There is a rich, deep kind of irony that must be shared. I’m blogging this from the Apple store in the Mall of America, because I’m too amused to want to wait until I get back to my hotel room.
I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn’t even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn’t going to cause any trouble.
I went back to my family and talked with them for a while, and then the officer came back with a theater manager, and I was told that not only wasn’t I allowed in, but I had to leave the premises immediately. Like right that instant.
I complied.
I’m still laughing though. You don’t know how hilarious this is. Not only is it the extreme hypocrisy of being expelled from their Expelled movie, but there’s another layer of amusement. Deep, belly laugh funny. Yeah, I’d be rolling around on the floor right now, if I weren’t so dang dignified.
You see … well, have you ever heard of a sabot? It’s a kind of sleeve or lightweight carrier used to surround a piece of munition fired from a gun. It isn’t the actually load intended to strike the target, but may even be discarded as it leaves the barrel.
I’m a kind of sabot right now.
They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn’t notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn’t recognize him. My guest was …
Richard Dawkins.
He’s in the theater right now, watching their movie.
Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?
“Ken, you’re shifting your ground.
Now you say #1485:
You are supposed to respect the fact that others may not hold to the same belief system that you hold
Initially you said #1455:
I respect that you may have chosen to rely on your own intellect instead of faith as a frame of reference for interacting with the world […] All I would ask is that you consider reciprocating such respect, where due.
So, is it that I should respect you have a different belief system, or that I should respect your belief system is based in faith rather than rationality? They’re not the same thing.
I’m bemused that, having written the above, you claim you don’t ask for respect.”
Semantics.
No shift in meaning…just made the second statement more general. Mutual respect is a necessary part of any civil dialog and not limited to the discussion of one’s faith. It also goes for collective bargaining, international diplomacy, city hall, and talking over the fence to your neighbor.
Bemused as you may be, I was not personally asking for respect. Thats where the “consider” and “where due” parts come in.
Ods Blood, that was great! The cops must have had a picture of you, but they didn’t recognize RICHARD DAWKINS! My dogs are wondering why I am laughing out loud right now.
“It’s (EXPELLED) going to appeal strongly to the religious, the paranoid, the conspiracy theorists, and the ignorant — which means they’re going to draw in about 90% of the American market.”
-Atheist blogger and fabulist PZ Myers, on a film he has not yet seen.
It seems like the religious fanatics aren’t the only ones feeling “holier than thou.” I think this statement oozes (it may even be primordial) an intillectually superior attitude.
Fundies really hate it when people who are their intellectual superiors recognize the fact, don’t they? :-D
Interesting reading,and I share your righteous indignation at how you were denied access, now can we cut to the chase and get a review of the movie? That should really be hilarious. What did Dawkins have to say about it and has he written a critique yet?
Hi Ken,
I do appreciate your ability to subtly dig at scientists throughout your post (noting both our myopia and sloth), but you’ve failed once again to understand some basic rules of respect. I should respect your right to STATE your opinion, but that in no way requires me to respect either you or your opinion. Your post is available for all to see, and you chose to make that happen. My ‘respect’ checklist is all filled out now.
You argue that your opinion should be respected (indeed ALL opinions should be respected) by virtue of … what? The fact that they’re opinions? And they’re different? That’s a pretty loose criteria. I wonder how we’ll deal with racism.
I’m just glad you got it all figured out…Thanks Cheezit (very superior) for letting the blogging world know what a kindergarten snack has to offer…
I see scientists as myopics floundering in the early dawn trying to make sense of what they can measure.
That’s what we *all* are. The difference is, scientists are generally a lot less myopic than the average person. And many religious fanatics (the sort that go in for creationism) are willfully blind, preferring a comforting fantasy over the real world.
The movie “Expelled” and this latest flap show the world why creationism isn’t science. Renaming it “Intelligent Design Theory” didn’t change anything – it is still just a disguise for an outmoded religious idea.
1500 comments and nearing the date of Origin of Species (with a tip to Kseniya’s idea to go for 2001 for Clarke…)
It would not be an interesting test case. It is a very bad idea for this simple reason, fundamentalists will be able to point at the case as “proof” that atheism is a religion. They have an easy enough time pulling things out of thin air to make accusations about atheism. There is no need to hand them a lead pipe.
NO SOUP FOR YOU!!
Janine ID said:
Not only that, in this particular instance it would be the most spectacular case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory that I can conceive of. This incident is simply about the Expelled team exposing themselves for what they are – incompetent, vindictive and mendacious hypocrites, whilst PZ just points it out and laughs at them.
There is no need to take things any further and trying to do so would merely give them a chance to pull the martyr routine and claim that PZ is trying to sue the film out of existence because he’s frightened of what it has to say. Why give them such an easy way out of the PR hole that they have so obligingly dug for themselves?
Why give them such an easy way out of the PR hole that they have so obligingly dug for themselves?
I’ll say. Making a federal case out of being barred from seeing the stupidest movie of the year would make PZ look like a lawsuit-happy jerk and spoil a perfect moment. Fortunately I see no sign that he would even consider it.
Ken,
We have accomplished relatively little when you think of the volume of secrets held by the natural world.
The scientific method has allowed us to make those accomplishments, and while many religious people helped in the endeavor, religion has made no contributions to our knowledge.
It isn’t that we are intellectually superior (some are, of course, but I known very smart theists of a variety of religions, but it is out methodology that is superior.
So, Ken, by your (logic?NO – reasoning?NO – thought processes?NO) ahh, got it, by your argument, we should give children’s belief in the Tooth Fairy equal weight as the painstaking results of millions of observations, experiments, and repetitions of the process in accord with the investigatory laws of the Scientific Method, simply because it is someone else’s point of view?
Ken, whether you think I’m arrogant is irrelevant. You are a moron. You have offered definitive evidence for that conclusion. I hope you are happy living in the dank cavern of your own ignorant delusion, but your opinions have no validity at all.
So, Ken, by your (logic?NO – reasoning?NO – thought processes?NO) ahh, got it, by your argument, we should give children’s belief in the Tooth Fairy equal weight as the painstaking results of millions of observations, experiments, and repetitions of the process in accord with the investigatory laws of the Scientific Method, simply because it is someone else’s point of view?
Ken, whether you think I’m arrogant is irrelevant. You are a moron. You have offered definitive evidence for that conclusion. I hope you are happy living in the dank cavern of your own ignorant delusion, but your opinions have no validity at all.
Darwin and his blind dogmatic followers who accept Darwinian origins soley by faith. Why? Science, and the scientific method CAN NOT PROVE ORIGINS.
So why so dogmatic about Darwinism? Because it is a matter of faith on behalf of its followers. PZ and Dawkins as the poster children of this modern dogmaticism. Idiots !!!
So scared to allow debate with science that contradicts their godless religion.
“So why so dogmatic about Darwinism? Because it is a matter of faith on behalf of its followers. PZ and Dawkins as the poster children of this modern dogmaticism. Idiots !!!”
Wait a minute. I thought faith was supposed to be a GOOD thing. I thought you guys considered it a virtue to believe in things you can’t see.
“So scared to allow debate with science that contradicts their godless religion.”
If both sides are nothing but “faith”, then why would you want to debate? By definition, neither side would have any convincing argument. What makes you think your faith is better than anyone else’s? Other than that you were raised in it?
Well, thanks for confirming my suspicions that creationism (and, for that matter, Christianity as practiced by its noisiest proponents) is nothing but a sports team.
Jacob you’re not even wrong.
Logic. You’re doing it wrong.
“Soley by faith” – in addition to being a ranting illiterate, you seem to be conveniently overlooking the monumental pile of evidence from many different scientific disciplines, all of which support evolutionary theory. You also seem to be conveniently overlooking the simple truth that evolution is a proven fact. The theory of evolution is the undergirding web of explanation of the mechanisms behind the observable process of evolution. In other words, you don’t know enough about what you are so glibly pontificating about (with your Stone Age understanding of the world) for your commentary to have any validity. Go read some REAL books and learn something, then you might be worthy of being heard.
Note the characteristic tunnel vision of the creationist, entirely focused on “origins” (that’s a shibboleth if ever there was). Often, this is accompanied by a strange belief that science is like mathematics, a collection of “proofs”.
Note as well how it is trapped by the constraints of it’s own mental world, incapable of properly modeling a mind that does not share those selfsame constraints. And then, it creeps steadily closer and closer, lurking in the shadows….and STRIKES…completely missing it’s prey only to retreat to the darkness once more, howling it’s inchoate rage and frustration. Truly, a curious organism, one whose continued survival is a deep mystery as yet unsolved by modern science.
All “it’s” to “its”. Usually I’m better about that.
Jacob you’re not even wrong.
That expression is so overused, it’s not even clever. You tell someone they’re not wrong, it normally means they’re right.
You are not even wrong Cheezits.
there’s subtlety there you fail to grasp…
Do I really have to explain the joke?
So far from understanding the idea that they haven’t even approached just getting it wrong.
Why am I explaining it? And why do I give a fuck if you think it’s clever.
Grammar nazi.
That wasn’t grammer, dumbass! I’m a *cliche* nazi, get your insults right. :-D
*clears throat*
Oh yeah?
Well, I’m a Capitalization Nazi.
This is exactly the premise of Expelled. Why do most of you believe this man’s account? Could it be that you assume rather than think, that you believe what someone else has taught you?
How did they know who PZ was? Do you know PZ? Do you know his credentials? Where does this supposed conspiracy begin and who orchestrated it? How was he singled out? Ben Stein lives in La. Kevin Miller live in Canada? How did they manipulate this man’s expulsion from a Minnesota movie theater? How gullible are you people?
As a biologist myself, I can tell you no one, no one, has all the answers. When you stop questioning anything, when you surrender to the current orthodoxy, you surrender your intellectual honesty. Science is not about consensus!
I know the writer of this movie. He is a friend. Yes, God forbid, he is a Christian. Is that your problem? Is his crime being able to think out of the box?
The only thing this movie asks of you is to think in a different way, to question that which has been spoon fed to you.
I am sixty years old and if I have learned one thing in my life, it is follow the money. Scientists are not immune to the siren call of funding. And unfortunately, if you don’t tow the line you don’t have a career.
I ask only one thing before you gleefully condemn your neighbor…think! Is that too much to ask?
I know the writer of this movie. He is a friend. Yes, God forbid, he is a Christian.
Oh bullshit, he is NOT a Christian if he produced that pack of lies.
You can output all the meaningless soundbites you like but the truth is, there is NO THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN. The movie is asking us to link evolution with Nazis. That is not my idea of intellectual honesty.
WTF? George, while some may favor a conspiracy-tinged explanation, the dominant hypothesis is that Mathis is just a petty dick who saw a chance to pick on a mean ‘ol atheist opposed to Mathis’ favored brand of pseudo: ID. It’s helpful that Mathis has basically said as much himself. The rest of it is just down to incompetence and general jackassery.
My personal words to live by:
Never attribute to conspiracy what can be equally well explained by incompetency.
Occam’s razor and all. . . .
Jebus. Do you read anything? This has all been explained multiple times.
Mark Mathis interviewed me. Mark Mathis was at the theater. Mark Mathis had me expelled out of spite. It’s really that simple, and you’re really being that stupid.
Science is about following the evidence. ID has no evidence. So why are you, O Biologist, supporting it?
Yes, the writer is a Christian, like 90% of the people in this country. He is not thinking out of the box. He is sitting right there in the middle of the box, defending the box.
Science is not spoon fed to us. It requires hard work to follow the evidence, it requires expertise, and it requires details. The only people doing any spoonfeeding are these liars for Jesus who claim goddidit is sufficient answer.
And no, you haven’t learned anything about science. Sixty years old? What a waste.
George Mortensen
Outside the box?! Think?!
George, you fucking asshole, I’ve done more thinking in my thirty-two years than you have in your sixty.
Either practice what you preach, or shut the fuck up. Is that too much to ask?
I have to disagree – the writer is *not* like 90% of the US, assuming that statistic is accurate. Because not all Christians are creationists or liars. He is in a different class from either scientifically literate Christians, or the honest but clueless majority.
I know it’ll be lost on you George, you brainless twit, but thinking outside the box is how the majority of us here threw off the intellectual shackles of that collection of myths you call religion.
Condescending asshole.
Alas! I was so looking forward to seeing what I thought must be a very clever satire on the creationist “rationale”–“Expelled”. As with so many things in our country these days, what appears to be ludicrous at first glance turns out to be murderously serious. Is this how many Germans felt in 1933? This sentiment was expressed to me, a Vietnam vet, by a WWII vet that I was marching with before Bush invaded Iraq. I was amazed because that was exactly the thought that was going through my mind then and, unfortunately, still is. I love a good joke, but this is just so sad.
“I’m gonna regret this, I’m sure, but what the hell…”
My wise cousins, the Great Apes, tell you not to despair; they are encouraged by your enquiring mind …
“Paula, what the hell is this “community of Washoe” and what relevance does it have? Are you alluding the tribe, or its eponymous Nevadan county? To the signing chimp, mayhap?”
I am alluding to the delegation of Great Apes who travelled to Minneapolis from their natural habitat not to those in captivity!! Why Minneapolis? Because they were told they would witness the unique coming together of the last vestiges of all that it means to be human prior to agreeing to the signing of a declaration that afforded them human rights. They came away with an enlightened understanding of the meaning and need for the declaration in the world of humans in the first place.
“I’m guessing the idea is that basically, you’re calling everyone here a shit-flinging band of well-trained chimpanzees, but you know, not having perfect wisdom myself, I could be wrong about that.”
Here?! Goodness, no; this place is a mere spill over of the madness. Its only benefit is that it has the potential to exercise wisdom in the observer both here in cyberspace and on earth as my Great Ape delegation discovered for themselves.
“Let me just say that I actually hope I’m right about the Washoe thing, because despite the fact it’s completely wrong, I think it’d be pretty fucking funny if you actually do mean that.”
I afford you the right to make up your own mind in accordance with your capacity to select what you digest and how you choose to process it. I will offer you one point of observation: PZ Myers and Mark Mathis are only two human beings out of multiples of millions of human beings on this planet. How is it possible for two human minds in opposition with each other to create such mayhem and discord? Peace, peace where there is no peace!
Damn it. I knew I was gonna regret that.
Eeerrrrr, I think she means that Myers and Mathis has equal weight in what they think and being in opposition cause mayhem and chaos. But I think her main message is that Paula is a gibbering new age woo merchant. I think the main reason I think that is because my brain starts to frizzle and fry when I process her words.
Ahahahahahahaha! I suppose this may be a testament to the true breadth of their reading. More likely to the true depth of their powers of observation.
It happened to Ralph Nader in 2000 when he tried to attend the Presidential debate at UMass Boston – in a side room with TV feed. He was told by a state trooper that he had to leave or be arrested. The honchos of both parties had handed out to the police a sheet with pictures of third-party candidates (Buchanan etc.). I guess people start caring a bit more about democracy and such issues when it happens to them. :)
Nader pleeze. He’s a waste of airtime.
“For ’tis the sport to have engineer hoist with his own petard.”
I think we should introduce Paula to Gerry. Just think of the crazy fun!
Well, the crazy, at any rate.
I’m still bummed that Paula wasn’t insulting everybody here. I mean, that would have been a pretty clever and fairly oblique way to call everybody a pack of conditioned primates whose understanding of the language they use is doubtful at best. Alas, ’twas not to be.
The reason why PZ Myers could attend the screening of “Expelled” because it was a private showing. So he had to wait to buy a ticket to see it just like everyone else. The movie has a lot do with censorship, and you know why many interest groups have been trying to convince movie theaters not to show this film? It’s because they fear this might encourage more skeptics who use science as a means to prove creationism.
For example, Evolutionists would laugh at someone claiming to create energy out of nothing. Creationists would call that “witchcraft” unless it was God, or another Harry Potter movie…lol…However, Evolutionists seriously claim the Universe was created out of nothing by chance, it’s not witchcraft they say because nobody did it, it was “chance” that caused it…lol
The bottom line is this, anything that defies the laws of physics, is supernatural. Whether it’s Harry Potter or Random chance, or God, the outcome is the same (something was created out of nothing).
THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
Defines energy as a mass which cannot be created out of nothing, and can be changed from one form to another but the total amount remains the same.
I think teacher should not loose their jobs over questioning such statements from Darwinism. Expelled has brought an important issue to the forefront…
I see this thread becomes moribund.
Er, no, the reason that PZ wasn’t allowed in was because his afro is so large nobody else would have been able to see how skillfully the producers managed to rearrange large portions of human history in a couple of hours. Replacing “rearrange” with “obliterate” may be a truer reflection, however.
If there is a world record for the number of mis-truths uttered in a couple of hours, this film is unmatched.
