Another shooting at a college »« Methinks it is like a sauropsid

You’ve all been slacking!

People sometimes wonder where all the Kristian and Kreationist Kooks have gone — they only rarely pop their little pinheads up here anymore. Well, I can tell you: since most of the commenters have decamped from my old scienceblogs site to frolic here on freethoughtblogs, the kooks have moved in unopposed over at Sb. For example, look at the Creationism and racism article that I crossposted to both networks: there they are! There’s good huntin’ over there nowadays.

Of course, one thing I’ve learned from this is that they aren’t afraid of me, but they’re terrified of you all.

Comments

  1. Crip Dyke, MQ, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Bwahahahahaha!

    I am terrifying!!!!

    Okay, now I’m gonna go out and give my dog a cup of food and chop some cucumber for the girls’ lunches.

  2. Ogvorbis says

    AAAAAH! FEMINIST!

    You do know that, just as sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, sometimes a cucumber is just a phallic representation?

  3. says

    I have spent all of my free time during breaks writing on a giant wall of text (This wall is so freaking high that you could use it to keep out Wildlings). But it is safe to say that yes the Creationists are back in general. A lot of their head honchos have made pledges to do stuff this year and a bunch of new sites are up…

  4. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    Those are some pretty lame creationists there. Transitional fossils? Macro evolution?

    This does not mean in any way they shouldn’t be patted on their widdle heads and pointed towards the correct nap blanket.

  5. Rob Grigjanis says

    When people show up saying that google and Wikipedia have no entries for transitional fossils, you wonder how they feed themselves and cross the street, never mind use a keyboard. You’d think they’d know Jeremiah 5:21;

    Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not

  6. Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts says

    There’s good huntin’ over there nowadays.

    Sure, the quantity of prey over there is admirable. The quality though…
    ***
    Public service announcement: make sure to fully kook any kristian kreationists you trap, underkooked kook can be bad for the health.

  7. Nightjar says

    What happened to the “Recent Comments” sidebar over there? The other Sb blogs I checked have one, but Sb Pharyngula still doesn’t. Is there a reason for that and will it be back eventually?

    I’m asking because its lack is part of the reason I haven’t been paying much attention to what happens over there. There’s no way to know if someone posts a comment to a old post that I’m no longer checking and isn’t on the front page any more, or if a discussion popped up somewhere. It’s also easier to miss delayed responses to comments without it.

    ***

    When people show up saying that google and Wikipedia have no entries for transitional fossils

    Heh. Poe’s Law! Snowshoe the Canuck is not a creationist. That comment was meant as sarcasm, I’m pretty sure.

  8. Nightjar says

    Audley! *waves*

    I’ve got a 3 month old

    Crap, have I really been away for that long? I think so. Very belated congratulations!

  9. shouldbeworking says

    Sure, as soon as I finish the report card comments, the fun stops. Back to work on the tweaking on lesson plans…

  10. says

    Trollery seems to be down all over, actually, for some reason. Eschaton is nearly troll-free these days. It’s kind of boring, actually — I miss some of the old psychos.

  11. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    For example, look at the Creationism and racism article that I crossposted to both networks: there they are!

    Gross. No.
     
    If I want my fill of stupid, all I have to do is…like, …whatever it is I do by 9AM. I mean the rest of you tourists can laugh it up all you want, but I’m armpits-deep in this kind of nonsense 24-7.

  12. pyschopenguin says

    @Darkheart: I am a long, long time lurker just finally delurked due to MRA asshats and such….anyways, as way of bread baking, have you ever tried the “Lahey Method”? I tell all my friends about about (not saying you are a friend, but you get the drift)….it is super easy though you have to plan ahead. Great crust and warm, gooshy inside….check it out if you haven’t

    http://www.sullivanstreetbakery.com/recipes

  13. Nightjar says

    One of the creationists is back, but not being very interesting.

    Lenski’s experiment disproves evolution because he started with bacteria and ended with bacteria, evolutionists are mean, and Expelled.

    Meh.

  14. says

    I’m certain that 3 whole months have not passed since Audley brought a delightful baby Pharyngulite into the world. It just can’t be.

    Sigh. Of course it is true. Audley now has one of those time-tracker babies. They change daily, and one is never allowed to forget the passage of time.

    As for the Kreationist Kooks running amok on ScienceBlogs. I say, let ‘em. They’ll soon trip over their own rat nests of illogic and will go down like a ton of bricks.

  15. says

    In comment #4 on the SB site, “poport” is used:

    The Bible does not poport this idea like you say it does – it was applied to the Bible to legitimize the African trans atlantic slave trade.

    I would like to know how to “poport” an idea. Is it something Dr. Who can do?

