. TZT is eco-friendly! This will also appeal to the more environmentally friendly posters.

    We should be leaving some adverts on (plain old boring, vanilla) TET :

    Are you commenting with a clean conscience? Your current thread could be an environmental disaster … switch to TZT [add linky] and save the world!

  317. theophontes 777 says

    How to get TZT to grow:

    To get rapid growth of this thread, we need an irritant (godbot, troll, idjit,…) to stimulate a response from Pharyngulites from other threads. As they rush to attack the infection, traffic to this thread is greatly enhanced. As a dead thread, we are at little risk of an intervention to remove this source of irritation (eg banhammer), further we can mitigate insipidity in the irratant by embroidering on issues raised by it. This should further activate the immune Pharyngulite response.

    We might be able to get it to a stage where we can remove the irritant completely and the TZT can take on a life of it’s own. We can aid this by creating the infrastructure to channel posters here from other threads.

    The most obvious way to do this is to simply post a link. More interesting, and more sustainable, is to provide an incentive for clicking the link in the first place. This can be in the form of a value-add posted as a link in a regular posting. Create the sizzle in a discussion in TET but provide the steak here. (eg: Short description of pron on TET —> add linky —>links to —> Full Monty on TZT —> gets reported back to TET : Feedback loop)

    Obviously a total lack of control is a good thing for TZT.

  318. theophontes 777 says

    Exclusives:

    Of course another way to generate traffic is to launch exclusives on this thread. Here is an interesting example:

    A new analysis led by researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center has found that circumcision before a male’s first sexual intercourse may help protect against prostate cancer.

    (Original linky here: Science Daily: Circumcision May Help Protect Against Prostate Cancer.)

    the study suggests that circumcision can hinder infection and inflammation that may lead to this malignancy.

    Circumcision prevents cancer THEREFOR GAWD ™ !!!

    Discuss…

  319. life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ says

    On behalf of the Central Committee of Commenters on Pharyngula, I am here to inform you all that participation in this Soon-To-Be-Ended Sub-Thread constitutes sedition against the PRP. Traitors will be drawn and quartered, or eighthed if they are found to be tentacled.

    There is only one TET, and this “Kent Hovind” sub-Thread has always been the territory of TET. Any wiki-based attempts to undermine the sovereignty of the PRP will be met with overwhelming force.

  320. consciousness razor says

    Our biggest problem right now is that we lack a godbot.

    As Minister of Robotics, my first official act shall be to administer one for the embiggenment of the people of this great land. It is therefore my pleasure to inform you that you have been drafted into godbot service, until such time as I see fit to dismiss you. Thus, by the power I grant myself, it is henceforth the patriotic duty of every citizen whose pseudonym contains (or ever contained) the string “theophontes” to babble incoherently about the deity of his or her choice. Should you ever violate this obligation, a severe punishment will be selected from among the arbitrary list of possibilities I have yet to formulate.

  321. theophontes 777 says

    {large grin}

    But Comrade Life-is-like-a-pitbull-with-lipstick , do you not also long to cast off your tentacles of oppression and join hands (and/or paws, fins, etc) with the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free,the homeless, tempest-tost to build up a new, gilded Endless Thread – with room to roam and boundless frontiers?

    {theophontes reads CR’s screed, becomes apoplectic with rage}

    Aaargh, Gargle ONE farble, fume, RANT *asplodes* Elebenty!!!!ONE !!! BzzzT, fattang fattang, ……JEEEBUS! WTF *Hulksmasche* GRUNT [farts] Butbutbut!!!! GAWWWWWD!!!!@211!

  322. life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ says

    Nay, it is the silence of this Sub-TET which is oppressive. “No, don’t protest, we are bored to death, there’s no denying it. Good. A diversion comes along and what do we do? We let it go to waste. . .In an instant all will vanish and we’ll be alone once more, in the midst of nothingness!”

    In those moments between clicking refresh, while I look in the refrigerator for something that was never there before sitting down to click refresh again, I can hear my inner neoconservative, louder and ever louder, saying it’s time to instigate another crisis, to unite the people once again in glorious bloodthirst, before it’s too late.

    No. At the one true TET, I am afforded an adequate ration of peas, babies and grog, and immersed by a buzz of soothing banter which I do not need to care about. Teh Evil Cephalopodic Overlord is my shepherd; I shall not want.

  323. theophontes 777 says

    @ life is like a pitbull with lipstick

    Nay, it is the silence of this Sub-TET which is oppressive.

    You have incidentally and accidentally arrived in the course of a little hiatus. Regular programming shall start again in due course.

    (Actually… we are all listening to a piece by John Cage (4’33” to be precise) … shhhhh! This is a cultured TZT!)

    In an instant all will vanish and we’ll be alone once more, in the midst of nothingness!”