And it wasn’t a private screening, either. Or, if it was, the producers must be more dense than I has previously thought. Not only did 5/6 other people who were with PZ get to see the movie, numerous others have also been to see screenings in other cities. So, to maintain that utterly absurd stance, the producers are admitting to gross incompetence in letting probably 30/40 other people in who are easily as hostile to the film as PZ, and went through exactly the same procedure.
Hilarious. Ignoring for a moment that Evolution has precisely nothing to do with Cosmology and the early universe, you will find that those of us who at least attempt to exhibit some intellectual honesty are quite adept at saying, “we don’t know”, for a whole range of questions that we don’t have answers for.
What I would like to know, however, is why are creationists fixated by the idea that you can’t accept any science until we know all that there is to know? It makes not an ounce of difference whether we can fully explain what happened 13.7 billion years ago. Life still evolved on this planet.
Having said that, we have a fairly decent idea about what did happen 13.7 billion years ago, though there are still a number of fundamental questions that remain. For instance, we are pretty certain that all of the matter in the universe came from energy, and we know that the total amount of energy in the universe is zero. Therefore, we can explain where all of the matter came from, and it required zero sum energy for it to happen.
Are we satisfied? Not a chance. We don’t know what happened in the first few tenths of a second, and we don’t know why. What we are not prepared to do is throw our arms up and claim that, therefore, it really must have been that eccentric Jewish preacher, after all.
Who’d have thought that so many people would be in favor of teachers being able to tell 8 and 9 year olds there own theory about how the Holocaust never happened. Truly amazing. And so liberal, as well.
And it is absolutely wonderful that you are in full support of a teachers right to tell those same children that 9/11 was an inside job.
You know, there are an almost unlimited number of possibilities now that so many people are in favor of a teachers right to question, and thus,
confuseintellectually stimulate small children, particularly as they are so well developed mentally.If I can be serious for a minute. You crackpots are a danger to your own country. I am not even an American, but it scares the shit out of me that so many people can become convinced by such idiocy, when they clearly haven’t thought it through to its logical conclusion.
There is a reason why we teach the prevailing scientific consensus to children, especially when those who oppose it don’t even have a clue what they are talking about.
Brain. In. Gear. (or, alternatively, teach children that Hitler was really a humanitarian)
Hey Michael: Cosmology and Biology are two very separate disciplines. Also, ex nihilo isn’t really an accurate characterization of current cosmological theory. The simple fact of it is, no one really considers the “ultimate” question of the beginning of the universe to be answered. Speculation, hypotheses, sure, and some scenarios seem to have more going for them than others based on what is currently known. And, yeah, some ideas could kind of be characterized as “by chance”, but that’s a pretty distorted oversimplification. Probabilistic is what you’re talking about, but that’s not the same thing as sheer random chaos. In any case, the current well-accepted model really only properly addresses what started happening immediately after the Big Bang.
All of which, to reiterate, has nothing to do with biology in any direct fashion. Obviously, biology is constrained by fundamental physics, by which I mean the general descriptions we derive from General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, as everything in existence is, but that has precious little to do with the day-to-day work of most biologists. The physics that is used regularly by biology is much more specific than the kind of stuff that cosmologists deal with.
Okay, well, lecture over. In truth, I’m not sure how sincere you are about all that nonsense, but someone else might buy it, so I figured I’d counter.
I don’t know of anyone who is trying to get theaters to not show the film. They have been ridiculing it, there’s a difference. You seem to have skeptics confused with people of faith. Scientists are not afraid of anyone “proving” anything. No one (skeptical or otherwise) is using (or has used) science as a means to prove creationism. Creationism/intelligent design has failed repeated attempts to be proven with science for well over a century. That’s the reason it’s not called science, and why it should not be taught as science. The issue is not people questioning Darwinism; the issue is mythology, whimsy, religion and wishful thinking being taught as science.
Evolutionists claim no such thing. Biology is not the study of cosmic origins, and nobody knows what preceded the Big Bang or why it happened.
THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: (“The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.”) is a description of the universe as it is. No one knows what preceded the Big Bang or why it happened, and given the plethora of incorrect facts stated by the bible, “The God of the bible did it” is not a good working theory.
Indeed it has: the appalling ignorance and scientific illiteracy of huge numbers of people in America.
Your entire post is a compilation of incorrect facts born of ignorance and wrong thinking
Expelled has brought an important issue to the forefront…
Yes, that issue is called Lying For Jesus. If any of the producers of that pack of lies really are Christians (a pretty big “if”), they may wake up one day and realize what they’ve done. Then they’ll pull the movie from the theaters themselves. (Hey, I can dream, can’t I?) :-D
Thank you for your website/blog – it adds all kinds of reinforcements to the arguments made in this provocative film.
Thomas S Howard: “I’m still bummed that Paula wasn’t insulting everybody here. I mean, that would have been a pretty clever and fairly oblique way to call everybody a pack of conditioned primates whose understanding of the language they use is doubtful at best. Alas, ’twas not to be.”
Thank you Thomas. You are right and I give you credit for that observation. It is a most unusual quality in those who argue on these kinds of forums in the current climate.
On the issue of language, it can be framed in such a way that it becomes detached from the truth of its subject matter. It is becoming a well practiced art! Hence the reason we have become very selective in what language we accept as having any credibility depending on its source and not its subject. Historic sayings fall into this category. One such saying has never been more applicable than it is today: ‘Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.’ Language exposes the inner man.
When did provocative and insipid start to mean the same thing?
From what I’ve read, they don’t even make the case for ID. They don’t even defend their own ideas.
Brad’s a rube.
Great!
LOL, that was so stupid :)
Well, on the other side i’m afraid of this fundamentalistic aggression. How long will it take, to get expelled from the everyday life, if you do not back up the religious christian stories, you have to learn at shool.
But this is priceless :) I can’t wait for a review from Richard Dawkings about that movie.
“I can’t wait for a review from Richard Dawkings about that movie.”
Then maybe Steven Hawkins will weigh in. *thbbt*
Check out Dawkins’ web site, he does have a review.
Off-topic comment: You’re either going to love this or hate it, PZ. But you’re no longer just a movie star. you’re a hip hop homeboy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw&fmt=18
Mr. Myers,
Unfortunately you missed the point of being expelled from the movie. You were not invited and it was done to show you what it was like to be expelled as you do to people who have questions about Darwinism:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/ben_steins_new_film_expelled_n.html
It had nothing to do with hiding anything from you.
Somewhat related… “Ben Stein for President” video:
On a different note, might I add how proud we evolutionary biologists are that folks like you and Dawkins are out there facing off against the unscientists? When science is dragged from the lab into a battle of politics and faith, stepping forward to show our measure of logic and the record of our observations becomes an act of bravery and determination.
Well put Josh! I totally agree with you. I think too often we forget that it is easier to sit by and do nothing, or complain in hindsight about how others should have done things differently. Bravo to PZ and Dawkins! Keep up the great work! I think it would be a good idea if the rest of us would try to think of ways we can be supportive, even if only in small ways.
Not sure how you pretentious “scientists” get so worked up when the evolutionary quasi-dogma is questioned…..must be a big chink in the armor. lol
Toolman, how does
translate to “worked up”?
Stein, a Nixon speech writer, aped “The revolution will not be televised”? That’s almost as ironic as calling themselves the “silenced majority”.
Do me a favor kids. Give me a prediction ID makes, empirical evidence backing this prediction, the method by which you studied it and the mechanism by which it works. I would also love to read the journal it’s published in. If you can’t provide that, yet complain that you’re not getting a fair shake in the scientific arena, well, you sound as smart as someone voting for Ben Stein for President.
It had nothing to do with hiding anything from you.
that’s a rather laughable attempt at post-hoc, Dave, considering that Dawkins himself got in, along with PZ’s family, several others.
…along with the fact that NONE of the audience of that showing were actually invited to begin with. They signed up on the website, just like PZ did.
give it up, moron, you fools have run out of feet to shoot yourselves in.
Ichthyic: First, I don’t think you understand “post-hoc”. You may want to check the definition. Second, if you took a glance at the very short article I linked to, you will see that Mr. Myers gained access to a proprietary website and signed himself up. Other people including Mr. Dawkins did the same thing but that is not the same as the rest of the audience who were invited. The website was an RSVP site for the people invited, not an open site for anyone to invite themselves.
I am looking forward to this movie. I hope it opens some eyes and will allow people to question Darwinian theories without costing them their jobs.
Now that various reviewers have discussed the movie and noted how awful it was, I certainly won’t be going. Why waste the time and money? Besides we know what is in it already. Dawkins and Timonen have already given lots of details and their opinions at the RichardDawkins.net site. If you haven’t read their reviews, you should check them out.
You wouldn’t have any evidence to back up this claim would you?
Paguroidea:
You’ve read ALL the reviews, eh? Judging the movie by Dawkins perspective would be like trusting a shark telling you to “jump in the water’s fine!”
Expand your research outside of Atheist columns a bit maybe. Just a suggestion. Here’s one for example… just posted today. WORLD MAGAZINE
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13903.
The link doesn’t work with a period on the end…
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13903
I checked out that “World” review, javascript, and–sorry–couldn’t get much past this:
“rightly equates”?
“rightly”?
“equates”?
“stifling of free speech”???
oh, then there’s this:
Ahhhhh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
check the byline on the review…Olasky’s the fuckwit who brought buying off churches, er faith-based policy, into the Bush white house.
Professional liar and dominionist David Barton worked on the Bush campaign, too. The fun never stops!
Yea, I read Dawkins review as well Sven… I especially loved his hilarious attempt at explaining how he gave credit for the design of the human race to E.T. in the film. He should run for office somewhere… He’s got a Politicians tongue. I’m sorry some of you are going to miss seeing your boy Ricky squirm in that scene. I’ve been to a screening already… the audience roared with laughter at that part. You probably wouldn’t know good humor if you saw it anyway though.
Maybe… you just don’t know “dick.” ;-)
You probably wouldn’t know good humor if you saw it anyway though.
oh we would. You don’t know quotemining when YOU see it. Moreover, you, like apparently most of the audience for this drivel, seems to have entirely missed Dawkins’ point in laughing at Ben Stein’s clown act.
Dawkins was clearly saying that of course some unknown putative designer might have had a hand in things (he uses the example of an alien because the IDiots THEMSELVES have used that to avoid calling it god. It’s irrelevant though, as without knowledge of a putative designer operates in the world, there is no way to construct a testable hypothesis to begin with.
hence, ID is not and cannot be science.
bet you never got to see THAT part though, did you.
moron.
oh, we know good humor alrighty.
I’m laughing at you right now.
Ichthyic: First, I don’t think you understand “post-hoc”.
oh yes i do. considering I’ve seen idiots making up post-hoc explanations for the utter failure of the producers in this case left and right.
you guys can’t keep making up shit to cover your stupidity forever, you know.
or maybe you can, and this thread will be a testament to just how much idiocy a group of people can generate in an attempt to defend the indefensible.
Second, if you took a glance at the very short article I linked to, you will see that Mr. Myers gained access to a proprietary website and signed himself up
if you meant PRIVATE (not proprietary – all websites are proprietary – look it up), then I wonder how all the audience that WAS there managed to get into a private website with no password?
there were lots of other folks who went there to laugh at this travesty of a flick, too. They weren’t kicked out though, were they?
nope. the evidence was quite clear that there was a public website available where anyone who wished could sign up.
it was documented by several independent sources right after the showing, in fact.
funny, but now the expelled folks are frantically trying to modify the original site to remove the ability to sign up for showings.
keep throwing though, one of these days a pitch might actually get to the plate instead of hitting the dirt 20 feet in front of it.
You’ve read ALL the reviews, eh? Judging the movie by Dawkins perspective would be like trusting a shark telling you to “jump in the water’s fine!”
show me ONE instance where Dawkins has ever lied in public.
If you can show me that (hint: you can’t), I can show you where Mathis has lied.
several times, in fact.
so who should we trust as to their view of the movie again?
the liar, or the professor?
Dawkins wasn’t the only one at the showing, btw, many others have reviewed the film as well.
NONE favorably.
LOL! Oh I’m the moron, eh?
Have you seen the movie yet?
I can tell you haven’t.
Let’s just wait and see the wide spread reviews and opinions after the film is out OK? I can tell you right now, the numbers of those that won’t be laughing their heads off at Dicky will be few and far between. Dick’s not laughing at anyone in that scene my friend… He’s sweating his Atheist ass off. Don’t miss it!
Keep laughing pal…
Let’s just wait and see the wide spread reviews and opinions after the film is out OK? I can tell you right now, the numbers of those that won’t be laughing their heads off at Dicky will be few and far between.
will you be screaming WATERLOOOO! in the near future.
yes, you ARE a moron.
the whole world is putting one over on you.
and guess what, moron?
the clip of Dawkins featured in the movie is on youtube.
so I guess that means I have seen the part of the movie you seem to have found so amusing.
do you like clowns?
java, since Dawkins was lied to about the topic of the film (evenhanded examination of both evolution and ID) and had been led to believe that the interviewer was not hostile, your claim that he was “sweating his Atheist ass off” is just another lie in a series of falsehoods.
The best part of this whole fiasco is that ID takes its secular mask off and reveals itself to be a purely religious endeavor. ID had counted the Raelian cult among its supporters, and quite simply, seeding by ETs is only a tiny fraction less ridiculous than claiming that god/s did it.
seeding by ETs is only a tiny fraction less ridiculous than claiming that god/s did it.
which is exactly why Dawkins chose it to expose ID for the empty room that it is.
It was the LEAST ridiculous position claimed by the IDiots.
Java won’t get it though, he thinks Ben Stein is funny.
Ichthyic:
Does using words like “hence” make you feel… intelligent?
Does labeling someone a “moron” make you feel… superior?
Dawkins was interviewed more than once for the movie. There are scenes from both interviews in the film. Which interview have you seen? Did you see the one where he admits that “design” is evident in our world? Is the clip you saw on youtube the one where he clarifies that the apparent design could not have been the result of a god but just might be highly evolved aliens… And of course, the aliens evolved from even higher evolved aliens… and so on and so on and so on… The odd thing is though… all this fuss by Dick and PZ to refute I.D. when all along Dawkins admits he believes in it!
Now really… you don’t find that funny?
“Did you see the one where he admits that apparent “design” is evident in our world?”
Fixed that for you.
Enlisting the police to try to evict you from the premises when you did not intend to challenge their stupid ban–now that’s really over the top.
The Police didn’t “try” to evict, they did evict PZ Meyers. I can tell you why, it’s pretty obvious. Let’s begin by one of his pre-screening statements in the blog format.
I will go see this movie, and I will cheer loudly at my 30 seconds or whatever on the screen, and I will certainly disembowel its arguments here and in any print venue that wants me. That’s going to be fun.
Also, there were observations of him being aggressive (pushy) going through the line in order to see the production.
Cheering “loudly” every time you see yourself on the big screen is being disruptive. So obviously he was stating his intentions and thought nobody of on the other side would read them…Being “pushy” in the line is another bad sign, so in reality if a person is displayed intent, acting pretty aggressively, he should have been evicted.
Let’s put it this way, if he would have displayed his actions in more of a civil manner, and if his conduct would have been more respectful to those others waiting in line, he would have most likely seen the production with himself in it, and feel the sense of fame and do what everyone who knows the man would do, write a review tells the public how bad it is…lol…Well he still can, he’ll have to buy a ticket to see the whole production. Not writing a review without seeing the whole film.
Get another handle asshole. The report you site about PZ being pushy has been retracted by the idiot how spouted the nonsense in the first place. Please do try and keep up, you make yourself and those you ineptly represent look dumber than they should. Which is saying something.
Hm, you mean that you are absolutely certain that a nonhuman or nonhumans cannot possibly have “intelligently designed” the human race?
So you agree, then, that “intelligent design” is false? You agree that the entire premise of
ExpectorationExpelled is false? You agree that those who posit that any life on Earth is “intelligently designed” are deluded, laughable idiots, and do not deserve to have academic success?So… what are you arguing for, anyway?
Michael,
Maybe I was a bit harsh. Upon further review I’d actually like to thank you for supporting the cause of Intelligent Design by linking, through your name, to a page that states: “Creationism: Science in Agreement with God’s Word”.
You make our case for us. So excuse me for pointing out any nonsense you stated earlier. I now see that I never had to waste the time. You do a fine job all by yourself.
Does using words like “hence” make you feel… intelligent?
hardly. One syllable words don’t usually satisfy my language Jones. Must work for you, though?
Does labeling someone a “moron” make you feel… superior?
nope. does it make you feel inferior?
maybe that’s not why I do it at all?
maybe you’re too fucking dumb to understand why focusing on it is an obvious deflection on your part?
Did you see the one where he admits that “design” is evident in our world?
yup.
do you understand what he meant by that?
of course you don’t.
… I see Michael X does though.