  16. Usernames are smart says

    Recent comments? Oh, they were turned off!

    I’ve switched them back on. — PZ (#15)

    Er, why even have comments turned on over there at all, if they’re just going to be filled with trash?

  17. David Marjanović says

    Before I visit Sb Pharyngula tomorrow, I need to learn the lyrics of the Klingon anthem. It’s all on YouTube…

    I’m certain that 3 whole months have not passed since Audley brought a delightful baby Pharyngulite into the world. It just can’t be.

    To be fair, the Darkbaby still looks the same – few babies are born looking like 3-month-olds, but this one did. Cute overload.

  18. says

    pyschopenguin:
    Oh, thanks for the link! I have not tried making bread like that (tonight’s bread was a quick batter bread and besides that my go-to is a basic sourdough*), so I’ve bookmarked the recipe for next time. :)

    *Well, it was until my starter turned purple. :-/

  19. chigau (無味ない) says

    Audley
    meh.
    Purple sourdough don’t scare me!
    How are you and family?
    Come to the Lounge.
    (please)

  20. cm's changeable moniker says

    You’ve all been slacking!

    Yeah, whatever, bite me. ;-)

    I’m not going back there until the second coming of danielhaver666.

  21. Lynn Walker says

    You smug-ass stupid dumb-fuck. You’re going to rue the day. All of you toady ass-wipes. One of your evangelists broung me here and now you’re gonna go into melt-down mode tryin’ to defend your sorry religion.

    So here it is: all us non-Christian (that is, we of a way more intelligent creationist subscribers) are wondering why the hell you haven’t come up with a rational explanation for how asexual reproduction evolved into sexual reproduction through any of your “accidental” by purely chance type assimilations?

    I know, you’re still thinkin’ on it, but errr, sorry, times up. You’ve failed. Evolution is a pure shit stupid conjecture as regarding the origin of species. Try again. Errr, you’re always wrong, because of course, you’re all as dull-headed as dillweed.

    Don’t clutter the discussion with names, character assassination, retarded jokes or any other nonsense. Cut to the point and give a real, rational explanation. You can’t. No one ever has. You lose, you’re losers, you’re already remnants of an antiquated past idiocy even though your sub-standard intelligence hasn’t allowed you to clue into that fact yet. Sorry for your meaningless existence. Bye now.

  22. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    Ummm, really can’t tell if Lynn Walker is for real or not. Either way, well done. I literally LOL’ed.

  23. marko says

    Thanks for that Audley, I’ve not seen “let me google that for you” before, that will come in handy!

    Some questions for Lynn:
    Is the holy grail to find something that is as yet unexplained, as if that will disprove everything that has been comprehensively explained?

    If god had asexual reproduction in his box of tricks, why did he choose the dreaded sexual reproduction for his chosen species? He seems quite squeamish about the whole thing.

  24. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    So here it is: all us non-Christian (that is, we of a way more intelligent creationist subscribers) are wondering why the hell you haven’t come up with a rational explanation for how asexual reproduction evolved into sexual reproduction through any of your “accidental” by purely chance type assimilations?

    Gee, science has an explanation. But you refuse to recognize it. It’s your blinders, not that of science.

    But then, where is the evidence for your imginary deity? It can’t live in gaps in scientific knowledge. It be be shown directly. You need to provide conclusive physical evidence. Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Something equivalent to the eternally burning bush. I see nothing, ergo, it doesn’t exist.

  25. Owlmirror says

    You smug-ass stupid dumb-fuck. You’re going to rue the day. All of you toady ass-wipes. […] Evolution is a pure shit stupid conjecture […] Errr, you’re always wrong, because of course, you’re all as dull-headed as dillweed.[….] You lose, you’re losers, you’re already remnants of an antiquated past idiocy even though your sub-standard intelligence hasn’t allowed you to clue into that fact yet. Sorry for your meaningless existence.

    […]

    Don’t clutter the discussion with names, character assassination, retarded jokes or any other nonsense.

    Because you’re going to do it for us?

    Yes, I am absolutely sure that you are entirely sincere in your search for knowledge, and not just, y’know, trolling.

    One of your evangelists broung me here

    From under a bridge, no doubt.

    and now you’re gonna go into melt-down mode tryin’ to defend your sorry religion.

    You’re overdoing it.

    So here it is: all us non-Christian (that is, we of a way more intelligent creationist subscribers)

    Yeah, right. You’re from the Church of the Puckered Brown Asterisk.

    are wondering why the hell you haven’t come up with a rational explanation for how asexual reproduction evolved into sexual reproduction

    In your case, I am not entirely sure that it has.