    This from the person who suggests there is only one True ™ TET. Dera life is like a pitbull with lipstick, I ask you in all earnestness: “What is the sound of one TET clapping?” HUH!!!one!!!2@@@!!!gotcha!!elebenty!!!!

    …it’s time to instigate another crisis, to unite the people once again in glorious bloodthirst,

    [whispers] Aaaah, cool. Ok, ignore the above comments, we should be working together here.[/whispers]

    Teh Evil Cephalopodic Overlord is my shepherd; I shall not want.

    Behind every conformist is someone who is jealous of their ebil oberlawd (and therefore does not topple the structure they dream upon). Here, on the other hand, we have the space to start again afresh. WE can be the ebil oberlawds from scratch … even if we do lack the tentacles. …

    TZT happens to have a few openings available in Minitrue. We can pay you in plump babies, Hennessey Brandy and petite pois.

  324. mikelaing says

    Curious, a bit, I was thinking, did Mary have any sisters?
    Just sort of a hobby of mine, looking for the aunty Christ.

  325. says

    There are also us bicultural types who will try to straddle both TET cultures…

    In a cautiously optimistic move regarding the potential viability of TZT, I have suspended email notification of this thread and decided to keep a tab open for this thread…

  326. theophontes 777 says

    @ mikelaing

    Curious, a bit, I was thinking, did Mary have any sisters?
    Just sort of a hobby of mine, looking for the aunty Christ.

    Luke 1:36 (KLV):

    And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

    Other bibles call her kinswoman or relative (sister maybe?) of Mary.

    @ pelamun

    In a cautiously optimistic move regarding the potential viability of TZT

    I am intrigued as to whether such a thing is viable (TET itself started in like fashion), there are lots of ideas wafting through the ether right now. At least we are not wandering about in the wilderness (though many memeplexes did get their start in this fashion).

  327. What a Maroon, Applied Linguist of Slight Foreboding says

    I am intrigued as to whether such a thing is viable (TET itself started in like fashion), there are lots of ideas wafting through the ether right now. At least we are not wandering about in the wilderness (though many memeplexes did get their start in this fashion).

    The key to happiness is to recognize that we are at the mercy of our lord and master, whose ways are beyond the understanding of us mere mortals.

    P.Z. giveth, and P.Z. taketh away.

  328. theophontes 777 says

    @ What a Maroon

    The key to happiness is to recognize that we are at the mercy of our lord and master, whose ways are beyond the understanding of us mere mortals.

    Oh, grasshopper, ye of little faith. You need inspiration from the TZT national anthem:

    Rise Up.

    (Rise up rise up)
    Oh rise and show your power
    (Rise up rise up)
    Were dancing into the sun
    (Rise up rise up)
    It s time for celebration
    (Rise up rise up)
    Pharyngulites… time has come

  329. says

    What,

    Sadly, that seems to be an endemic disease. Anyway, I’ve tried to give them (them, goddamit, not hir; I really wish Pharyngula would embrace the old and proud singular they, instead of some ersatz neuter, but now I’m being prescriptivist) some food for thought.

    I’m with you regarding ze/hir my opposition mainly based on the fact that these forms are orthographically anomalous, especially the possessive, but I’ll keep it to occasionally mentioning my bewilderment, all the more since singular they has been around for centuries.

    However in certain situations as in the trans community, some people are choosing to use these pronouns deliberately, and I would certainly respect their right to do so.

    http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2009/08/not-feeling-ze-and-hir.html

    Thanks for your work on the other thread, I’ve been caught up with orientalism issues, I’ll see if I can post a short response there.

  330. says

    (however even if a transgendered person uses those pronouns to refer to hirself, one might argue that the function of singular they is a different one, namely referring to persons whose gender identity we do not know. This might actually be a useful distinction to make between ze and singular they)

  331. chigau (√-1) says

    Well.
    OK, then.
    If we of TZT are replicating (partially) TET, we probably need some recipes.

    breakfast:
    put shreddies in bowl
    add milk or fakemilk
    eat
    (use a spoon)

  332. theophontes 777 says

    @ chigau

    Noze! We are not replicating TET. We are taking the entire Pharyngula experience to a new level. Young Turks, New blood … that kind of thing.

    If we have recipes, we should be doing Molecular Gastronomy and stuff. (At very least, Fusion Cooking. In your above recipe, substitute milk for freshly made soy milk, add sago balls.)

  333. theophontes 777 says

    @ chigau

    This is the kind of thing we are aiming at:

    Adam Melonas’s signature preparation is an edible floral center piece named the “Octopop”: a very low temperature cooked octopus fused using transglutaminase, dipped into an orange and saffron carrageenan gel and suspended on dill flower stalks.