Is the clip you saw on youtube the one where he clarifies that the apparent design could not have been the result of a god but just might be highly evolved aliens.
nope. That’s not what he says. He is answering the question as to what the designer might be (the part you don’t get to see in the movie, because they quotemined the hell out of him), and just for argument’s sake, he picks up the old idea of panspermia and runs with it to explore how ID would flesh out if one were to attempt to even try using it to formulate a hypothesis of alien designers.
you can’t even recall what he actually said, likely because you didn’t get the whole video to see.
what you see in the movie is a clipped up version where the context is not apparent at all.
I’ve tried to explain this to you twice now, I doubt a third time would help.
the idea of aliens begetting aliens is the philosophical problem of infinite regression that all conceptual “deities” face (if god designed men, who designed god, whatever designed god, what designed that? etc, etc, on ad-infinitum). That is what he was explaining; he just chose aliens like one would choose “Zeus” or Cthulhu, or the FSM. You’re just too dumb to get it, though the producers didn’t help you any by cutting out the context and splicing in what amounts to a laugh track furnished by Stein.
You’re a dupe.
how’s that make you feel?
You should feel inferior at this point, but it hardly makes me feel superior to point it out to you.
I do kinda feel a bit of schadenfreude at your level of credulity, however.
Michael: You fixed “what” for me. You didn’t fix anything. Try as you may to twist what Dawkins said in that interview, I’ll still wager that the vast majority who see the film will be able to tell, his cover-up explanation (that you all have already memorized already), is a complete joke. The guy admitted to evidence of design in our universe. (I.D.) No one was pushing him to say what he freely admits. He elaborated all on his own that the brain behind the design could not have been of this world. Ironic, eh?
Michael said: “Fixed that for you.”
Dream on Mikey… you aint fixed nothing.
Golly, javascript,
You might try reading just about anything Dawkins has ever written. He’s very upfront about “design”, i.e., the appearance of design in our world. Most of his writing is about how we have come to know that it’s an appearance, not a reality of (intelligent) design, and how very interesting that is.
But surely you know that, don’t you? You couldn’t have missed his main point, which everybody else gets, could you?
If you can twist this point around 180 degrees, you’re very special.
Not unusual—pretty typical of a creationist troll–just “special.” (Short bus special.)
That’d have to be a yes, j.
(You’re probably also a liar, but that’s the kind of really crappy lie typical of a lying moron. And you could well be insane, if you wanna go for the creationist troll hat trick.)
Michael: You fixed “what” for me. You didn’t fix anything.
actually, he did, you just don’t even grasp what it was that he fixed. Ignorance is bliss, eh? I know it’s a big word, but you’re a big boy now (aren’t you?) so I think you can handle it.
try reading this to understand what “teleology” means
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/
then you at least have some chance of understanding what it was Michael X fixed for you.
his cover-up explanation (that you all have already memorized already), is a complete joke.
uh, you mean his “coverup” that has existed as the same question in philosophical terms since long before Dawkins was born? you did note I made mention of the infinite regression issue, yes?
let me rephrase it for you:
It’s turtles, all the way down, baby!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
just because you are entirely ignorant of what he was actually referring to, hardly makes it a coverup on his part.
In fact, it’s your ignorance of the basic concepts being discussed, even in the film itself, that I find so damn amusing, and why I even bother to keep responding.
I keep wondering how much longer you will keep it up.
Oh noes Java! You got me. If only Dawkins had clearly written about such ideas far before Expelled had been written maybe then I’d have a leg to stand on. If only Richard could grasp the fact that in his explanations he was really endorsing ID, instead of dissecting it piece by piece.
Oh, wait. He has.
I’m drowning in the irony here.
If only that were true Paul. He’s just dumb enough to talk about the fact that he does it.
No… you boys/girls haven’t even come close to fixing anything except your own minds and egos. Try to obtain at least a reasonable level of maturity people… Disagreement does not equal ignorance. Arrogance does however equal Intolerance in most cases…
Good night fellows.
My favorite type of sign-off. The content free kind.
I’ll still wager that the vast majority who see the film will be too ignorant to be able to tell,
his cover-up explanation (that you all have already memorized already)wtf he is actually talking about, which isa completethe real joke.Try to obtain at least a reasonable level of maturity people… Disagreement does not equal ignorance. Arrogance does however equal Intolerance in most cases…
LOL
yeah, you sure told us alrighty.
what a maroon.
My apologies Michael X… I shouldn’t have “signed off content free.” I’ll leave you with this…
“Chance” and “information” are synonymous only in the empty mind of the Darwinist who wants to stand in the way of REAL answers to force their personal religious beliefs.
Good night again fellows.
Not only was that content-free, it wasn’t even grammatical.
Are you quoting some IDiot that you’re trying to mock?
Are you quoting some IDiot that you’re trying to mock?
I think he was trying to ape something Dembski wrote about, but probably is getting the “7th hand” version of the spiel, which was idiotic even coming straight from Dembski, the “Isaac Newton” of information theory.
:P
“chance” producing more “information”:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Polyploidy.html
strike
333? i dunno, I’ve actually lost track of just how many things poor Java got wrong today.Ignorance is no excuse, boy!
Speaking of which Java, you wouldn’t happen to have any predictions ID makes, it’s method of study or the mechanism by which it operates would you? Maybe even a published paper in a respectable journal documenting the empirical evidence supporting ID?
See, I’ve asked this to nearly every cdesign proponentist that waltzes through here and to no avail. So, please, please: what positive evidence do you have for your creationism? Er, ID. Whatever.
Well, I still think this thread was moribund, but now I see it’s become an ambush for Expelled supporters – who (hint) haven’t come out with anything new in the last few days.
How many more will perish before the thread itself does?
I guess… 3.
See, I’ve asked this to nearly every cdesign proponentist that waltzes through here and to no avail. So, please, please: what positive evidence do you have for your creationism? Er, ID. Whatever.
you’re expecting way too much of someone who isn’t even familiar with the concepts of teleology and turtles.
;)
still, I guess it’s another data point, yes?
you won’t even have to do statistics on this dataset.
I guess… 3.
oh no.
on any NORMAL thread, that would be a good guess.
here?
they will still be trickling in months from now.
I’m guessing at least a dozen more over the next 6 months.
btw, just to further freak out poor little Java…
Oh my Cthulhu, grant me to be the first to be eaten! a new species in a single generation!
I gots me the vapors!
:p
you’re expecting way too much of someone who isn’t even familiar with the concepts of teleology and turtles.
And I thought everyone knew Russell’s joke about Hindus and turtles! Troll, educate thyself.
As for “data points” that just reminds me of the recently departed Joe Blow. Now that was a troll. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one of that magnitude before him. And much a like a bright star, he burned too quickly and fizzled out.
Sadly for Java, he was doing much better when he was obfuscating the fact of how movie screenings work to an audience of mostly science types. Then it was only the few artists here with film experience who could confidently call him on his bullshit. But he’s really shown his lack of depth, when after being rebuked there, he ignorantly wades into biology, ID and Richard Dawkins. I almost have to pity him. Almost.
Seeing as the movie doesn’t come out till the 18th, and their webpage doesn’t actually change often, I’m guessing that nutters will trickle in at a steady rate here till after the movies release. Then I think everyone will back away from all the bad reviews in the mainstream press, and this tread will be laid to rest.
At that point Ben Stein will do a “documentary” about how the moon landing was faked and the evidence is being suppressed by Big Moon.
And I totally scored the 1600th comment. I’d like to thank all the little people. PIGMIES + DWARVES.
But he’s really shown his lack of depth, when after being rebuked there, he ignorantly wades into biology, ID and Richard Dawkins.
you mean, just like every other damn idiot creobot?
yeah.
it does get old after a while.
meh, I’m done for tonight.
May you and yours be eaten first.
cheers
Cripes!
You guys sound convincing.
Still, evidence will tell. As usual.
A beautiful conclusion to this thread :
http://cectic.com/129.html
Good morning everyone. That was a delightful bit of morning reading you left for me last night. I’m always amused at how “self proclaimed Intellects” feel it necessary to use intimidation when attempting to force their views down someone’s throat. Similar to a bad comedian who relies on potty humor to get a chuckle from the crowd. If you were truly confident in your views, you could easily argue your points without the need to belittle those who don’t agree… or understand.
One thing I don’t understand for sure is how most of you agree with Dawkins when he admits (in writing and in the film) that “no one” really knows how life began and yet you condemn a creationist for having a belief or an I.D. proponent who seeks a scientific answer. They are definitely not one in the same by the way… That you simply should attempt to accept. Why does it threaten you so much that some have an opinion and some continue to look for answers? Why would you want to suppress the rights of others? Are you satisfied with simply admitting “we don’t know” and leave it at that? You should be thankful there are those in the field of science brave enough to step forward and admit they have a different perspective and they want to discuss it openly and fairly. Those scientists should be admired… It’s not easy to go against the current. Especially not from the likes of you. But without brave souls willing to take an unpopular position, countless discoveries would never have been made.
One of you brought up my earlier comments on screenings. Again, you amusingly but incorrectly take the stand that one of you was right and I was wrong. No one in here set me strait on that, but again those attempts were made with intimidation rather than confident rebuttal so I simply walked away. Screenings have many uses throughout the course of the creation of a film. They are done at different stages of production and for entirely different reasons. One month out from a film release screenings have only a couple specific motives… 1) Media: Present the film to the media who can reach mass numbers with their reviews. It’s free advertising. Last I checked PZ is not part of the media. 2) Reach your grass roots market… those you know are interested in your type of product and will spread the word to like minded individuals. That late in the game you are not looking for “opinions.” It’s too late to make any changes so criticism is not the goal. What good would that do? The Q&A portion at the end of a screening has a completely different purpose 6 months prior to release than it does 4 weeks before. In the particular case of Expelled, there is a clear reason why the advertising for the screening was done on the Motive web site rather than on the main theatrical site. The Motive site is public, yes… but at the same time it is only marketed to the grass roots conservatives and for the most part, to churches. That is what Motive Marketing does. That is the only market they have. The invitations by Motive, were intended to those that are sympathetic to the issues of this movie. That is clear from the opening page on their web site. Even someone without a PHD can figure that one out… if they want to that is. So that brings us back to the original topic of this thread but begs the question… Did PZ really think he was accepting the invitation legitimately and honestly? Or was he already laughing hard to himself while standing in line with Dawkins only steps away from the screening room? The two of them were interviewed for the film. Do you not think they would have received a direct invitation to a screening if they were truly welcome? The two have done nothing but trash and threaten the producers in the media for over a year. Why would the producers feel compelled to invite them to a screening, only a few short weeks from the opening, just so they can do what Dawkins did which was write a trashing, biased review? PZ knows he was sneaking in somewhere he wasn’t really welcome. Bringing the family along was a nice touch. Some roll model.
I like ’em. I cannot lie.
javascript, go away. You really are ignorant (might want to look that one up before taking umbrage) and the hole just keeps gettin deeper as you continue to type your inanities.
Personally, I would not go so far as to call you a “moron.”
However, the following errors in your most recent post provide some positive evidence for that claim:
PHD
roll model
one in the same
an I.D. proponent who seeks a scientific answer
set me strait
(and several missing hyphens).
Plus you once again willfully conflate the issues of evolution and the origin of life. No, we don’t know how life started. We do have an excellent picture of what happened then though. Your claim that Mainstream Science is content with “we don’t know” as an answer and that the only people even asking questions about the origin of life are creationists (and, yes, ID is a subset thereof) is just so unforgivingly ignorant that I’m going to change my mind:
You are a moron.
No where does it say on the Expelled website…
If you accept evolution… or are actually in the movie, you aren’t welcome.
A free screening with an open invite at the website for the movie is just that. Unless of course they’re psychic and determine the “intent” of every person who requests to see the movie.
Javascript is another tool.
Now you acknowledge that you don’t understand?
Sigh…
Basic Science 101:
Look, no “ID” proponent is seeking any scientific answer. In fact, they are actively resistant to scientific answers, because they don’t even have a scientific question.
Basic science core concept: A scientific question; a scientific hypothesis, must be testable.
When Dawkins says that no-one really knows how life began, he means that none of the current hypotheses about the origin of life have yet been shown to work. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t being worked on. That simply means that the testable hypotheses of the origin of life have, so far, failed the current tests.
What is a testable hypothesis of the origin of life? It is one that is based on evidence.
Basic science core concept: A scientific question; a scientific hypothesis, must be based on the current evidence.
All of the evidence that we have for life is that it is a vastly complex organic chemical process. Everything you are can be broken down to chemical reactions of one sort or another. There is no evidence of anything like a non-material vital fluid; no evidence for a soul, a spirit, a ghost, a divine nature, a psychic body. Nothing like that has been found.
Therefore, all testable hypotheses for the origin of life involve chemistry; they look at the evidence that life is chemical, and try to come up with testable hypotheses that involve the evidence of chemistry.
In addition, “ID” is not just not testable, not just lacking in evidence; it is also fundamentally incoherent.
Basic science core concept: A scientific question; a scientific hypothesis, must be logically coherent.
When “ID” invokes a supposed divine creator, it completely fails to hold together logically. It makes the assumption that all natural models for the origin of life are false. This is not just not testable, this is assuming a negative proof. In addition, it is fundamentally contradictory: All models of intelligence that are known arise from the complexity of life. “ID” asserts that the complexity of life cannot arise without the preexistence of the complexity of intelligence. So by their own assumptions, the complexity of intelligence can never have arisen in the first place!
In contrast, all current models of the origin of life and its evolution include observations from evidence that complexity can arise without pre-existing intelligence.
Sigh. I spent too long composing this, and now I have to go. To be continued…
Owlmirror,
At least you responded in a mature, non-intimidating way. I respect you for that. But I can’t agree that professionals who study Intelligent Design are not seeking scientific answers. I don’t attempt to argue science because I am not a scientists. But the subject of this debate interests me so I’ve taken the time to listen to what Scientists and Biologists studying I.D. have to say. I’ve already heard from the strictly Evolutionist’s side all my life. It’s the only version taught in schools. But contrary to what you say I don’t hear any I.D. scientists or biologists talking about God or religion. They talk of the same things your esteemed and admired professionals do but ask different questions and make different assumptions based on the very same evidence. Many I.D. scientists are agnostic and have no religious beliefs at all. It is far too simplified of an argument to equate all I.D. to creationism in disguise.
But I know I’ll not convince this crowd. At least YOU had the maturity and patience to argue your point without stooping to name calling and intimidation. I thank you for that.
I’m sorry. This is simply wrong.
Steve C. said: <>
Steve, the invite was not on the “Expelled” web site. It was on the Motive Marketing “Get Expelled” web site. Go to the home page and read the intro paragraph. It’s pretty clear who they are welcoming.
Motive Site: http://www.getexpelled.com
Expelled Theatrical Site: http://www.expelledthemovie.com
Notice also there are three marketing credits posted on the Expelled web site, but only one on the Motive site. Different sites, different owners, different purposes, different messages, different target markets. There were no invitations to screenings offered on the Expelled site… None that I’ve seen anyway. Please, if I am wrong send me the url.
When I come on this web site I know I am on a site that is intended for those who think differently than I do. That is clearly why I am labeled a toll by many of you. Correct? So if I’m a troll for being in here… what was PZ when he went on the Motive grass roots web site? The funny thing is, many of you labeling me a troll, also post on the Expelled blog page. What does that make you? This group is big on labels… It’s cute sort of.
Owlmirror, you may want to update yourself on thermodynamics in physical chemistry before obfuscating the issue with a blanket reference.
Professor Gibbs of chemical fame would have you know that the synthesis of certain biological molecules is highly non-spontaneous. Only in the specialised environment of even the simplest procaryotic cell are activation energies lowered for anabolism to proceed efficiently. Without the aid of proteins, non-racemic mixtures of such molecules are also impossible.
That rules out abiogenesis. The ruling out of abiogenesis also rules out evolution, sadly.
What has your school been teaching you?
OBVIOUS APPEAL TO AUTHORITY IS OBVIOUS^
Please explain, in detail, specifically why one can not examine or even appreciate the cumulative changes between successive generations within a lineage of organisms, be it of orchids, bacteria, protozoa, algae, pigeons, pigs, apples, apple maggot flies, fruit flies, brontotheres, brachiopods, trilobites, or snails without understanding abiogenesis.
quirK, why do you think any process has to be “efficient”?
Why do you think origin of life is the same as change with time?
What is your school teaching you?
Wait, quirK’s just trotting-out long-debunked ID tropes.
OH, WHAT A SURPRISE.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB0
“Even the simplest life is incredibly complex”-check.
“DNA needs proteins to form; proteins need DNA”-check.
“Not all amino acids needed for life have been formed experimentally”-check.
“Evolution is baseless without a good theory of abiogenesis, which it does not have”-check, check, check.
Then, how come no one has informed either you, or Professor Gibbs of the fact that cell biologists and biochemists have been able to create “cell-free systems” where they take the protein-synthesizing mechanisms and ribosomes within either prokaryotic or eukaryotic cells out and placed the aforementioned mechanisms within test tubes to synthesize and modify proteins?