  26. says

    You smug-ass stupid dumb-fuck. You’re going to rue the day. All of you toady ass-wipes. One of your evangelists broung me here and now you’re gonna go into melt-down mode tryin’ to defend your sorry religion.

    So here it is: all us non-Christian (that is, we of a way more intelligent creationist subscribers) are wondering why the hell you haven’t come up with a rational explanation for how asexual reproduction evolved into sexual reproduction through any of your “accidental” by purely chance type assimilations?

    I know, you’re still thinkin’ on it, but errr, sorry, times up. You’ve failed. Evolution is a pure shit stupid conjecture as regarding the origin of species. Try again. Errr, you’re always wrong, because of course, you’re all as dull-headed as dillweed.

    Don’t clutter the discussion with names, character assassination, retarded jokes or any other nonsense. Cut to the point and give a real, rational explanation. You can’t. No one ever has. You lose, you’re losers, you’re already remnants of an antiquated past idiocy even though your sub-standard intelligence hasn’t allowed you to clue into that fact yet. Sorry for your meaningless existence. Bye now.

    I signed in just to say: That was awesome.

  27. glodson says

    @39 I suppose reducing people to a fit of uncontrollable laughter is one way to ensure that people will have a hard time replying to your points. I use the term points here in the loosest possible sense.

  28. Owlmirror says

    I signed in just to say: That was awesome.

    Your opinion is noted, and wrong.

    I mean, really now. How fucken hard is it to ragetroll?Any dipshit dumbshit douchnozzle with half of a quarter of the brains that god gave a stone gargoyle can spew out stuff like GROOARGABARGLEGRAAAAAAARGH U R ALL SHIT AND LOSERS AND I HATE U AND O HAI I HAZ SRS QUESTION I WANTS SRS ANSR AND U ALL SUCK AND CANT ANSR HAHA GO ME KTHXBYE.

    I mean, maybe it’s a little funny — I IZ OTT TROLLIN U — but awesome? Where’s the subtlety? Where’s the cleverness? Where’s the eloquence? If you call this pathetic weaksauce wannabe General Flame Warrior ‘awesome’, how will you calibrate your metrics for someone who actually has an impressive command of rhetoric, logomachy, and bait-tossing?

    Sheesh!

  29. Lynn Walker says

    Audley Z. Darkheart: That’s your answer: you left it in your google? Sorry, first stooge dropped into the gorge below.
    marko: The pointer is on you, don’t answer a question with a question; dropped into the gorge below
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls: You say there’s an answer but it doesn’t appear in your post; DITGB
    Owlmirror: failed to answer; DITGB
    @47: DITGB

    Here’s clarification for the dufii amongst you: I’ve already consulted the great Google and the wonderful Wiki, but they show a multifarious collection of silly conjenctures. This isn’t science fiction camp, this is Science, and that means I’m looking for The answer. Even the creationists have possible explanations so there is no reason to accept your possible explanations over theirs. To accept that possible explanations has confirmed something as true requires faith, and faith isn’t acceptable to scientists, therefore I can’t accept possible explanations from scientists.

    Asexually reproducing entities are observed through multi-generational experiments quite easily. Therefore please reference for me the appropriate experiment which has conclusively demonstrated which one of these hypothetical explanations has actually been observed.

    Aside to Owlmirror: You’re right, I am doing it, in response to the disrepectful arrogance of the original poster. No, I’m not here for knowledge, I already have it. I will, however, accept a revision to my knowledge-base if one of you proves wise enough to actually share something valuable. My premise is that no such valuable knowledge is availabe here, so my primary purpose is to expose the idiocy that dwells among you and shutdown this useless collection of croaking frogs. You’ve been picking on my less intelligent little brother, the Biblical creationists too long. I’m here to beat down the schoolyard bully and teach him some respect.

    If you want to ask me a question, begin another forum.

  30. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    this is Science, and that means I’m looking for The answer.

    Sorry, that isn’t how science works, and you know that. You claim to want the answer, but you really don’t.

    You want to show a gottcha that since science doesn’t know something in your mind, there is a gap for your imaginary deity. There is no gap for your imaginary deity. It doesn’t exist until you demonstrate its existence with solid and conclusive physical evidence. Which isn’t found in gaps of incomplete scientific knowledge. Until then, your imaginary deity must be accepted on faith, which is belief without evidence. Science is at least looking for evidence. You aren’t.

  31. chigau (無味ない) says

    They laughed at me at the Academy.
    Laughed!
    But I’ll show them!
    Bwahahahhahha!

  32. ChasCPeterson says

    I’m not here for knowledge, I already have it.

    You’re here instead for…for what? To refer to thousands of biologists that know much more than you ever will as “stupid smug-ass dumbfuck toady asswipes”?
    OK! Thanks for stopping by! Have a nice day!