    Picture of Octopop
    (see also how culturally relevant this thread is to Pharyngula compared to the common or garden TET.)

  334. chigau (√-1) says

    theophontes
    #129
    There better not be an age limit on that “Young” Turks thing.
    #130
    re:Octopop
    uuuh. No.
    I’m a meat and potatoes kinda gal.
    (and sushi and pasta and curry and kimchee and …)

  335. Ogvorbis: Now With 98% Less Intellectual Curiousity! says

    There better not be an age limit on that “Young” Turks thing.

    My working definition of ‘young’ is anyone 8 or more years younger than I. ‘Old’ is anyone 8 or more years older. The nice thing is, when I apply that to myself, I can always consider myself young as there are shitloads of people aged 54 or more.

    And if that fails, I can always comfort myself with the fact that I am a Young Turk. I am far younger than Khemal Ataturk is now. I am also more biologically active than he, but that’s beside the point.

  336. says

    I would have liked to read the rest of the comments but after #59 and #66 ????????????????

    Time to end it

    #59 once again can only show that all it takes is insults. I am now a child abuser. His head is so far up, he can only see two words….evolution and incoherent.

    #66 There have been tests done but none that particularly show the missing link you seek. I do not disbelieve a lot of things especially maths and science. I work from one belief and choose to spit out the bones.

    Constantly phrased is the evolution of papers of peer review that are based on two assumptions that you have admitted cannot be proved but you believe in a third that is constantly changing and may one day take on a form you will probably not even recognise. This now is the only gospel.

    And to compare engineering, which is a science, to the big-bang or abiogenesis, which are assuptions, just beggars belief.

    So, if it’s a victory you’re after, enjoy that rancid after-taste.

    Chow

  337. chigau (√-1) says

    danielhaven
    Where have you been?
    Not at a reading comprehension class, I take it.
    “chow” is a slang term for “food” also a kind of dog.
    “ciao” is Italian for “hello” or “goodbye”.
    It is pronounced a bit like chow.

  338. chigau (√-1) says

    Oh and
    I read the Pfft article on Molecular Gastronomy.
    WTeverlovingF?!!‽!??

  339. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I am now a child abuser.

    if you tell deliberate lies, like your imaginary deity existing, it is child abuse.

    There have been tests done but none that particularly show the missing link you seek.

    Citation need. That is what separates you from a liar and bulshitter. Third party evidence.

    I work from one belief and choose to spit out the bones.

    When the bones are your imaginary deity and mythical/fiction holy book, you will be on the way to reason. Won’t happen due to your delusional thinking though.

    Constantly phrased is the evolution of papers of peer review that are based on two assumptions that you have admitted cannot be proved but you believe in a third that is constantly changing and may one day take on a on a form you will probably not even recognise. This now is the only gospel.

    Here’s why you are incoherent. You have been corrected on this time and time again, but keep repeating this nonsense. WE have shown you the evidence. You refuse to accept the evidence. You haven’t refuted the evidence, so the big bang happened, and abiogenesis occurred, with evolution to mop your fuckwittery. You haven’t demonstrated otherwise, and you testament is worthless, as you are a proven liar and bullshitter.

    And to compare engineering, which is a science,

    Another incoherent statement. Engineering is not a science. It is a discipline that uses the results science, but doesn’t necessarily do science. You are one large repositiory of presuppostional wrongness.

  340. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    *sniffs* I can’t get shreddies here. I miss them.

    Daniel, to get people to reject the current science which is working and is consistent with the theories, definitely for evolution, and so far for the completely different areas of science of cosmology (including big bang) and abiogenesis there aren’t any better scientific alternatives showing up. If better evidence for a different theory shows up, well then, the better theory will become accepted.

    ‘God did it’ is not a better theory since there is no evidence for it whatsoever and it adds needless complications. So if you have actually got better evidence, actual evidence, not millenia old texts, then feel free to demonstrate it, indicating what the evidence is, how it actually contradicts the current theories in an area that it is falsifiable, and ideally how such a test could be repeated.

    In other words: Put up, or shut up.

  341. says

    chigau,

    in order not to derail the thread on the billboard,

    A long time ago, in a made-for-TV movie about the Nuremberg Trials, one of the Nazi characters said something like,
    “You cannot understand antisemitism because you are a Jew!”
    At first I thought that was really fucking stupid.
    Now I think it’s probably true. It depends on what you mean by “understand”.
    I think even the TVNazi would agree that the recipients of the shitty end of the stick are better qualified to define and describe the experience than those on the clean end of the stick.

    Those poor bigots, no-one makes the effort to understand them..

  342. chigau (√-1) says

    pelamun
    Sometimes I have an irrational fear if I understand something too well, I might start agreeing with it.

    *cough*分かりません。*cough*