Really, people have been using these ‘systems to synthesize proteins for study for 1, maybe 2 decades already.
Sir or Madame javascript,
Then you are not really listening. And yet you allow yourself to believe your opinions are strongly supported by fact. Why? Even if we ignore Phil Johnson’s overtly Christian view of ID, there’s plenty of theistic chatter coming from the more science-literate lights of ID.
Are you aware that the original logo of the CRSC was a picture of Michaelangelo’s God reaching out to touch a strand of DNA?
And of course, it’s no secret that Wells is Sun Myung Moon’s “secret weapon” in pursuit of the publically stated goal of “destroying Darwinism.”
Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe I could spend the rest of the afternoon doing this. However, I have neither the time, nor the inclination. Feel free to go at it yourself, though, if you’re interested in adding to your personal store of knowledge.
Yes, I agree that some of these people are seeking scientific answers to their essentialy theistic questions. (Or, they intend to seek, if they ever figure out exactly how to do so.) The problem is not so much that they fail to seek, it’s that they fail to find – and yet, they want their non-findings to be given all the recognition and respect of the actual findings of 150 years worth of scientific inquiry which has yielded zoological, biological, bio-chemical, geological, paleontological and anthropological evidence in support of the theory as we know it today. And they dare cry foul? It’s ludicrous.
“As Christians, we know…”
We know. We just know.
Kinda says it all, doesn’t it?
Don’t you see the intellectually dishonest and inherently unscientific foundation to the entire enterprise of ID? They’ve already arrived at their conclusion, and are trying to filter the evidence to make it fit. To date, they have failed in that endeavor as well.
quirK:
Professor Gibbs… do you mean Professor Josiah Willard Gibbs (February 11, 1839 – April 28, 1903, says Wikipedia…)?
I’m sorry, are you trying to say that someone who died more than a century ago has the absolute last word on abiogenesis? Are you trying to say that all of the chemists and biochemists that have been working since 1903 have somehow managed to miss that abiogenesis is impossible? Or do you mean that they haven’t told anyone of this completely obvious fact?
Wait, what do we see when we follow the link to talkorigins?
quirK, again:
You mean, your school taught you to bear false witness; to speak from ignorance as though it was knowledge; to pretend that you actually know anything at all about a complex and difficult subject?
Where did you go to school?
quirK wrote:
Emphasis mine.
Hypothesis: quirK is a satirist.
Either that, or we’ve been lapped again.
. Similar to a bad comedian who relies on potty humor to get a chuckle from the crowd. If you were truly confident in your views, you could easily argue your points without the need to belittle those who don’t agree… or understand.
why not do both?
I gave you both clear explanations, AND mocked you for both your ignorance and your dishonesty.
frankly, I think the bases have been well covered wrt to you.
pwnd.
“That rules out abiogenesis. The ruling out of abiogenesis also rules out evolution, sadly.”
I’m sorry, but you really don’t know what you’re talking about here.
(Or, they intend to seek, if they ever figure out exactly how to do so.)
or they state they intend to seek, without ever having the intention of doing so.
which of course, is by far the most common case.
It’s all just an alternative career choice instead a legitimate one for guys like Luskin and Dembski and Wells.
you will never, ever, see them publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal testing any aspect of the concept of ID.
one, it isn’t even possible to formulate a testable hypothesis to begin with, and two, they never intended to anyway.
they intend just to make money off of ignorant rubes like Java, and use them as pawns in a power struggle. They are simply tasked with the extra job of furthering “evolution” as the next red-state rabble’s “hotbutton” issue, to help mobilize the morons as a voting block.
money and politics isn’t ALL that’s behind ID (Howard Ahmanson), but that’s by far and a away the largest part of the motivation behind those claiming to represent the “movement”.
folks like Java, being too wrapped up in their own ignorance and denial, just go along for the ride.
at some level, they even know this, yet are unable to stop themselves; out of fear, most likely.
I always find their usage of the Darwin->Hitler meme to be doubly ironic, as they indeed do remind me of the rabble that went along with the manipulations of Goehring and Goebbels in Nazi Germany.
maybe the reason the false meme rings a bell with them is because at some level, they realize the parallels.
http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/goering.jpg
unfortunately, as in all things, they form a shield of denial that they could so easily be duped, and at the same time, must project their own ignorance on to everything they see around them in order to rationalize it for themselves.
it’s beyond pathetic.
it’s disgusting.
@Morales
Quirk makes one new one.
are you going to keep track?
“That rules out abiogenesis. The ruling out of abiogenesis also rules out evolution, sadly.”
ummm…
Isn’t creation by a deity essentially abiogenesis?
like humans created from dust?
ergo, quirk has concluded we don’t exist.
fascinating, Spock.
This is of course the crux of Java’s entire argument against PZ’s attendance. Naturally, no where was such a statement made on Motive’s website. And thus PZ had no reason to believe that the open invitation to all who were interested (much less in the film) was not meant for him or anyone else for that matter with opposing views. That is how such screenings work, by bringing in those who are most motivated to see it and them creating buzz. The fact that unsympathetic people will also be motivated to see the movie is just part of the game, and they have every right to attend screenings such as those. Unless, Expelled *jazz hands* wishes to continue its rather uncommon stealth screenings in order to show the movie to only the faithful, Java hasn’t a leg to stand on with this proprietary argument.
My goodness, I feel so intimidating right now.
Oh, yeah, that reminds me:
So in other words, you do in fact explicitly agree that the film is nothing more than religious propaganda?
I’m going to rephrase the question I asked at #1244:
Are you seriously suggesting that the registration process should have included an ideological purity test of some sort? “I hereby swear and affirm that I am not now, nor ever have been, an atheist?”
Have you no sense of decency, Owlmirror?
Oh, and then there’s this:
There are very, very few “ID” scientists in the first place, and as far as I know, none of them are agnostic. I will admit that I’ve seen that some “ID” proponents are agnostic — but they are not scientists. As far as I can tell, they’re cranks.
And that line about “different assumptions based on the very same evidence” fails, too. I’ve already pointed out that “ID” has no evidence, no testability, and no coherency. But hey, maybe I missed something. Maybe there’s something I overlooked; something all of us atheists overlooked…
Except, there’s a little matter of a trial. A trial that gave “ID” proponents every chance to show that those “different assumptions based on the very same evidence” were indeed valid science…
A trial that was heard by a religious, conservative, Republican judge.
A trial where the best argument that the “ID” proponents could come up with, in the testimony of an “ID” scientist, was that hey, maybe evidence, testability, and coherence were over-rated, maybe even unnecessary, for something to be called science.
It was pointed out that this would allow astrology to be called science as well.
The religious, conservative, Republican judge listened to this, and to all of the other nonsense, and even sometimes genuinely false testimony by the “ID” team, and the evidence for evolution presented by the plaintiffs, and made his verdict very clearly on the side of the plaintiffs.
Now, the courts are not exactly laboratories, and judges are not (usually) scientists. But Judge Jones was presented with the basics of how science is defined by scientists, as refined over the past century. And he agreed that given that definition, “ID” is not science.
But hey, maybe Judge Jones got it wrong. Maybe he missed something.
Well, you know what? The entire trial transcript is online. You can Google for “Kitzmiller” and “Dover”, and find it in the first 10 hits. Go ahead. Sift through it. Give it to lawyers to sift through. Go nuts.
But you know, I’m going to bet that the religious, conservative, Republican judge didn’t make a mistake.
Eh, tell it to the judge.
There are very, very few “ID” scientists in the first place
oh, i think you can safely label that accurately and precisely as “none”.
why hedge it?
there really are, and simply CAN’T be such a thing as an “ID scientist”
It’s simply not possible without identify the identity and operation of a putative designer first.
It’s like saying we could have anthropologists… when there are no humans.
[*::pauses briefly from the various tasks involved in powering up the terawatt laser, warming up the deadly neurotoxin emitters, and aligning the deadly whirling knives armatures on the army of killer robots, as the countdown for the Doomsday device drones on in the background::*]
I’m sorry, I don’t quite get the point of your question.
You’re right, I was overtired when I typed all that.
For ‘”ID” scientist’, please read ‘scientists who happen to also be “ID” proponents’.
I think they’ve got a tiger by the tail with this movie. How do you control the public’s opinion of this film? The press will tear this film apart. Scientists will do the same. Strange. Ben Stein promoted Expelled as being brave and rebellious. But he also said that you could lose your job just by seeing this dangerous film. TZ, Ben was probably trying to save your job.
Does anyone know if TZ or Dawkins were thanked for their contribution to the movie in the credits? That would be funny. Normally, stars of films get the red carpet treatment.
Sean, if you mean PZ Myers by TZ, then yes, both he and Richard Dawkins were thanked in the closing credits.
Oh yeah? That’s nothing. I’ve seen worse.
#1636
Oh yeah? That’s nothing. I’ve seen worse.
Long live the new flesh. Wowwwwww.
How come the scientific community are always so afraid of being challenged on an idea ?
Neither Evolution or Creationism has been even close to proven as far as I am concerned.
Don’t be afraid of actually doing some work and finding the truth.
Repeating what you read in a book is not proof of anything other than you can read !!
Mocking others is not science it’s childish.
Don’t be afraid to think and don’t be afraid of the truth, Whatever the truth may be.
Newberry,
Science embraces new ideas as hypotheses. But here is the kicker. It discards those that fail to produce supporting evidence, as creationism (and it’s bastard child, ID) has done.
Evolution, on the other hand has large amounts of verifiable evidence, and happens constantly in the world around us. Evolution is fact, but the exact mechanisms and details are debated.
What we mock here isn’t beliefs, but ignorant beliefs, like, “Neither Evolution or Creationism has been even close to proven as far as I am concerned.”
Reality doesn’t wait for your consent, and is unconcerned with convincing you. However, to be an informed and scientifically literate citizen, you need to teach yourself. Don’t just rely on books, but go out and do some looking for yourself, especially in the peer reviewed primary literature. Interestingly enough, creationists /ID pushers have no research to point to. They have no testable hypothesis, no data, no publications that can pass peer review. They aren’t pursuing science, but self congratulatory egoism.
Pay attention to bacterial resistance in the news. Learn about polyploid organisms. Go to a spot where you can observe many layers of sedimentary rock and look at the different fossils separated by strata.
Every single experiment, with training and equipment can be replicated.
The other thing we mock are people who are dishonest or abuse the public interest. If someone comes in and is honestly interested in learning, we give them the resources to do so. But when someone simply repeats lies and slanders (evolution = Nazi but no offense) you could understand that we might get a bit pissy.
But if it would make you feel better, neener neener neener.
newberry makes 2.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200804/CUL20080402a.html
what’s your point in linking to a story that gets all the details wrong?
oh, that’s right.
you’re short-bus special that way.
Yeah? So?
You think we haven’t already seen the right-wing spin on these events, oh thou-who-abhors-the-spin-game?
Here’s another enlightening item from the same site.
Ichthyic, not sure if Newberry is an Expelled supporter or just a science denier. Close enough, since the former is a subset of the latter, so yeah, that’s two.
The new berry is ripe for the picking, but I can’t muster any enthusiasm for it other than to note that the exhortation at the end of the comment
lives up to the expected irony quotient.
My point was in response to many of you who have said that all the reviews of the movie are negative. I’ve shown you a couple that contradict you (from countless options), and you now say the positive reviews are wrong and right wing spin. Wow… now you claim authority over someone’s perspective. For a site that seems mostly full of Atheists there sure seems to be a great many of you who apparently think you are God.
For what it’s worth… here’s another view from someone who just saw the film and posted their review on the Expelled blog. This will give you guys something to rage at this evening… Have fun!
………..
LQQKinEast Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
E-X-P-E-L-L-E-D! (Movie Review, unabridged, and back by popular demand…)
Having just seen the screening, I was even more impressed than I thought I’d be at the sheer brilliance of Ben Stein, as well as the overall cinematic (I’m prone to look at films that way), technical and scientifically-credible (with NO evangelical agenda whatsoever!) quality of this amazingly riveting and most urgently necessary production.
At times I almost felt sorry for the bad guys. Again, almost. But it was rather unfair, like shooting fish in a barrel, the way that Ben, in his typically unassuming calm, silent assassin-like demeanor, single-handedly and cerebrally dismantled these unsuspecting but entirely deserving evolutionary/atheist-types…with the uncanny surgical precision and “hands” of a hungry Dr. Lector, preparing for dinner…
Almost like the first SugarRay/Hearnes fight, it was hard to figure who took the worst beating, PZ or Dick (Ooops, meant “Clint”)? In any case, I thought it was close…but you can decide for yourself who took the worst pummeling. (I mean these are very smart men, don’t forget: PZ & ‘da Dawkster! But…what comes out of their very own mouths during this film is just not to be believed! You’ll know what I mean on 4/18…)
It’s overwhelmingly clear that EXPELLED not only has, but will continue, in the days ahead, to ruffle some major feathers within the witless collective primordial soup of American evolutionary academia. And, of course, for all the right reasons! And…NOT A MINUTE too soon! Short review: WOW – what a film!
Conclusion: Dick and/or PZ are clearly NOT up for “Best Supporting” roles here! Instead, due to this historically unprecedented and most humiliating on-screen display of TRUTH-as well as darwinian shallacking, I’m not sure that Dick or PZ or any of their other conspiracy-minded Orc buddies will ever want to show their faces in public again!
I’d venture to say they’ll probably even have some trouble getting a table at the local hoot, the San Francisco Fraternal Order of Atheists Bar & Grill…
No matter what side of the fence you happen to be on, trust me…this film’s an absolute “MUST SEE” for EVERYONE!
P.S. – Popcorn was good, too!
Richard Dawkins got in – excellent! But this brings up a much more serious question. How long are we going to allow superstitious drivel like Expelled to be foisted on an ignorant public? As scientists it would appear that our duty is to ensure disinformation like this is stopped in it’s tracks. In the present political climate certain difficulties might arise but, eventually, we can work toward laws that can absolutely prevent presentations such as Expelled from being shown. We know the real truth, it is up to us to make sure the real truth is presented to the less educated of the world as absolute undisputed fact.
Wow… now you claim authority over someone’s perspective.
yes, I am Mentok the Mindtaker, and I claim authority not only over your perspective (weak minded one), but over your every thought!
Not asking… TAKING the mind…
now it’s time to take your meds, boy.
woooeeeeoooooo
Like we’d fall for your stupid BS, troll.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
eventually, we can work toward laws that can absolutely prevent presentations such as Expelled from being shown.
bad idea.
we don’t fight racism by banning racists from speaking.
we mock them for their stupidity openly.
same with creationists. Freedom of expression is a given; that doesn’t mean we can’t make fun of particularly stupid expressions, and the people who vent them.
look one post above yours to see the value.
Ichthyic, I suspect that “Joe” is a creationist agent provocateur. Am I correct, Joe?
Would that be called “bad reverse-parody trolling?”
Ichthyic, I suspect that “Joe” is a creationist agent provocateur. Am I correct, Joe?
Glen tapped that (it’s obviously just Java).
I figured I might as well attack the argument itself.
all bases covered.
Would that be called “bad reverse-parody trolling?”
hmm.
yes, I believe it would.
could you shorten that up a bit so we could include it in the urban lexicon?
barepat?
BuRP trolls
BuRP trolls
Ooh, give than man a cigar.
go man, go:
http://add.urbandictionary.com/definition.php?word=
Oh, no. I shan’t be entering it. I wouldn’t know what to do. You take the honor, you’re far more familiar than I.
Damn, Pharyngufest and BuRP Troll. I maked two terms up. I feelz gud and smrt.
“Freedom of expression is a given”
Freedom to express incorrect thoughts is presently a “given” in the United States, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Freedom of expression is not a given in large parts of the world now, and even European countries severely restrict certain expressions, sometimes resulting in criminal charges. My point is that the idea that any idiot can say any silly thing and try to convince others it is true is outdated. As scientists who know the truth it is our duty to promulgate the truth and, when the time comes make sure the bearers of untruth are silenced.
ooh, ooh, I hope I’m not stepping on Jeff’s toes here, but…
when the time comes make sure the bearers of untruth are silenced.
BuRP troll!
I think we could maybe also just use *belch* as a shorthand
I’m not sure BuRP Trolls count. So I still make it 2.
javascript #1645: that piece of smarm is not a review; it’s an encomium which seems indistinguishable from a piece written by someone who has not actually seen the film.
Fixed.
Ah, javascript. I’m so disappointed in you. I had the vague hope — very slight, to be sure, yet still a hope — that on writing a rather detailed set of explanations on why “ID” is not science, you might re-think your advocacy of the film. Instead, you pull this. Oh, well.
Who are the “many” here who said that “all the reviews of the movie are negative”? Especially since those who were actually following the thread know that there were at least two positive reviews that were linked to and quoted shortly after the screening?
Indeed, taking the time to simply search on the word “review” in this thread, it certainly looks like you misread comment #1559. The author of that comment wrote “various reviewers”, and you mistook that to mean “all”. You’re the only one who did that. Your mistake.