    You’ve been picking on my less intelligent little brother, the Biblical creationists too long. I’m here to beat down the schoolyard bully and teach him some respect.

    Respect for…for what? Your ignorance? Hey, it’s awesome!! Much respect, homey.

    If you want to ask me a question, begin another forum.

    Despite your impressive knowledge-base, on this particular point you are confused.

  33. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Gee, going to Google Scholar and using “evolution of sexual reproduction” as a search term gives half a million hits, and shows that a lot of work has been done in the area. I’m not a biologist, but it appeared that removing deletrious mutations more readily was a likely factor for selecting sexual reproduction.

  34. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    Lynn Walker,
    Sorry, Punkin. Science is not about “just-so stories” for the sole purpose of satisfying the curiosity of people with no curiosity. Rather it is about predictive power. So science probably cannot say exactly how sexual reproduction arose–other than as a series of random mutations. It can show that the diversity and mixing of genetic characteristics provides a clear evolutionary advantage for complexity species. Predictive power is the test of a scientific theory.

  35. la tricoteuse says

    Am I the only one wondering what brand of creationist loon this is? I realize it’s not actually that important, as it’s really same old/same old, but I’m curious. The bits about Christianity as little brother suggest Jewish? I’ve never knowingly encountered a Jewish creationist before. Neat. *gets out binoculars and notebook*

  36. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    It’s so difficult anymore to find idiots on the internet.Thanks, PZ, for lighting the beacon and bringing them right here.

  37. Eurasian magpie says

    Are you Lynn Walker the dowser?

    You are not lacking in unwarranted self-confidence if you really think you can achive a shutdown of this “useless collection of croaking frogs”. These here are some bullfrogs, I tell you!

  38. says

    Also, Lynn honey, when you see my (or another poster’s) words show up in blue, that text is called a “hyperlink”. If you click the left mouse button when your cursor is over the blue text (or “link”), you will be brought to a new web page. Neat, huh?

    So, let’s try this again: move you cursor over these blue letters (or “link”), click the left mouse button and you will see Google search results for “asexual reproduction evolution sexual reproduction”.

    Easy as pie!

  39. Lynn Walker says

    I realize it was pointless to insist that posters refrain from the negative type of response, which I did because these do negate the responder’s relevancy. So far I have stimulated not less than two dozen responses, none of which adhere to the true purpose of debate, which is to present competing ideas for the purpose of arriving at an predominating conclusion. In short, the pseudo-scientists here don’t even present their verifiable observations, they simply mock themselves as the chimp-jizzle they believe they are.

    So class, first we’re going to review the concept of what science actually is, since so few of you even seem to understand this. From wikipedia, on the subject of “Scientific method”:

    The scientific method (or simply scientific method) is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: “a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”

    The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory’s predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

    Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance).

    ********************
    To summarize, we scientists expect the findings of other scientists to be based on experimental observation, and to be repeatable so as to rule out error or bias, among other defects.

    If you do not accept this definition of the scientific method, then please do not respond to these posts, as your input is irrelevant.

    In regard to the hypothesis that asexual reproduction evolved into sexual reproduction through natural processes (without the involvement of God), please provide your references to observable and repeatable demonstrations of this hypothesis.

    You all claim to know the science of evolution, and you all act like you enjoy a good challenge. Your current ape-like antics do nothing to convince me that you know anything or understand the process of debate.

    #50 – I hope you paid attention in class, because your ideas on what constitute science qualify you to be a janitor.
    #51 – Vous le goût de la matière fécale.
    #52,#53 – you’re disqualified
    #54 – answering a question of “origin” with an issue of “maintenance” demonstrates that you don’t listen to questions very carefully: FAIL
    #55 – your ideas about science are quaint and not in line with the scientific method; I do note that you’ve admitted what I claim, that science cannot give the answer other than some generic mumbo-jumbo which cannot be observed, repeated NOR ACCEPTED scientifically.
    #56 – I can’t imagine the Jewish version would be anything other than the Christian version, since both would be coming from the Old Testament. Any other tries la trick or tease?
    #57 – I think you’re in the wrong place, this is a discussion on evolution. Try the room next door.
    #58 – My point exactly! But surely, there’s a non-idiot among you somewhere.
    #59 – I’ve got one of those man things between my legs, so no to your first Q. Please do bring your best argument Big Croaker.
    #60 – Imagine my shock when someone supposedly versed in science thinks that they can turn in a search engine page as an answer to a science question. Have you ever had a teacher accept a search engine page as the correct answer to a test?
    #61 – There are nothing but silly ideas mentioned throughout that entire search result. Which one of those science fiction fantasies do you subscribe to? Increasing the number of silly ideas doesn’t raise your score by a single point.