They certainly have all been creationist and religiously and ideologically biased spin.
And yes, they are all wrong. No-one who was knowledgeable and intellectually honest would be in the least supportive of the idea that Darwin’s theory of evolution — and the theory of evolution alone, out of all the ideas and trends that were going on in Germany — led to the Holocaust. It is simply wrong, false, and incorrect to even suggest that a scientific theory, in and of itself, is somehow at fault. PZ Myers has already addressed this with the posting titled “The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled“, and in many, many other postings on that particular topic.
For that matter, it is also simply wrong, false, and incorrect to exclude Christian anti-Judaism among the German populace, and Hitler’s appeals to Christian anti-Judaism in his speeches. And that’s just one social trend that is incorrectly excluded.
There are facts, and there are falsehoods, and since Expelled rejects and denies facts, and propagates falsehoods, any positive reviews are necessarily doing the same.
yeah, I can imagine doing just that, right in anyone’s face who came up to me in a bar and actually said something like that.
Joe does not appear to be a fan of Voltaire*.
*please don’t start with me on the issue of whether Voltaire ever actually uttered the now famous phrase that is the obvious reference here.
I’m not sure BuRP Trolls count. So I still make it 2.
agreed.
“Certain expressions”? Why not specify them? Come now, what countries are these, and what expressions do they severely restrict?
The only one I can think of is Germany suppressing expressions of Nazism. What else?
Oh, the irony…
You mean, like idiots who try to convince others that freedom of expression is outdated? That sort of silly thing?
#1663 owlmirror wrote:
But it did! And that’s why, with evolution almost universally accepted in the scientific community, the world is currently one vast Nazi empire, with swastikas all over the place!
sorry for the late response:
Javascript is another tool.
thankyou!
I’ve been trying to tell people for years that it’s not a proper programming language.
;)
But it did! And that’s why, with evolution almost universally accepted in the scientific community, the world is currently one vast Nazi empire, with swastikas all over the place!
or rather:
Darwin–>George Bush
Have we just witnessed a corollary to Poe’s Law? Something along the lines of ‘creationists cannot create parodies of evolutionists that cannot be detected as parodies by actual evolutionists.’
Something along the lines of ‘creationists cannot create parodies of evolutionists that cannot be detected as parodies by actual evolutionists.’
again, I believe that is correct.
How would you go about documenting it for addition to the wiki on Poe’s law, though?
Some questions about the movie for javascript:
First off, does Ben Stein specifically explain exactly what sort of benefits Intelligent Design proponents would add to Mainstream Science if they were allowed to participate in Mainstream Science?
Does Ben Stein specifically state how Intelligent Design “theory” describes the diversity of life as we know better than the Theory of Evolution?
Does Ben Stein show us how Adolf Hitler was inspired by Charles Darwin, even though none of Hitler’s speeches, writings, memoirs or other missives, or even the journals, memoirs, and other missives of Hitler’s aides, and servants suggest that Hitler knew very little of Biology, and suggest that Hitler never so much as approached “On The Origin of Species”?
Does Ben Stein show us how Josef Stalin was inspired by Charles Darwin to allow him to hire one Trofim Lysenko, an agronomist who rejected Darwinian Evolution in favor of Lamarckian Evolution, an action that lead to Trofim Lysenko literally single-handedly crippling both Soviet Agriculture and Soviet Biology for literally decades?
Holy mother of god! What hypocrisy! Every post Javascript has made here has been an attempt to claim authority over opposing perspectives. Also, the linked CNS article was nothing more than the right-wing slant on the events involving PZM and RD, it wasn’t a review! Just look at the language: “Infiltrate”… etc. Not to mention this rather misleading lie:
This site is outstanding and this thread is incredible. I was led here by one of the blogs i regularly read the night of the screening and contributed a post and bookmarked the address. Cruising through my bookmarks 4 hours ago I return and find “it is still alive.”
The original issue at the “origins” of this thread has mutated and the thread has evolved into FLYPAPER. A more perfect example of natural selection could not be replicated. The prey goes to the hunter; fabulous.
I have made an observation of two characteristics that are common to the ID grouping; projection and denial. There are many others, but these two seem to be consistent in most individuals of the ID group.
I tip my hat to my fellow travelers for the hours of pleasure you have provided. Thank you and no, I can not join your club, but I will defend your right to worship the great god Darwin to my death.
“It moves…”
I have made an observation of two characteristics that are common to the ID grouping; projection and denial.
congratulations!
you’re absolutely correct.
I have over 1000 data points now, and less than a handful didn’t exhibit both of these psychological defense mechanisms in their most extreme forms.
One of these days, I’m gonna write a book about it, and focus on the approach that all of these creationists exhibit the exact same behavioral psychology as any cult indoctrinee, and should be approached in the exact same fashion.
Congratulations, you have become a propaganda tool for the very movie and movement you despise. I seriously cannot believe how intelligent men like yourselves have been drawn in by such an obvious ploy…
Bah. MutualDisdain makes number 3.
I should’ve known better.
I am seriously beginning to see how these men were drawn into giving interviews for this movie. Their ego outweighs their common sense. Why give this movie free propaganda?
If I were a conspiracy theorists I would look for a financial connection between Meyers and the movie, but I think what we are really seeing here is intelligent men being tricked by theists.
As has been said several times, MD, they were tricked by the fact that the movie was described to them as looking at the issue from a neutral perspective
and the reason they exposed it was so we could laugh at it and belittle the makers of the film, thus negating its effects
MutualDisdain #1678: (#682->#689)
But isn’t Joe’s “bad reverse-parody trolling” so revealing! He has to fabricate evidence of sinister motives obviously because he can’t find any real evidence. Can’t find a single “Darwinist” threatening free speech on the internet.
On the bright side, this kind of role-playing could force Joe (or his friends) to bone up on the arguments of the other side – so as to look more realistic. This could be dangerous for Joe. And when you look at what he says — other than the crazy censorship argument, I think he’s starting to swing.
I should’ve known better.
:)
it’s just experience.
Here’s an hypothesis: Creationists are less likely to be able to convince evolutionists of a parody of them than vice-versa.
The results should help to decide which group is best versed with the opposing argument. Although, it could also be influenced by other factors such as intelligence, satirical skills and imagination. Hmmm, is it unethical to put money on the results?
Myers will probably have no trouble seeing it as soon as it is released to the public. I think it was a good idea to save his seat for someone who actually wants to hear the truth for once.
wouldntulike2know?
No, not really.
Have fun with the persecution complex though.
What is the truth, wouldntyoulike2know?
Is it what’s supported by the evidence, or your favourite fairytale?
This is just unbelievable. A police officer tells someone they are not allowed to go in and watch a movie, simply because the manager said so, and is escorted off the premises…yet in Canada, a night club gets sued because it doesnt want to let in a couple Sikh’s.
Yeah, I’m sure that’s why they expelled him; because they were short a seat.
On any other thread, that would have been a strong contender for most idiotic suggestion to date, but here, I’m afraid you’ll have to try much harder.
An absolute classic! Well done for keeping your cool PZ, the people behind the movie are always going to make fools of themselves.
Must we really be so troubled by this movie? There have been numerous attempts my ID promoters who are really nothing but partisan theists attempting to promote their religion; to question the voracity of Evolution and each attempt has been more miserable than its predecessor…
nom nom nom
nope, the trolls don’t taste very good.
that’s *one* way to damp the voracity of Evolution.
ps to Kapil — I hope that comment didn’t come across as too harsh. I was just playing with similar-sounding words and their meanings, and anyone, whether a native English speaker or not, can make a typo. so if I was a jerk, please forgive me :)
So has javascript attempted to answer my questions about “Expelled” yet?
Quote from above
“Freedom of expression is a given”
Freedom to express incorrect thoughts is presently a “given” in the United States, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Freedom of expression is not a given in large parts of the world now, and even European countries severely restrict certain expressions, sometimes resulting in criminal charges. My point is that the idea that any idiot can say any silly thing and try to convince others it is true is outdated. As scientists who know the truth it is our duty to promulgate the truth and, when the time comes make sure the bearers of untruth are silenced.
Yoke responds:
So speaks the voice of every oppressor that has ever lived. Those who perceive themselves to be in the right always believe they have the right to suppress every other point of view and do so with whatever force they can muster. Woe to the man who knows the truth to be different than those in power and shares that knowledge.
Perhaps you are the idiot saying the silly thing that should be silenced by those who know better ? I will agree with your opinion if I have equal rights to apply it to you. I’m sure that Galileo would have liked to apply that rule to those who were applying it to HIM when they asserted with all their might that the earth was the center of the universe and forced him to recant his belief that the sun was the center of the solar system and to live under house arrest for the remainder of his life for daring to express a different view from that of those in power.
Whether you place the power in the hands of religious fanatics or in the hands of scientific fanatics (whose discoveries this year constantly disprove last years theories) the result is still tyranny. What you are saying basically is that anyone who believes themselves to be the holder of truth has the right to deny others the right to speak a different opinion. You are saying that any majority that styles itself as “the experts” on the subject (and wholeheartedly believes it) has the right to determine that they alone speak the truth and to suppress all other opinion and views through force.
It seems to me that you forget, as do all tyrants, that your rights end where mine begin. And in saying that “freedom of expression” is not a given elsewhere you are merely pointing to tyranny in other parts of the world as the reason why it ought to obtain in this situation.
My American ancestors fought to throw off the yoke of the very same tyranny – the opinion of those holding power that they had the only viewpoint and the only right to speak. I believe I begin to understand why they did.
Yoke
“scientific fanatics (whose discoveries this year constantly disprove last years theories)”
Well, at least they’re scientific in their fanaticism.
Yokel, Joe’s message is disingenuous. Or are you in on it?
Generally speaking, if you let a thousand voices be heard, you only have to listen to the ten or so that are actually making any sense
it’s when the people in power can’t detect sense that we’re in trouble
In on what ? I’m just an ordinary reader that happened to stop by to see what all the fuss was about. I found his comment offensive and responded to it.
disingenuous
: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating
In what way ?
Yoke
wazza said: Generally speaking, if you let a thousand voices be heard, you only have to listen to the ten or so that are actually making any sense
it’s when the people in power can’t detect sense that we’re in trouble
Yoke says:
I’ve read quite a bit tonight … on this site, on Dawkins site, on the Expelled site. I came to it cold, knowing nothing about any of it until someone mentioned this documentary to me and I started to research it. It seems to me that it’s not really about who’s making sense … it’s about what it’s always about … ego, arrogance, power, control and force.
Yoke
After scanning the rest of the thread I see what you mean by disingenuous.
Lacking in candor … there’s a lot of dishonest posting going on at all three boards. Guess I’ll go on to bed – it’d be more productive.
Yoke
Well, scientists and their supporters have a certain level of truth and hold to that. We use that to find out real things. ID followers are called IDiots in our circles because they don’t adhere to that level of truth. In fact, they lie. We don’t like it when they lie, particularly as they want their lies to be taught as truth in public schools. That’s why we get into this.
The ego trip of being able to rip someone else’s arguments apart is just a pleasant side effect
Yoke…
How to put this in terms you understand?
Intelligent Design “theory” is a pseudoscience, and its proponents have demonstrated that they are not interested in making any positive contributions with or even about Intelligent Design “theory” to science at all. In fact, Intelligent Design proponents tend display a gross ignorance of Biology and science are done, in general, too.
That being said, Intelligent Design proponents, especially those of the Discovery Institute, want Intelligent Design “theory” taught in schools, despite the fact that Intelligent Design “theory” does nothing to explain anything, specifically in order to make science more “Christian friendly,” even though transforming Science from a meritocracy into a theocracy would destroy it utterly.
Having said that, Yoke, I must ask you: Do you want people to force children to learn nonsense as fact, and reject reality for piety’s sake? This is what the people behind “Expelled!” want, you do realize.
hmm, I’m wondering if you all are taking Yoke’s comments the wrong way.
I took them as an attack on “Joe’s” BuRP, where it tried to defend the use of repression in other places to rationalize it’s ridiculous notions that there should be repression here.
Yoke might or might not be aware of the status of ID, but I rather think he was attacking the arguments put up by “Joe” (AKA-little girly javascript).
However, it’s late; I might have missed something.
Ichthyic, I agree – but “Joe” may have succeeded, to a degree, by making Yoke believe that “Joe”‘s comment in some way represented the “scientist” point of view.
I could be wrong…. yeah it’s late here, too, and I’m not re-reading it all now. LOL. Time for bed.
All evloutionist who arrogantly deney the very exsistance of our creator will become creationist a moment after their unescapable death. Believers seek only to save them from eternal separation from our loving creator God by introducing them to the only one who can save them Jesus Christ.
All evloutionist who arrogantly deney the very exsistance of our creator will become creationist a moment after their unescapable death. Believers seek only to save them from eternal separation from our loving creator God by introducing them to the only one who can save them Jesus Christ.
All evloutionist who arrogantly deney the very exsistance of our creator will become creationist a moment after their unescapable death. Believers seek only to save them from eternal separation from our loving creator God by introducing them to the only one who can save them Jesus Christ.
Did you think that posting this silly, childish blather three times would make it less silly and childish, DJR?
Go on back and play with your blocks and your book of fairy stories, boy. The grownups are talking.
[deadmikeg]
Holy crap, you’re real? Wow. You coulda left some better clues. Oh well, you’re benevolent, right? No? Cast into a lake of fire, eh?
Well, fuck you too!
[/deadmikeg]
I have to admit, I am quite newly exposed to both sides of the ID issue. I have just finished Michael Crichton’s book, “State of Fear” and quite recently finished Charles Darwin’s book, “The Origin of Species”.
Crichton speaks at the end of the book of something called Eugenics, and the support it had in the early 1900’s. I am just now reading about this and the horror it brought about in the 1930’s and 1940’s.
Darwin spoke of the “gorilla” and the “Negro” [sic] as occupying evolutionary positions between the “Baboon” and the “civilized races of man” (“Caucasian”). “At some future period,” said Darwin, “…the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.”
I see the two of these ideas, Macro Evolution and Eugenics as being linked, or at least supporting each other.
So my question is, if we all did evolve, then are we not by definition of the theory of evolution able to claim superiority of one race over another? How could this be morally wrong if this is the basis of the origin of the species?
Not taking either side yet, but this seems to be a fairly intellectually oriented place to ask the question without getting too badly flamed. I look forward to reasonably thought out comments.
What evolution actually demonstrates is that all life forms are connected. The idea of eugenics did not in fact originate with Darwin’s theory. Animal breeders for centuries have been artificially selecting for various traits. Darwin’s real innovation was to discover that nature, all on its own, engages in a selection process as well.
“Social Darwinism,” however, is a pseudoscience under which practices like eugenics justified themselves in the 20th century. Racists and bad people all through history have tried to find ways to justify themselves both morally and intellectually, and both religion and science have been employed in such justifications. The fact is, there’s a vast difference between understanding the principles of evolution as a fact of biology, and trying to adopt them as some kind of moral imperative. It’s only people who misunderstand what science really is, or who simply want validation for a preferred ideology, who think evolution somehow validates ideas about presumed “superiority.” (In fact, there’s nothing whatsoever in evolution that backs up the idea that there is fundamentally any difference at all between races in homo sapiens; the only reason difference races exist in humans is due to genetic drift, but there’s no science that supports the idea one race — blacks, whites, Asians, whatever — is “superior” to the other.)
In short, science does not make moral arguments. It simply shows us reality as it is. If people want to attach moral justifications to things and make phony scientific arguments backing them up, well, that’s ideology speaking, not science.
DR,
I’m afraid you’re still stuck with the idea of the “Great Chain of Being,” i.e. that there is a long and linear history of evolution that ultimately culminates in us humans (or in the era in which Darwin was writing, white, English humans). First to address that: there is no higher or lower. The living great apes have been evolving exactly as long as we have. So have the nematodes and the oak trees. There is no “Great Chain”. Every living species has had around 4 billion years to find it’s niche and adapt using the history and toolkit its ancestors have given it. We are no more evolved than a parakeet, we just have a different history.
On to race and Eugenics:
I haven’t read Origins in a long time, but you have to remember when he was writing. The slave trade was nearing its end, but was still going, and Darwin himself (born on the same day as Lincoln) was fairly enlightened regarding race (modern use) for his time. His use of the word “race” in origins is more closely related to what we would now call a species, or strain.
Moreover, what Darwin was describing was what he saw in the natural world, and how he thought it may have happened. It turns out that many of his ideas about natural selection and coral atoll formation were right, but they were descriptive, not prescriptive. They described what was, not what ought to be.
Once more information came along over the last 150 years, we have learned a crapload more about how evolution works, and it remains descriptive, not prescriptive. we have learned that race (modern sense) is almost wholly illusory. As Zimmer put it (paraphrased from Evolution: triumph of an idea) “You could wipe out all humans on the planet, except for a small population in a small valley on Papua New Guinea and still preserve 85% of human genetic variation.”
In other words, Eugenics was a really horrid, nasty, evil and capricious thing that is rightly relegated to the compost heap of human history. If the genetics of race are not showing reality, how can we say the genetics of those perceived as “imbeciles” are not also illusory?
Further, evolution requires variety of genetics to select from. Reducing variety can spell doom for a species should the environment change. Systematically culling a group or groups of humans could have nasty, long term consequences.
Well, I guess I better end it there. I hope that helps, and I am sure others will be around to elaborate and berate me for getting wrong whatever I got wrong.
And Martin beats me to the punch. Well said.
“Certain expressions”? Why not specify them? Come now, what countries are these, and what expressions do they severely restrict?
The only one I can think of is Germany suppressing expressions of Nazism. What else?”
Several examples from Wikipedia should suffice:
On 10 June 2004 Bardot was convicted by a French court of “inciting racial hatred” and fined 5,000 Euros, the fourth such conviction/fine she has faced from French courts. The courts cited passages where Bardot referred to the “Islamisation of France” and the “underground and dangerous infiltration of Islam”
Holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 13 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland.
Therefore there is a significant and growing legal precedent for suppressing the expression of ideas that are incorrect or unacceptable. We, as scientists, work hard to prevent the presentation of silly ideas like ID in schools. Teaching of Charles Darwin’s theories without superstitious folderol is needed to properly educate young minds. Someday we may be able to totally suppress outrageous superstition like ID and religion in general. Some of the posters here seem to be a little uncomfortable with the idea but an absolutely guaranteed “freedom from religion” backed by laws similar to above is necessary and desirable.
DR: “Darwin spoke of the “gorilla” and the “Negro” [sic] as occupying evolutionary positions between the “Baboon” and the “civilized races of man” (“Caucasian”).”
Nobody is under any obligation to accept everything Darwin believed. Likewise, we need not agree with every one of Newton’s ideas in order to accept a scientific understanding of physics. These were fallible human beings, men of their own times and places. Modern evolutionary biology is far more the theories of Darwin and it does not include all of Darwin’s ideas.
More specifically, the notions that some human populations (or “races”) are closer to nonhuman apes or are inferior to other populations is now known to be totally wrong. Thomas Jefferson held similar racist views, and we do not have to accept them in order to value his political and scholarly contributions.
That’s not how it works. In Austria and AFAIK Germany, what is actually forbidden is “to make National Socialism appear harmless”. The reasoning behind this is that, after having been to school (and there is no homeschooling), you cannot possibly be so ignorant as to actually believe NS was a remotely good thing — so, if you claim so anyway, it is considered proven that you have an ulterior motive, namely, abolishing the very freedom of expression you probably whine about.
(Wow. Over 1700 comments. Incredible.)
That’s not how it works. In Austria and AFAIK Germany, what is actually forbidden is “to make National Socialism appear harmless”. The reasoning behind this is that, after having been to school (and there is no homeschooling), you cannot possibly be so ignorant as to actually believe NS was a remotely good thing — so, if you claim so anyway, it is considered proven that you have an ulterior motive, namely, abolishing the very freedom of expression you probably whine about.
(Wow. Over 1700 comments. Incredible.)
people, you aren’t paying enough attention.
DR=DJR=Joe=Javascript
all the same person, having fun wanking.
Fantastic!
MikeG Not stuck yet! Still in the infantile questioning phase, thus very open to understanding the what’s and why’s. Thanks for the great post, gives me a good line to research.
Others, thanks for understanding that I am still getting up to speed, and your comments help direct that path.
Back to MikeG, You stated:
“As Zimmer put it (paraphrased from Evolution: triumph of an idea) “You could wipe out all humans on the planet, except for a small population in a small valley on Papua New Guinea and still preserve 85% of human genetic variation.””
What I am reading is that the separations between different lines of life, trees – vs – a small child in New York, is very small, genetically. I seem to have read that there is a 2% or something difference in the DNA code. (Yikes! I might be wrong with the number, but the question I have is still the same.)
The question is: If there is such a small difference between most living things, does this not lead us back to 1 (symbolically) pool of murk that “we all” sprang from?
Here is where I am going. Going back as far as we need to, pick a date or time, and there was no life on Earth. There was then, again at some point of your choosing, an “event” that fostered “life”. In my way of thinking, a entity that was able to divide itself, or be divided, in such a way that the genetic code of the “parent” was carried over to the “child” or “other”. (Trying REALLY hard not to get caught in the terminology.) (or theocracy!)
Is it better to think that this “life” was a one time thing, and then other life emerged from this one pool, or were there many pools over many different locations from which life emerged?
Thanks!
Ichthyic,
No, I am not DR=DJR=Joe=Javascript
I am asking questions about this topic. One of the first things that I read was to be very suspicious of those who choose not to engage in debate, but simply flame and berate. I honestly hope that you are more intellectually honest then to be one of the latter.
If you would like to help elucidate me on my questions, I would greatly appreciate it. If on the other hand you would like to ignore what I am asking, and simple try and convince people to not pay attention to what I am asking because you are not equipped to help answer them, please just keep to yourself. I would really appreciate it.
(And if you do not want me to ask questions, what then is your point in posting?)
Cheers!
This is what you call science? You’re trying to sneak into a movie, which before even seeing it you call propaganda, with the expressed purpose to try and debunk it?? Again, you call that science? I’d hate to imagine how you approach a real problem!!
This is what you call science?
No, Jason. It’s what we call going to a movie that we’re in, that we also have a legitimate pass to see. While scientists arn’t always doing science at every waking moment, I do see that IDiots have a phenomenal capacity for continuous stupidity.
Hi PZ, this is pretty damn funny.
I hope you got that officer’s name and you should write a complaint to the police department. He had no right to arrest you for that!
Just to add to the already absurd size of this comment thread, here’s a quick correction to Nick Dellhall (#1721!): PZ wasn’t arrested. He was just told to leave the theater by a security guard (though he was threatened with arrest for trespassing if he didn’t comply). PZ, of course, did ask he was asked and didn’t make a scene.
Actually, PZ does present “ID” in his introductory classes. He does so in order to explain why “ID” is not acceptable as science; why it has no evidence, no testability, and no coherence.
The conflict over “ID” is not one over expression of ideas, but rather over labeling; over proper strict definitions of science.
Proper teaching of science is only useful if it imparts the general methodology of science; if the explanations given include mention older, more naive explanations, and why they are wrong.
But once the explanation of the methodology is taught, and the falsifications of the incorrect theories are taught, we no longer need to penalize the incorrect theories. Those who still adhere to the incorrect will be known by the rest of the populace to be deluded. It will be known not just that they are wrong, but far more importantly, why their arguments are wrong. No further penalties are necessary.
Your use of the phrase “Charles Darwin’s theories” is suspicious, since while his basic biological theory is accepted, we do also know that he got some things absolutely wrong. And we teach those mistakes, and why they are wrong, just as much as we teach why “ID” is wrong.
The proper phrase would be “modern evolutionary biology”.
Wrong. Simply, absolutely, utterly wrong. Science does not progress by having any ideas outlawed. Science only progresses by having the same standards for all ideas offered: evidence-based, coherent, and at least in some way testable.
Just as an irrelevant digression: Are you the same Joe who posted in the “ahistorical garbage” thread? A devil’s advocate argument against religion does seem like something a socialist mystic Catholic might come up with. But sometimes I see patterns where none actually exist…
This is really great. Could you guys suggest other places to read/blog on the topic(s) of ID/Evolution?
Seem sto me to be fasinating stuff, and at ~1721 posts, a fairly open topic.
Ichthyic, I would even be happy to register to post someplace so that you feel better about who I am or might be. :-)
Ichthyic: warning duly noted, but on the off chance DR is an honest broker in this discussion, I’ll try to answer his/her questions.
DR,
It seems I may not have made myself clear in my last comment. Let me grab a beer and think of another way to say it…
the genetic differences between a tree in central park and the hypothetical child sitting under it are indeed great. Our last common ancestor was a very long time ago: the first animals (very, very simple multicellular creatures) are already separate from the plants’ ancestors at least 600 million years ago. Lots of time for major genetic changes to occur. The point I was trying to make in the first bit of my last post was that both the plants and what would eventually, through happy accident, lead to us, have both been evolving the same amount of time. I was trying to dispel the myth of the “great chain”.
The more closely related organisms are to each other (think almost like cousins, but with whole populations rather than individuals), the more they will have in common, genetically. We and chimps (very close cousins indeed, only about 7 million years separated) share 99% or so of our genomes. Our second cousins, the macaques (maybe 3rd cousins, separated about 25 million years ago) share less. A 234562th cousin twice removed (approximate ;-P ) like the Oak in central park shares some basic genes and pathways but is very different genetically.
Going back far enough, before compartmentalization of the first cells, it’s possible that there was kind of a great genetic ooze experiment. About 4 billion years ago life may not have been divided into nice cells like we are used to. Bits of chemistry may have been swapping pathways and competing for resources. Eventually a few got really good at competing, while still swapping pathways, that they beat out the others. The really early stuff like that is very fuzzy and not too well understood, but the mental picture I have found useful s to think of a red mangrove: lots of prop roots eventually coming together into a trunk that almost immediately splits into 3 (bacteria, eukarya and archea) but even then, there are connections between the 3 stalks. Eukaryotes got a type of bacteria that became our mitochondria, and we kept them around. Then a group of eukaryotes engulfed a type of cyanobacteria that became that Oak’s chloroplasts. The bacteria (you’re familiar with those) and the archea (they look like bacteria, but are genetically as different from bacteria as we are) have been swapping the occasional gene ever since the split.
So the answer to your question is yes, but no. We did all spring forth from a single common gene pool (waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy back) but there really is much more than a 2% difference between us and trees. Heck, our closest living cousins are 1% different, and we split a geologic “nanosecond” ago.
This really long term stuff is hard to visualize. I mean, really on human terms, how the hell do you picture a billion years when our life span is .0000001 times that? And the Earth has been here almost 5 times that long and life, it appears, didn’t waste any time getting started!
Does that help? I’m sorry if this was rambling, but I’m avoiding writing a paper and a portion of my brain is elsewhere.
Wow, that was long-winded. Sorry for my logorrhea.
DR, some of the more modern popular evolution writings might be up your alley.
I have a fondness for anything by Carl Zimmer. He is able to present complex topics without jargon in a very entertaining, readable and informative way.
May I suggest Evolution as a nice introduction to the development of the theory of evolution from before Darwin’s time through today.
DR:
Try these:
The TalkOrigins Archive
Palaeos: The Trace of Life on Earth
Talk Origins is not only has a world of information about evolution, but it also deals with many of the creationist and ID arguments, as well. It is a little outdated now, but most of it is still entirely relevant.
Enjoy!
Oh, and DR,
Ichy is one of the good guys. He’s a bit gruff, but once you get to know him, he’s got some really great insight. It’s just that we’ve seen so many commenters open with the “I just have some honest questions” line who turned out to have nothing of the sort that we’ve all become a bit jaded.
Yes, that is great MikeG. The 2 items I am trying to contemplate are:
1) There was a shared pool, thus the similarities of all living things will be there throughout the variations, so the similarities prove the common ancestry, even waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy back) :-)
2) The data that I am reading about now suggests that there is a need for very long periods of time, and very harsh forks in the evolutionary path.
The tough part that I am working through right now is back to your point that our life span is .0000001 times less then a billion years of evolution, and Darwin brought us this thought just a couple dozen decades ago, and we crawled out of mud huts in the last 5000 years… And now I am faced with the fact that my father did not have a color TV, and my kids can’t imagine life without a microwave and the Internet. So the point I am trying to understand it, where is this all leading us, and what is the point?
Seems to me that our collective intelligence is gaining speed. That being the case, what is it that we can learn from evolution that will help us in the future? And increase the speed of our body of knowledge?
And you are right, the really long term stuff is hard to visualize. (Makes me think of Carl Sagen (spelling?) and his Billions, and Billions of ……)
It’s Sagan, and he never actually said “billions and billions,” that was from an SNL skit. (Funny skit, too.)
I totally understand the trouble with huge time scales. I have the same trouble with huge distances (how the hell do you envision a light-year?) and speed (light goes from the sun to us in 8 minutes? WTF?)
As for your concerns about where are we going and what is the point… well…
What if there isn’t a point? We just do what we do, as does every other living thing on the planet. Try to survive, reproduce. The nice, lucky, thing is that we evolved as a social species with enough intelligence to ask these questions, love, have fun and make our own point.
It’s a pretty frickin cool thing, ain’t it?
MikeG,
“I just have some honest questions”
Yes, I can understand that. Mine might be better classified as:
“I just have some ignorant questions”
Thanks all for the sites/books. I just bought:
Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea (Hardcover) from Amazon, and I will look at the other sites.
Just a follow on comment about this thread. I got here due to a link a friend sent me about going to the movie, Expelled. That brought me to read more about it. Then I found this thread, and posted, and then bought a book. That just about proves evolution to me, and should be a point of rejoicing for the huddled masses here that the movie did, at least, have 1 good outcome. I brought me to the point of asking questions, and that should be the basis for any body of thought. To make us think, question, and then draw conclusions. I am going to go see the movie, most likely on DVD from blockbuster. (I have the online subscription so I don’t have to schlep about the theater.) And I will read the book and other sites. From there I hope to have more questions then I do now, and with luck, a more solid base from which to ask them. I thank you all for your time, and answers. I think that I will stop posting here as the thread has gotten to the length of ludicrous.
Thanks all.
DR,
Have fun. There’s a whole lot of really cool stuff to learn.
Thanks for an engaging chat.
And there was much rejoicing on ScienceBlogs! (I can’t find a youtube clip of Monty Python Holy Grail to link to.)
Before you go, DR, there is a site that will be gathering all of the counter arguments to the film – Expelled Exposed, by the NCSE (National Center for Science Education).
It may seem a little excessive, but this film makes some very serious charges which will fool an awful lot of people. Apparently, though I haven’t yet seen the film, it tries to make a link that suggests that “Evolution leads to Atheism, leads to Eugenics, and to Nazism and the Holocaust.”
It is extremely poor scholarship and historically inaccurate, of course, but that doesn’t matter to the makers of the film. They aren’t engaging in an honest discourse, unfortunately. It seems that, if you don’t have the evidence to back up your position, it may be necessary to politicize the debate and attempt to persuade the public with terribly dishonest arguments.
Good luck with your search. Thanks.
I don’t know about the rest of you all, but that was fun.
I got a chance to talk about stuff that I enjoy and we may have started someone on a nice journey of learning.
*swoon*
Mike (#1712):
Actually, Mike, I’m way behind the curve here, but I thought your post was very well written and nicely complementary to Martin’s, even given the necessary overlap. Kudos.
Thanks, Kseniya. Compliments from a Molly winner are very nice.
I need to be working on a manuscript every weekend. It gets me commenting here more often.
Wait… That may be a bit counterproductive…
The kitchen is clean, too, but the results section is still embryonic.
Drat!
Yes, yes, I know how it is. My room gets a lot cleaner when I have a paper to write. How mysterious! LOL!
Macro-Evolution is about how two or more populations of one species accumulate enough differences through a number of generations that lead to each population being recognized as different species.
An example of Macro-Evolution is the London Underground Mosquito, Culex molestans, which infests the sewers and tunnels of London, is descended from a population of Common Gnat, or European Mosquito, C. pipiens, which became stranded in the sewers and tunnels of London over a hundred years ago. Nothing to do with “superiority” here, in fact.
To put it bluntly, Eugenics is, for the most part, an ancient set of ideas that will hypothetically allow the leaders of Society to produce the perfect human, allegedly free of any human flaw and frailty. Most have attempted to achieve this ideal through purging anyone deemed inferior. Inevitably, “inferior” equates with whatever the local leaders deem to be offensive to their own aesthetics and sensibilities.
If you understand Evolutionary Biology, a healthy population is one that has a large genetic diversity: when you have a large diversity, the population can adapt very easily to changes in the environment. The problem with Eugenics is that practitioners of Eugenics seek to homogenize the population: a genetically homogeneous population is inevitably inbred, and can not adapt to either new environments or even changes to the old environment. This is why so many domesticated plant and animal breeds can no longer survive without constant human intervention.
Some people, such as Aristotle, have advocated “positive” eugenics, where the best and brightest examples of Society should be accorded the best breeding privileges. Today, positive eugenics survives in various forms, such as programs to screen out certain debilitating or deadly genetic disorders, such as thalassemia and Tay-Sach’s disease, and silly things like “Genius Sperm-Banks.”
Heh… Well, in my case, take the Molly thing with a grain of salt. One month a bunch of people voted for me but I never quite understood why. I’m just a lowly undergrad sitting at the low end of the IQ and education scales here on Pharyngula. (Don’t get me wrong, I’m pleased – but at the same time, kinda puzzled.)