    So far I can only conclude that nobody has an answer related to the question. Now that the class clowns have had their turn will some of the more intelligent among you come forward with something relevant and meaningful?

  40. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    If you do not accept this definition of the scientific method, then please do not respond to these posts, as your input is irrelevant.

    As is yours. You don’t tell professional scientists how to do science. You shut the fuck up and listen to how it is done. Science is not complete and doesn’t have the answer for everything at this time. But it is working on it, unlike you. You are disqualified from talking about science.

    In regard to the hypothesis that asexual reproduction evolved into sexual reproduction through natural processes (without the involvement of God), please provide your references to observable and repeatable demonstrations of this hypothesis.

    Incomplete knowledge, if that is really the case at the moment, means you don’t necessarily win. You only win when you show your imaginary deity/creator exists with solid and conclusive physical evidence. We are waiting for you to prove your hypothesis too. Put up or shut the fuck up about science.

  41. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    What we have here dear lurkers, is an arrogant asshat trying to win the argument with attitude, and not by showing evidence. The arrogant attitude is that science must convince her of everything she demands or it is wrong. Science doesn’t give a flying fuck about her attitude, or her approval. She and her attitude is utterly irrelevant to science.

    If she has an alternative scientific theory, she must present evidence positive for it, just like any scientific theory. Starting with her imaginary creator/deity. No creator/deity, present agnostic science wins by default. Without being able to evidence positively said deity, which takes more than bad attitude, anything she tries to prove falls into the abyss of irrelevancy.

    Simply because science doesn’t know something now to 99.99999%, doesn’t mean science isn’t working on it or science is wrong. Science progress toward the truth asymptotically, not in a directly line getting there with presupposed ideas. Attitude won’t win this argument, nor will hyperskepticism. Everything she proposes will be subject to hyperskepticism too. Fair is fair.

  42. says

    For fuck’s sake.

    Imagine my shock when someone supposedly versed in science thinks that they can turn in a search engine page as an answer to a science question. Have you ever had a teacher accept a search engine page as the correct answer to a test?

    Couple of things:
    1a) Your “gotcha!” question isn’t a test. This is not school; even though PZ posts about his developmental biology lectures (which you might benefit from reading), Pharyngula is still just a blog.

    1b) On that note, you aren’t a teacher (at least, I hope not).

    1c) Google is an excellent starting point for learrning about new subjects. You want better detail than what most websites will give? Enroll in a biology class at your local community college. Take your arguments straight to the professors! I’m sure they’ll be totes impressed by you. Really!

    2) Good to know I’m a scientist. Anything else you want to divine about my innermost self?

  43. chigau (無味ない) says

    Nerd, Lynn has “one of those man things between [his] legs”.
    Which I take to mean that he is male.
    Although, it could be more sinister.
    *shudder*

  44. la tricoteuse says

    #56 – I can’t imagine the Jewish version would be anything other than the Christian version, since both would be coming from the Old Testament. Any other tries la trick or tease?

    Well then, let’s have it. What flavour of creationist wingnut ARE you?

  45. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Thanks Chigau, I’ll keep that in mind for the next bit of arrogant ignorance from the presuppositionalist.

  46. Ze Madmax says

    Lynn Walker @ #62

    In regard to the hypothesis that asexual reproduction evolved into sexual reproduction through natural processes (without the involvement of God), please provide your references to observable and repeatable demonstrations of this hypothesis.

    Somebody doesn’t understand how the null hypothesis works.

  47. ChasCPeterson says

    To summarize, we scientists expect the findings of other scientists to be based on experimental observation, and to be repeatable so as to rule out error or bias, among other defects.

    we do indeed,

    In regard to the hypothesis that asexual reproduction evolved into sexual reproduction through natural processes (without the involvement of God), please provide your references to observable and repeatable demonstrations of this hypothesis.

    a. same back at you. Please provide your references to observable and repeatable demonstrations of demonstrations of…fuck, any< alternative hypothesis: God, Kali, magical gumdrops, whatever.

    b. It's true, I have to admit it. Not a single scientist has repeatedly observed the evolution of sexual from asexual reproduction. (That's actually not so surprising since all available evidence suggests it happened only once, about a billion years ago.) And therefore it's going to be very, very difficult to figure out the One True Hypothesis.
    So what? Therefore God? That's illogical, as I trust all we scientists can agree.
    Therefore Science should just shut up about it? But we can test alternative hypotheses, albeit indirectly, by inference and modelling. To dismiss such hypotheses as "silly conjecture" or whatever is just simply wrong.
    Start here. One word that’s entirely inappropriate for G.C. Willimas is “silly”.