Heck, Kseniya, I was one of ’em, I think. You had a hell of a month, there.
Procrastinating on a paper, were we?
And I understand a bit about the intimidation here. Especially if David Marjsonklhskfjdfnovic shows up.
And Stanton, after just being exposed to Heinlein, some of that “positive eugenics” is interesting food for thought. Breeding only for longevity, for example.
Standing in line is hardly standing up for a cause. In the mind of a myopic simpleton, the scenario is fraught with irony. In the mind of any objective observer, however, you were simply trying to crash a party that you were not invited to. Your manners (or more precisely lack thereof) leave much to be desired. Why don’t you pay for the ticket like any other regular member of the public to watch the movie? I have one theory why: You’re a cheapskate!
@ Kseniya (#1740): You’ve got a great wit, which many of us who are older and more educated are envious of.
Commenting without knowing or addressing the context is hardly commenting meaningfully. In the mind of any objective observer, however, you are simply blathering on and on without understanding. Your intelligence (or more precisely lack thereof) leaves much to be desired. Why don’t you pay attention like anyone who actually cares about the truth? I have one theory why: You’re an IDiot!
#1742: #596. Also #1595.
You say: “I do see that IDiots have a phenomenal capacity for continuous stupidity.” First of all, I’m actually agnostic, so to imply that I believe in Intelligent Design is very ignorant of you! Furthermore, to call someone an idiot, on a science blog, who questions your tactics furthers my point! You are not a scientist!! You can not even take criticism without resorting to childish name calling. No wonder Ben Stein is portraying you in his movie. You are the perfect example of what he is trying to communicate! Congrats on being so well educated to play right into his plan! Again, like I said, I’m agnostic, but that also said, I’m more than willing to listen to others point of views, because last time I checked, no one could prove either THEORY.
You don’t PROVE theories dumb ass. You test them, falsify them or support them with evidence.
ID has done none of these things.
Are you open to my dragon and the unicorn theory of creation to Mr. Agnostic.
#1746
Jason,
ID is not a theory. A scientific theory requires a huge body of work, it takes time and scrutiny; ID has not produced a single piece of data in a peer-reviewed research paper supporting its claims. ID is an idea based on special creation and supernatural explanations, as well as a political vehicle to introduce religious views into science classes; it is not science. There is nothing fair or logical about presenting an untested explanation as an alternative to a true scientific theory.
Pardon? There is no theory of Intelligent Design? A quick Google search brings up many results regarding the theory of Intelligent Design.
Also, by no means am I saying that evolution did not happen, nor that the Big Bang did not happen. What I am saying is that NO ONE at the moment can answer: what actually happened moments after the Big Bang and what caused it? If you can answer such a question, I assure you, the Nobel Prize is yours! If you can not, Intelligent Design is just as possible as what ever else you can come up with! The fact is, at the moment, no one knows! What I do know however, is that even suggesting anything other than what the “status quo” believes makes one an heretic, which is just as “idiotic”!
Jason: the big bang is essentially uncaused, because, as a singularity, the “universe egg” that exploded in the big bang is not describable using the current laws of physics, which break down at singularities. As for what happened moments after the big bang, there are two or three hypotheses out there, and evidence is being collected even as I write this. We’re close to figuring it out.
Intelligent design is not a theory. It isn’t even a hypothesis. It makes no testable predictions, which is the definition of a hypothesis, and the evidence doesn’t support it, which is what upgrades a hypothesis to a theory. Calling it one doesn’t change the facts; ID is just an idea. It doesn’t qualify as anything more than that.
And scientists often question the status quo. That’s what research is. Consensus means that everyone has looked at the evidence and said “yes, that’s what it looks like”. Only if new evidence is presented will the consensus change, so in some ways you’re right. But those challenging the consensus now don’t have any evidence. So complaining that they’re not being listened to is a bit stupid. Of course they aren’t. They can’t back up what they say.
Jason, you may well be an agnostic, but you are clearly not very knowledgeable about this issue.
For a start, science can’t prove anything, only falsify. The longer that a theory, or a single component of that theory, goes without being falsified – assuming that it has been tested many, many times – the more confident we can be that we are on the right track.
As for ID, just because some people say that there is a theory doesn’t make it so. A scientific theory must be falsifiable, as I have said. ID is not. It must make viable predictions. ID does not. It must explain all of the known facts. ID can’t even explain a fraction of them. And it has to be tested over and over and over again. Nobody is performing experiments in an attempt to test ID. How would you test ID, anyway?
But you don’t have to believe me. Let’s see what the father of ID, Phillip Johnson, has to say:
“I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.”
Hmmn.
We understand very well what happened a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. We are not absolutely sure what happened at the exact moment, or just before. The physics break down at that point. That doesn’t mean that we don’t know anything, however. It is what is known as the intellectual honesty of science.
All ideas are not equal, Jason. Just because there are questions that we can’t answer with confidence, it doesn’t mean that all possible answers are equally as likely. Science follows specific rules. If you are not willing to play by those rules, you ain’t doing science. Sorry.
I will go out on a limb, and assume that of course you are knowledgeable regarding criticism of Darwinism? If not, there are many biology/medical scientists who do find problems with the theory. For instance, Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity: http://www.pssiinternational.com Furthermore, what Ben Stein is trying to point out, is that anyone who dissents from the Darwinist point of view is immediately discredited and in fact, despite what you say, not heard! The limb I went out on is more likely than not broken, and is obvious by the emotional outburst in questioning present on this very forum! Perhaps it’s just me, as I’m an Engineer, but I find it more often then not to be true that the more emotional people become about science, the more problems there probably are with it!
Furthermore, what Ben Stein is trying to point out, is that anyone who dissents from the Darwinist point of view is immediately discredited and in fact, despite what you say, not heard!
No, his main point is that Darwinists are all Nazis and they killed all those Jews. So therefore IDers shouldn’t have to do research.
So, Jinx, is that you?
Jason, before you do anything, you must drop all the blather about the Big Bang. The theory of evolution deals with how organisms survive and how changes can occur over countless generations. And ID is meant to be a counter to the theory of evolution.
Ben Stein uses the Big Bang for one of two reasons, maybe both. First is he understands even less about science than he does about economics. Second is that he is muddying the conversation about evolution by throwing in other subjects.
Perhaps it’s just me, as I’m an Engineer,
surprise, surprise!
Jason, just remind me what physicians and surgeons know about Modern Evolutionary Theory, again?
Would you listen to PZ, a biologist, if he said that he has problems with Cardiothoracic surgery, or would you listen to the surgeons themselves, who didn’t?
You can play the emotional card if you wish, it doesn’t change the fact that 99% of the “problems” that people have with MET are either religiously motivated, strawmen, or based on an unbelievably poor understanding of the science involved.
The question that you should be asking yourself is, how many of those in the relevant fields express doubt about MET? The answer to that question is almost none. In fact, statistically it has almost universal support around the world.
The reason that we come across as annoyed is because we are! We are sick of the dishonesty, the disgraceful distortions of history like those that are found in this film, and the constant attempts to destroy the education of children, all because some adults can’t get over the fact that they weren’t specially created.
I suggest that you do some homework before telling us that some surgeons don’t support modern evolutionary theory.
Project Steve: actual scientists that support evolution…but just the ones named Steve (or Stephanie):
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp
Relative percentages of peer-reviewed scientific papers presenting data for evolution vs. ID:
Evolution: 100%
ID: 0%
Checkmate!
:)
I will go out on a limb, and assume that of course you are knowledgeable regarding criticism of Darwinism? If not, there are many biology/medical scientists who do find problems with the theory. For instance, Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity:
Next Jason will gift us with a list of property managers, automobile mechanics, and tax accountants who Have Grave Concerns About Evolution. Why aren’t their voices being heard??
Funny that Jason gives a lot more value to being “knowledgeable regarding criticism of Darwinism” than about biology itself.
@ Jason: First, you should recognize that cosmology, including the big bang, has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary biology or the misguided criticisms that go under the label “intelligent design.” Evolution is a theory about the diversity and functionality of biological species, no more, no less.
Second, regarding your list of surgeons, how many of them are named Steve? If you really are open-minded about this debate, you should be aware that the claims about there being “real scientists” who question the basic facts of evolution are just a bunch of lies and spin. If you honestly want resources to document this simple truth, many here will be only too glad to provide them.
You authoritarianistic, dogmatismistic Darwinismisticists! I have a list of literally dozens of accomplished Duplo engineers, culled from the rosters of pre-schools across the Bible Belt, that says you’re wrong!
I don’t expect this comment to last long, because you tax-paid leftist scientismists never fail to squash all dissent of your only-a-theory. The truth will out.
Hey, I would sign up to this:
“As medical doctors we are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory.”
As would almost all evolutionary biologists, as well. Very few people believe that it is possible for “random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life”, anymore. It’s a good job that there is much more to MET, isn’t it?
I hadn’t realized that anyone thought that random mutations and natural selection were responsible for abiogenesis, either.
What was I saying about strawman, earlier? Dishonesty all the way, I’m afraid.
Jason #1752:
…
1. You can’t “go out” on a broken limb, even metaphorically.
2. So, is it broken or not?
3. I like the bolded “emotional” and the exclamation mark.
4. Why use a circumlocution? Far easier to say “science” than “the Darwinist point of view”.
5. You’re funny.
Oh yes, in that first sentence, the question mark should be a full stop, since it’s an assertion not a question.
Good catch Damian. “. . . skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination . . . of life.” Does it even make sense to speak of a “mutation” before there’s replication (i.e., life?).
But Ben Stein wants more than abiogenesis. He wants (du-du-du-DUNGH) GRAVITY to be explained by the biological process of evolution:
John Morales, I was waiting for the fine pointed grammar criticism to begin. It’s the usual last resort for someone who is losing an argument. I’m sorry you do not seem to understand the metaphor, but on another note, I’m happy to see that you find me funny. I’ll take that as a compliment! :)
Yeah, I’m willing to have a discussion with someone who appears to be an honest broker, like DR. As for Jason, not so much. Too frustrating. It’s bad for my blood pressure, or something like that.
Ha! He thinks we’re losing the argument!
how does he figure that?
#1760: Damn! I didn’t know that Duplo engineers are willing to question evolution! Maybe the ID folks are right after all. Maybe evolution’s a paradigm of the past! (Oh, wait . . . maybe not!< .a>)
I’m with you, MikeG – as long as “DR” isn’t short for “Dr. Intellectual”.
That, and he apparently think that his gross, self-imposed ignorance of Evolutionary Biology entitles him to critique Evolutionary Biology.
Jason, I consider that my comment had more content than yours. But at this stage I’m feeding a troll, so I shan’t further refer to you in this thread.
Um, you would go out on to a broken limb, but you’re not sure if it’s broken. What’s not to understand?
<giggle>
Physicalist (#1767)
Wow, that is cool! My brother is looking at Brandeis…
Quite so, John; lots more. But someone who thinks a Google search that returns the terms “theory” and “intelligent design” in close proximity means that intelligent design is therefore a theory could hardly be expected to appreciate that fact, could he?
That, and he apparently think that his gross, self-imposed ignorance of Evolutionary Biology entitles him to critique Evolutionary Biology.
Hey, Jason’s dentist told him once how Darwinism totally can’t explain the origin of life on earth, and that’s good enough for him!
Oh yes, and Hitler was a Darwinist. So Jason wins the argument.
@ Kseniya: Brandeis is a good school. I sat in on a quantum gravity class there once upon a time, and I know a few of the professors there. (But tell your brother to look at Boston University too, there’s a certain advocate of physicalism there . . . who is actually supposed to be finishing an article rather than commenting on blogs . . .)
Plus, then there’s the painful little fact that none of these sites in a google search of “intelligent design” + “theory” actually describe how Intelligent Design “theory” explains anything in a meaningful way (if at all).
Really, all Intelligent Design proponents never actually bother to demonstrate how to do science using Intelligent Design “theory.” All they do is say “Gee, I don’t understand this, ergo, GODDIDIT/
GODDESIGNERDIDIT,” and then they grouse and whine about the all of the alleged shortcomings of “Darwinism” while inadvertently exposing their own gross ignorance of Evolutionary Biology.Yup. My mom was a freshman at Brandeis once upon a time. She wound up graduating from that ivy-covered joint a few miles east on the same side of the Chuck. (The reasons why are complicated and wouldn’t be appropriate for a family blog like this.)
Little bro is interested in environmental engineering, among other things. He’s very bright and broad-minded. The most incredible thing about him is that, at the tender age of 16, he knows aboslutely everything and is never wrong about anything. I’m hoping college can relieve him of this… burden. ;-)
Obviously false. You have heard of it, therefore you contradict yourself.
What are you an “Engineer” of, anyway?
And why do you condemn emotion? You yourself only have emotional outbursts, and have no reason or logical arguments.
And Hitler became a Darwinist because Darwin stole H.G. Wells’ Time Machine to go back in time to murder and assume the identity of Martin Luther, then go into the future in order to murder and assume the identity of Adolf Hitler, as well.
Can’t leave anything to random chance, of course.
That’s what we’re here for. Day 1: Socratic Wisdom.
Physicalist, have you been to the PharynguFest or Skeptics in the Pub? Mike the Mad Biologist gave a presentation at the Asgard. You should drop by!
I’m ashamed to say that I missed both, as much as I would have liked to be there. It’s hard for me to make time to get out (being a parent and being in the publish-or-perish zone). But hopefully I’ll be able to poke my nose into one of the events before too long.
No worries – I’m not a parent and the publish-or-perish world is still brutal. Here’s hoping you can make one!
For an engineer, you make a very good psychologist, Jason.
Isn’t it funny when scientists just present the facts, they are called cold-blooded, boring and lacking in feeling and imagination. And when they react with feeling and imagination, their science is called into question.
Jason, if the expression of emotion is a sign that people are on shaky ground, as you say, then we should have been very suspicious of passionate advocates for the abolition of slavery or equality for women. Human beings, wonderful animals that they are, can feel highly charged when faced with injustice. That’s what I like about them. Teaching children lies is an injustice. Scientists, because of the nature of their jobs, are particularly passionate advocates for truth.
Surely, you feel emotional about injustices, don’t you?
Physicalist, this, er, advocate, whoever he or she might be, may take some consolation in one of the worst-kept pharynguloid secrets–that extensive commenting, and especially getting into arguments with creationists and trolls, is a time-honored form of work avoidance around here.
In fact, some people’s paper deadlines can be directly correlated with how much they argue with creationists around here. *whistles innocently*
thalarctos: Somehow I’m not surprised to learn of this secret. Perhaps we need a new battle cry: “If that article isn’t sent off by 2a.m., the creationists win!!”
Oh Jason, I figured you’d come back bitching. Here’s a little hint, if you don’t like being ridiculed then have the sense to make sure that you’re not parroting a claim that has been shown false countless times on this very thread.
Namely: “You’re trying to sneak into a movie”
This is a red flag for us. It’s a bullshit claim against PZ, touted only be the ID crowd, and when someone comes onto the thread saying it, we can be pretty sure where they’re getting their information. So to then attempt to gerrymander some intellectual clout by claiming you’re an agnostic rings pretty hollow when you’re obviously parroting religiously grounded ID nonsense.
You then scribble something about PZ criticizing the movie before it opens. As if one needed to see a movie based on a nonexistent issue founded on a false ideology to criticize it? Well, if you have a problem with that I have a toothfairy documentary I’d love to sell you tickets to.
You then finish with more sputtering about “science” as if PZ must be doing science when he’s brushing his teeth and waiting in line for movies or else somehow something has gone wrong. This is of course laughably dense, and I’ve pointed it out as such. If you wished to be viewed as anything other than a talking-point-vomiting-charlatan then I’d suggest not waltzing onto blogs such as this making claims refuted just nanoseconds before your arrival with an air of over-caffeinated arrogance.
(As a side note, in your comments following your original masterpiece you’ve failed to distance yourself from ID nonsense and you’ve given a bad name to agnostics while doing so. So much for any pretense of intellectual honesty.) As far as I can see, my original conclusions stands.
“ID: They sho do bring on tha stupid!”
Wow what a bunch of idiots, this group is about as smart as rag-head Muslims, who kill people for their belief. There is not one direct fact to prove evolution only unreasonable speculation. Where are all of the missing links? There are billions of them, and not one found. Evolution is not a fact nor science, it is nothing but myths fallen for by people who don’t believe in anything so they believe in stupid false ideas to fit in with the crowd. Evolution is impossible, except in cartoons…and true science is not a cartoon. If any of you are capable of reading more than a comic book. Read “The Edge of Evolution” by Michael J. Behe.
OK, you convinced me. But I will go further than Behe. Creation science must be taken seriously!
Gateman, that was hilarious!
The “where are all the missing links!!11!!!1!!one!” is still a classic.