  48. heliobates says

    So class, first we’re going to review the concept of what science actually is, since so few of you even seem to understand this. From wikipedia, on the subject of “Scientific method”:

    That’s a metric fuckton of stupid, right there.

  49. cm's changeable moniker says

    Aaaargh, manger, people; regular -er verb, formal imperative: mangez!

    I didn’t spend cinq ans learning this stuff for nothing, you know … ;-)

    (Also: robo-verb guy here is disconcerting.)

  50. David Marjanović says

    the true purpose of debate, which is to present competing ideas for the purpose of arriving at an predominating conclusion

    Debate is whatcha put on de hook to catch de fish.

    You have fallen among the scientists. Scientists never hold debates. (Have you noticed? Have you ever seen more than one scientist in the same room…?) When scientists disagree, they write papers that explain their thoughts, explain the evidence, explain what the other person has overlooked or has misinterpreted or couldn’t yet know because it hadn’t been discovered or published yet. The purpose of a scientific paper is to present an idea and compare it to the evidence to see if the idea survives.

    #51 – Vous le goût de la matière fécale.

    LOL, vous ne connaissez même pas le mot merde ? Permettez-moi, cher monsieur, de rire, et rire fort. Et comment est-ce que vous connaissez le goût de merde ? Que mangez-vous ?

    we scientists

    Comme il est drôle, celui-là !

    expect the findings of other scientists to be based on experimental observation

    Nope. Observation is necessary; experiments are merely convenient ways of arranging opportunities for observations – in some sciences (history, geology, astrophysics…), hardly any experiments can be done, but plenty of repeatable observations are still available and can be used to test hypotheses.

    observable and repeatable demonstrations of this hypothesis

    Well, you take a population of asexual unicellular eukaryotes, apply selection pressure for genetic diversity, and wait a few hundred lifetimes.

    What next? Will you ask for a repeatable demonstration of how neutron stars come to be?

    #60 – Imagine my shock when someone supposedly versed in science thinks that they can turn in a search engine page as an answer to a science question. Have you ever had a teacher accept a search engine page as the correct answer to a test?

    What exactly do you think you are? We’re not doing your homework for you. The search engine page is the starting point for your homework; go do it. You wanted answers, they’re there; we’re not somehow obliged to spend the next 20 hours spelling them out for you.

    #61 – There are nothing but silly ideas mentioned throughout that entire search result. Which one of those science fiction fantasies do you subscribe to? Increasing the number of silly ideas doesn’t raise your score by a single point.

    You haven’t spent enough time in the results yet. Patience, young padawan. Patience.

    So what? Therefore God? That’s illogical

    In particular, it’s unparsimonious.

    That’s a metric fuckton of stupid, right there.

    To be fair, Wikipedia is often quite good on such subjects nowadays. The requirement to cite sources has led to steady improvement.

  51. heliobates says

    To be fair, Wikipedia is often quite good on such subjects nowadays. The requirement to cite sources has led to steady improvement.

    I’m not prepared to be that charitable with someone who wants to insist that her opponents meet a standard which she’s obviously incapable of meeting, herself.

    Reaching for a handy definition? Fine.

    Stating (while conveying maximum condescension) that “we’re going to review the concept of what science actually is” and then reaching for Wikipedia is taking an already indefensibly stupid position and pouring Industrial Strength Stupid Concentrate™ directly on it.

  52. cm's changeable moniker says

    Have you ever seen more than one scientist in the same room

    Well, there’s the coffee-room. And, subsequently (and consequently), the toilets. ;-)

  53. chigau (無味ない) says

    Votre mère était un hamster et votre père avait une odeur de sureau.
    Nothing wrong with googletranslate.

  54. heliobates says

    If you do not accept this definition of the scientific method, then please do not respond to these posts, as your input is irrelevant.

    If you won’t acknowledge the proboscidean in the room, then everything you have to say is irrelephant.

  55. vaiyt says

    You smug-ass stupid dumb-fuck. You’re going to rue the day. All of you toady ass-wipes.

    Protip: covering your Galileo Gambit in profanities doesn’t make it look any less fallacious.

  56. Lynn Walker says

    I would like to thank #62 and #75 for the references they provided. I wasn’t sure about #80’s comment.

    “Well, you take a population of asexual unicellular eukaryotes, apply selection pressure for genetic diversity, and wait a few hundred lifetimes.”

    The rest of the comments weren’t worth the time spent reading them. I grow tired of wading through this morass of false ego. This site came highly recommended as a go-to location for discussing evolution but on further consideration the source who recommended it was lame, I had just given him the benefit of the doubt.

    I’ve read through George Williams “Sex and Evolution” which seems to be more about the evolution of sexual reproduction in competition with asexual reproduction than about the origins of sexual reproduction itself. I’m really most interested in the origins of sexual reproduction, that is, how an organism mutated into genders that shared half of the chromosomes along with the mechanisms for sharing them and gestating the young. If this is discussed by Williams please identify the section as I saw no mention.

    As for the link to Northwestern Library I found a couple of possibly useful books, “On the Origin of Sexual Reproduction” by Carl Zimmer and “Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction” by A.S. Kondrashov. I haven’t been able to obtain these yet, but anticipate that the former is likely more pertinent to my question.

    As for #42 reference to Google, I believe the later #67 reference to Wikipedia was among the better, but as I previously commented I find it silly to think that cannabalism (stool-eating would also qualify) can explain the first sharing of DNA. On the other hand maybe it does explain how some of the people here have become such dicks. The other hypothetical explanations were equally dicey. Maybe silly and dicey aren’t fair terms to use, but the explanations don’t truly explain the chance occurrence of chromosomal division into genders with the concurrent mechanism for sharing them by the two genders. I’d say these explanations are on the line of my throwing a container of ink against a wall and then insisting that the result was my signature. You’d just tell me it was a splat of ink. Similarly you may try to tell me that these acts of cannabalism, infection, regeneration, etc. represent sex, but then that really makes me feel sorry for nerds.

    Interestingly enough, I never tried to assert that a failure to prove evolution was itself proof of God, I am simply after honesty, in the sense that if a thing hasn’t been proven it should not be advertised as though it has. Evolution is far from proven to be true, as admitted by a few of the more honest posters. True, science is trying, and can continue to try. If, as the creationists suggest, it never happened, then proof will always allude scientists.

    Since I’m done here, and won’t be back to respond to any further inquiries, I will satisfy the curious among you by revealing that the new breed (really the oldest breed) of creationist on the block is the Vedic creationist. While it is not my intent or desire to convince the faithless, for the curious I assert that the existence of God is quite easily proven to anyone who sincerely embarks on a scientific process laid out for that purpose. The one I chose and recommend to others is the path laid out in the Vedic literatures, most specifically the Bhagavad-Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, Bhakti-rasamrta-sindu and Laghu Bhagavatamrta. While I don’t anticipate the persons here would appreciate any of these literatures, they are much more intellectually satisfying than related materials you might hear from the Christians, a group that is unfortunately woefully short on intelligence. Finally, I am a scientist, majoring in Mathematics and Zoology at a major California University in the 70’s, but having since switched over to Computer Science as a profession. I am not a troll or other such entity as suggested by many of the posters who coincidentally hide behind pseudonyms. My moniker is my name, on both my birth certificate and driver’s license, the same by which everyone calls me.

    I apologize for all of the vitriol, which I levelled at you so that you might taste the treatment you often extend to others. My suggestion would be to do better. Good luck and Hare Krishna!

  57. heliobates says

    Finally, I am a scientist, majoring in Mathematics and Zoology at a major California University in the 70′s, but having since switched over to Computer Science as a profession.

    Perfect execution of an equivocation on the word “scientist”. Well played, indeed. I had my money on “engineer”.

    I apologize for all of the vitriol, which I levelled at you so that you might taste the treatment you often extend to others. My suggestion would be to do better. Good luck and Hare Krishna!

    I got a sawbuck says he high-fived the mirror on the way out.

  58. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    The rest of the comments weren’t worth the time spent reading them.

    Just like your inane posts aren’t scientific and worth reading.

    am simply after honesty, in the sense that if a thing hasn’t been proven it should not be advertised as though it has.

    Same thing as a proof of your imaginary deity/creator/designer. Which doesn’t exist except in your delusional mind.

    am simply after honesty, in the sense that if a thing hasn’t been proven it should not be advertised as though it has.

    Statement of OPINION without citation, ergo *POOF* dismissed without evidence as bullshit.

    If, as the creationists suggest [lie and presuppose without evidence],

    Fixed that for you fuckwitted idjit.

    Since I’m done here,

    Translation, I am thoroughly refuted and running like a cowardly dog with my tail between my legs.

    I will satisfy the curious among y

    Nobody is curious with your lies and bullshit. They are the same as all the other fuckwitted idjits without honesty,. integrity, and EVIDENCE to back up their bullshit.

    Finally, I am a scientist,

    As if I believe anything you say, liar and bullshitter. That is a proven fact.

    same by which everyone calls me.

    Which proves nothing, and your claim, liar and bullshitter, is meaningless..

    My suggestion would be to do better.

    Then stop lying and bullshitting to yourself, so you can stop lying and bullshitting to others. All you offered was the same old lies and bullshit every other delusional creobot offerred. Which we have refuted each and every time. Your attitude should change to humility, not arrogance. As you have nothing intellectually to offer anybody until you acknowledge you can and are wrong….

  59. Cyranothe2nd says

    I am not a troll or other such entity as suggested by many of the posters who coincidentally hide behind pseudonyms. My moniker is my name, on both my birth certificate and driver’s license, the same by which everyone calls me.

    Why do kooks ALWAYS make such a big deal over posting with their “real name”? Its so weird and so frequent…

  60. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Why do kooks ALWAYS make such a big deal over posting with their “real name”? Its so weird and so frequent…

    They think it makes them look more honest than those of us who use ‘nyms, but it doesn’t, they still tell lies and bullshit like “Lynn Walker” did. One can’t verify it is actually their name, and as a skeptic, I’ll never take their word for it.

  61. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    Maaaaaaan, didn’t we just hear this song? No? Aww fuck they all sound the same anyways.

  62. Anri says

    As for #42 reference to Google, I believe the later #67 reference to Wikipedia was among the better, but as I previously commented I find it silly to think that cannabalism (stool-eating would also qualify) can explain the first sharing of DNA. On the other hand maybe it does explain how some of the people here have become such dicks. The other hypothetical explanations were equally dicey. Maybe silly and dicey aren’t fair terms to use, but the explanations don’t truly explain the chance occurrence of chromosomal division into genders with the concurrent mechanism for sharing them by the two genders. I’d say these explanations are on the line of my throwing a container of ink against a wall and then insisting that the result was my signature. You’d just tell me it was a splat of ink. Similarly you may try to tell me that these acts of cannabalism, infection, regeneration, etc. represent sex, but then that really makes me feel sorry for nerds.

    It’s a lot shorter to just say “I have no fucking idea what I’m talking about, really.”

    It saves so much time.

    Here’s a hint that you’re about to type something really dumb: you can go through and add “Unlike most people actually researching the topic, I think that…” to the start of pretty much every sentence.

    Also:

    While it is not my intent or desire to convince the faithless, for the curious I assert that the existence of God is quite easily proven to anyone who sincerely embarks on a scientific process laid out for that purpose

    and

    Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

    Pity they left – I suspect if we had gotten these two concepts to touch inside of Lynn’s head, the whole thing would have imploded.

  63. anteprepro says

    As for #42 reference to Google, I believe the later #67 reference to Wikipedia was among the better, but as I previously commented I find it silly to think that cannabalism (stool-eating would also qualify) can explain the first sharing of DNA…. Similarly you may try to tell me that these acts of cannabalism, infection, regeneration, etc. represent sex, but then that really makes me feel sorry for nerds.

    What a clueless fucking asshole. He clearly only read the wikipedia for words he understood and skipped over everything else. Typical creationist. If he manages to stumble back here, a few tips:

    -First, because you clearly need this groundbreaking bit of information, just like every other creationist assclown who can’t fathom the idea how sex evolved: Plants have sex. Sex evolved way before mammals, way before animals. Sex isn’t just penis in vagina. If you really understood that much, you wouldn’t be presenting “the origin of sex” as such a puzzler. The only puzzle is the full details; the fact that sex is a thing isn’t baffling to anyone who knows that sex isn’t something that is engaged in exclusively by things with hair and nipples.
    -On that note: the “cannibalism” is probably talking about fungi (and also bacteria). It mentioned fungi in the previous theory, the author of the article could have made it more clear that they still referring to fungi and similar organisms, but I suppose it doesn’t matter when dumbshits like yourself hone in on the only explanations that are represented by a whole two sentences in the article and pretend that they are the top explanations in the field.
    -You scoff at “infection” when that part is referring to bacteria and a mutation involving horizontal gene transfer. Which, to those who actually know about this kind of shit instead of being incredulous ignoramus on the internet, really isn’t that bizarre.
    -The term “regeneration” was referring to regenerating DNA/RNA , i.e. repairing it. It isn’t sex, it is the reason why sex was beneficial.

    This is what happens when you give creationists a reading assignment: They go out of their way to read for incomprehension. They think any explanation they don’t like is comparable to “sci-fi” because they don’t understand enough actual fucking science to distinguish between science fiction and science fact. But the pompous windbag thinks that he can teach us what science REALLY is. What a fucking clown. A clown with an inexplicable obsession with frogs/toads.

  64. vaiyt says

    I am not a troll or other such entity as suggested by many of the posters who coincidentally hide behind pseudonyms. My moniker is my name, on both my birth certificate and driver’s license, the same by which everyone calls me.

    Posting with your real name doesn’t seem to make you any less of an arrogant asshole, though.

  65. chigau (無味ない) says

    “Vedic creationist”
    oh my

    And what brand of Hinduism requires “faith”?