And the “rag-head” slur is a lesser used turn on the “militant” canard. So points for that. Scientists killing to defend their theory instead of doing science! That whole gag gets me every time…
Between all of the parody and meta-parody both good and bad, the blogosphere has eaten itself. I can hardly tell whether Gateman45 is real or satire.
I’m going with real.
So, tell me again why I should listen to advice from a pompous Christian bigot like GATEMAN45?
Yeah, Colugo, you are right of course. I just like to point highlight that what counts as a serious argument to them, is actually the set up to a punchline for me.
Whoa, Gateman, you really have a point there. Didn’t mama ever tell you not to run with an icepick in your hand?
Because he’s trite, boring, ignorant (egnorant?), indoctrinated, and a complete moron?
Hm, wait, there’s something wrong there…
No worries. That boy’s about as sharp as a bowling ball. A sack of rocks could think him under the table. Mathis could probably use the inside of his skull to screen
ExpectoratedExpelled, and hey, maybe he already did.Speaking of Behe, I wonder if we should be emphasizing more that he has claimed to not have any problem with the basic evidence for evolution, just so as to blow the minds of the YECs who try offering Behe as a counter to Darwin. There’s plenty of quote-miney fun in the Kitzmiller v. Dover material.
“No matter what some people in the general public may say or hope, ID theory does not concern the age of the earth or common descent or any other claims of Darwinian theory except its proposed mechanism.”
— Michael J. Behe, in his disclosure of Expert Testimony for Kitzmiller v. Dover
(emphasis mine)
See that, Gateman44¼? In other words, Behe does agree that we’re cousin to apes. Oook!
So there I am, waiting for my commuter bus this AM, in a rental car. My car is broken, so for a change I have a radio to listen to. Tuning in to some guy who sounds preachery, but is talking a bit of science.
OH NO! It’s a christer interview with Stein and Ruloff! Teh Stoopid, it burns! By the time the bus came, I was reduced to slowly singing: “Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do, I’m half crazy…”
In the maybe ten minutes I heard, these are the excretes from the radio:
Darwinism is in the service of Atheism
Hitler greatly affected by Darwin
Pre-WWII Germany was most scientifically advanced country in the world
Nazis were all about accelerating Darwinism
Curator at a killing camp claims it was all about Darwin
Stein – “I know a woman spent 5 years in Auschwitz – if she can believe in god, anyone can choose to.”
Evilutionists think lightning struck a mud puddle to create life
Referring to Dawkins – “You took him apart”
Dawkins thinks aliens could’ve created life here
Punished in the USA for believing in god
And one moment of honesty. Per Ruloff, in setting up the mockumentary, they wanted to create a “Hero’s Tale”. Stein: “I’m no hero.”
Looking it up, here is the station to avoid: WAVA 105.1 in N VA. It was my best buddy, James Dobson (gag!) conducting the interview.
True Bob,
Come on, everyone knows that Hitler was greatly affected by werewolves, not Darwin.
J,
Hence Teh Stoopid!!1!1
Well, still recovering from the AM’s brain damage.
Another thing Stein et al pointed out: Dawkins doesn’t “like” god! The horror! They think Dawkins sees god as misogynistic, violent, capricious, etc. Just like the babble god, actually.
TrueBob, I just had a thought. Given that the real star of Expelled! is not Stein, but Zombie Hitler, maybe we should adopt the alternate title Exhumed!.
Owlmirror, I’m always bemused by cdesign proponentsists who cite Behe while arguing against common descent.
Forgot this, too. I live in Spotsylvania county, VA, around 45 miles from Charlottesville. If there were ghosts, Thomas Jefferson’s would’ve been wailing loud enough to hear from there. Stein said all they want is what TJ wanted – Free Speech. I’m not so sure TJ would lie to make bogus points for cheeses (see The Jefferson Bible) nor promote supernatural legends.
Everybody, True Bob needs our help. He wandered into a Christian talk radio fallout zone and sprang a few synapses in the process. Now we’ve all been there and know what it feels like, so be gentle. It might be best to avoid referring to anything untrue or misleading or patently false or unbelievably stupid for a little while, even in parody or jest, at least until his eyes refocus, K? We feel your pain, Bob.
Thanks Dude. I’m feeling better already. I picked a heck of a week to quit sniffing glue.
PZ wasn’t kicked out by a policeman.
Mall Security escorted him out. I was standing right there.
I wish I would have known about the Expelled screening though…I saw the Spiderwick Chronicles and it sucked!
I wanted to post as I happened upon this blog as I was Googling the Expelled movie and this site caught my attention. After I read quite a few posts, I too was on the floor laughing, although I am sure for many different reasons than the most that post here.
First I find it ironic that this movie is dubbed as propaganda from most. I guess that word would be defined in the eyes of the beholder. I’m sure no one would want to call it freedom of speech. Look at Al Gore’s movie on global warming… would most of you call that propaganda or because it is claimed as science it is true?
Second, for those who say we must believe Prof Myers or anyone in academia because of his/her credentials need to break free. I believe at one point in time these same people (scientists) claimed that Pluto was a planet and now it’s not. I remember from undergrad and grad school challenging many a professors claim- that’s what learning is about- thinking for yourself.
By now most can guess where I fall in this issue- but your wrong. I am neither an ID or Evolutionist. I am a strict, literal six-day Creationist. Go ahead and rip me all you want- swear at me- whatever makes you feel good. I compare this debate, ID vs. Evolutionism, to the Apple vs. Microsoft situation (I’ve been a Mac head since ’87). There are the majority who just float along going with the flow and believing/using what everyone else does because that’s what society claims to be the truth/best. However, there are those who “think different” and don’t believe what everyone else does. We march to a different drummer so to speak.
I’ll end my post with this… a person once said something to me that has stuck throughout my life. For those who don’t believe in God, take this as you will. If you are right, then you and I have nothing to worry about when we die. However if I am right in my belief in God and what happens with someone after death, then one of us has a problem. I’ll stick down my path and you do as you wish- which will probably be a profane-laden response to this post.
God Bless!
John 3:16
damn, the stupid runs thick, don’t it.
So much nonsense….
…just not worth it.
No profanity from me, just suggestions. Go to evolutionsunday.com. Go watch the videos here relating to Young Earth Creationism. Then ask yourself, why would God deceive us about the nature of the universe?
Peace.
a person once said something to me that has stuck throughout my life. For those who don’t believe in God, take this as you will. If you are right, then you and I have nothing to worry about when we die. However if I am right in my belief in God and what happens with someone after death, then one of us has a problem.
You knew Blaise Pascal?!? wow man, you are over 400 years old! And you haven’t bothered to keep up to date with your education in all that time?
as if we haven’t heard all the tired sorry crap before.
Here, I made you a bingo game for your next church meeting.
Whoa… I never thought of that! That sheds a whole new light on everything. Anyone with a 3rd-grade education has always known that Pluto is a dog! All of science must now be called into question!
And that’s only the tip of the iceburg. Did you know that geographers once claimed that Zimbabwe was called Rhodesia and now it’s not? And that New York was New Amsterdam, but now it’s not? All of geography, cartography, history, and political science must be called into question!
Did you know that devoutly religious people used to claim, “The earth is the center of the universe, and the sun, moon, planets and stars revolved around it” and now it isn’t? All devoutly religious thought must be called into question!
Hey, this is fun. I’m having fun being even more stupid than usual, and a creationist is lighting the way. Thank you, sir!
By the way, “InHisName” is an anagram of “Him Insane”. I detect design.
And that’s only the tip of the iceburg.
And iceburg is inedible lettuce. Lettuce is like inedible cabbage. Darwin talked about races of cabbages. Darwin is a racist. Evolution is Nazism.
QED.
You sound very sure about that. Very, very sure. So sure, that it even sounds a little smug. Indeed, it sounds so smug that it might even be called pride, or as the Greeks said it, hubris.
Yeah, maybe there’s a God. And maybe he has standards such that we’re not pure enough for him because we take reality on its face.
But maybe his standards are such that he doesn’t like pride, either. I wouldn’t know. But I’ve reconciled myself to that fact that, if your God exists, I’m not getting into heaven. I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.
You, on the other hand, may be very, very surprised to find yourself after death in the same damn place as all of us atheists.
To a certain extent this is true, but it is entirely dependent on the accuracy of, and motivation behind, the content.
As far as we can tell from all of the pre-release blurb and those who have seen the movie, the accuracy of the content is appallingly bad, and many would say, intentionally dishonest. If it is possible to show, using the very best scholarship, that the arguments made are without foundation, then we can certainly say that the movie is half-way to being a propaganda piece. To clinch the deal we will need to show that there is a motive behind the content.
And once again this isn’t too difficult. The film is made by creationists, for creationists, and given that there is a long history of this sort of thing from creationists, it is fairly obvious that the arguments are intentionally misleading, and not just appallingly researched.
Therefore, I would suggest that it would be positively perverse for anyone not to conclude that this is indeed a propaganda movie, and a disgraceful one at that.
As for Al Gore’s film – I condemn any poorly researched science, and there was some. I condemn the fact that it overstated the case just a fraction. But I applaud the fact that it was made as it really did express the overwhelming scientific consensus. That is, I am afraid to say, all that we have. We could of course be wrong, but if you have a better way of doing things, I would be delighted to hear it.
Ah, Pascal’s wager. Yes, we have heard that one before (it’s a daily occurrence, it seems). The problem is that there have been thousands of God’s throughout the ages, so you really aren’t in a better situation than us, I’m afraid. What if the “True” God is not the God that you worship? Unless you can show that it is more likely the God that you worship is the one true God and not simply an accident of your nationality, there really is no good reason for us to believe that you have access to knowledge that we don’t.
And besides, atheists would be going to heaven if it existed, not theists: The End of Pascal’s Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven
This has already been written in many places regarding Pascal’s wager, but boy it would be funny to watch, if there really were an afterlife, some fundie christian entering into the presence of the divine, only to find that it is Zeus, all thunder and lightning, demanding “why hast thou forsaken me?”
At least the atheist could say “well I didn’t believe in that Yahweh dude, either.”
Sorry, Creationist (“InHisName”), YOU LOSE! I just sent off my paper! SUCKER!! I own you!
(cf. #1785. And now, I go to bed.)
Right. The possibilities are infinite in number, and Pascal ignored an infinite number of them.
Maybe the Bible – unlike all those goddamned fossils, unlike radiometric dating, unlike the apparent size and rate of expansion of the known universe – is simply God’s Trick, a worm on a hook meant to lure and catch the non-skeptics, who will be tossed into a wicker basket, gutted, and broiled in butter and served as the evening’s entree to the heavenly host. The Bible is God’s way of keeping credulous fools out of Heaven.
Hey – you have to admit it’s possible. It makes as much sense as anything else.
Besides, the tea leaves at the bottom of my mug reveal to me that Zeus is royally pissed at all this Christianity nonsense. There’s gonna be some lightning this summer, you mark my words. Lightning. Everywhere.
Rain, too.
Zeus!
Ulp…
Zeus will not be pleased at my slowness of mind and fleetlessness of finger.
:-(
I hadn’t considered that we are simply part of the food chain, before. While we fatten up the livestock ready for consumption, God is peering down on us – knife and fork in hand, of course – eyeing up the juiciest, choicest cuts of human flesh. It’s all rather Hitchcockian, is it not?
What this says about the mind that has revealed this, I will leave for others to decide. Thanks, Ksenyia, I won’t sleep tonight (or eat again).
Aha! Someone else who heeds the warning in Rev. 3:15-16!
“The Bible… it’s… it’s a cookbook!”
But Kseniya, it also translates to “Simian Hen”. Don’t you see what this means? This means that not only must we take the bible literally
But evolution is true, also!
Either that or it’s all a great cosmic joke and we’re all going to be eaten like June bugs when we die!
(Mmmmmmmmmmm……gutted, and broiled in butter non-skeptics. Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa……..)
(I think this thread has run waaaay too long)
Dude,
Thanks to people like InHisName (his name is Sven, by the way), this thread has the potential to reach 2000. And on that day, I will make a t-shirt of commemoration.
GodCthulhu is peeringdownupon us – knife and fork in hand, of course – eyeing up the juiciest, choicest cuts of human flesh. It’s all ratherHitchcockianLovecraftian, is it not?fixed that for ya.
“May you and yours be eaten first”
cheers
…oh, and replace “hand” with, uh, “tentacle”.
“appendage” would technically be more accurate, if not as precise.
Ichthyic, I can’t believe my eyes.
Your apostasy no doubt has greatly displeased Dagon.
Hi,
I just saw the trailer for “Expelled.” I stopped being impressed when Ben Stein described evolutionists as believing that we are “NOTHING BUT mud…”
Didn’t the Bible include the ancient mythic story of God creating Adam from clay? Hmmmmmm?
Also, somewhat more seriously, when I see the words “NOTHING BUT used, I know I’m in the presence of someone who doesn’t have the foggiest notion of the difference between warranted and unwarranted reductionism in science.
Example of Warranted Reductionism: Human beings are made up of organs, that are made up of organelles, that are made up of cells, that are made up of molecules, that are made up of atoms, that are made up of subatomic particles…
Example of Unwarranted Reductionism: Human beings are NOTHING BUT a collection of organs, that are NOTHING BUT a collection of organelles, that are NOTHING BUT a collection of cells, that are NOTHING BUT a collection of molecules, that are NOTHING but a collection of atoms, that are NOTHING BUT a collection of subatomic particles…
If you think I have a bee in my bonnet about this NOTHING BUT stuff, you’re right. Creationists don’t have the slightest conception of self-organization, let alone emergent properties in evolutionary systems–physical, biological and cultural. We human beings are NOT NOTHING BUTS.
Enough preaching. Don’t spend any money on this movie. Wait for the unofficial transcripts that are sure to be posted in numerous places on the Internet for your education and entertainment.
“this thread has the potential to reach 2000.”
And all without a single peep from truth machine. Is this thread still being linked to on the Excreted blog? I suppose the steady trickle of morons will continue for a while then, at least until PZ sees the movie and makes another target.
It is so amazingly childish, not to mention cowardly to have a mall security guard evict Dr. Myers rather than ask him to leave themselves. I know, we all think they can’t sink too low, but I am still awed at the depths of hypocrisy that the creationists continue to go.
Sally, can you clone yourself a few times? We could use a few more like you dropping in here from time to time.
Rey, I do miss ol’ t.m. I hope he just got sick of us.
I sure hope kids opting out of science class don’t watch this.
Ichthyic, I can’t believe my eyes.
Your apostasy no doubt has greatly displeased Dagon.
no, you just don’t appear to grasp the actual underwater Pantheon.
hmm, let me try to simplify it:
Dagon is like the head honcho, and Cthulhu is the ultimate enforcer.
Dagon is like the Judeo-xian God, and Cthulhu is like Jesus when he comes back “in wrath”.
There are other minor underwater powers as well, but since we are just talking about these two at the moment, I figured a basic analogy would work.
Dagon doesn’t mind a bit when I talk up Cthulhu. A deity has to have some way of instilling impending doom, after all.
:P
P.S.
I’m still in the process of clarifying with Dagon whether it is OK for me to publish the entire underwater pantheon and how it works. So far, I get the impression that He thinks you pure-strain humans aren’t ready for another complete pantheon yet.
Soon, though.
Is this the part where we pay exorbitant amounts of money to learn more of Dagon’s wisdom?
Clearly you’re not spending *nearly* enough time commenting and picking fights, Physicalist. :)
(seriously, congrats! hope you hear soon that it’s accepted.)
Is this the part where we pay exorbitant amounts of money to learn more of Dagon’s wisdom?
True(tm) religions never charge for the gift of wisdom.
Donations are always welcome, though.
(that’s my story, and I’m sticking to it)
;)
I’d like to be, under the sea…
I’d like to be, under the sea…
*sniff*
now I’m homesick.
Cthäat Aquadingen 2nd ed. by Ichthyic?
PS
Suggested reading for InHisName.
#1835 John,
Start off with something more accessible, like Cthulu’s Clues.
Well thanks a lot, J. I was hoping to see the actual clues, so I could be insane too.
Really though, that was pretty damned funny.
I had to double check the date of this post a couple times… and was searching through for the April Fools punch.
This is too funny.
I wonder, would a public school teacher in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
be allowed to say the following:
“It is interesting to contemplate … [all the many forms of life on
earth] … so different from each other, have all been produced by
laws acting around us. … There is grandeur in this view of life,
HAVING BEEN ORIGINALLY BREATHED BY THE CREATOR INTO A FEW FORMS OR
INTO ONE; and that from so simple a beginning, endless forms most
beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”
Just imagine a public school teacher who says those words: that God
creates life and places it on the earth in a few forms, and then that
life evolves according to the physical and natural laws that God put
into place in the universe.
Would that be allowed?
Actually, it should be REQUIRED FOR THE TEACHER TO SAY THAT.
Why? Because the quote is from: On the Origin of the Species, Chapter
XV, Recapitulation and Conclusion, By Charles Darwin.
If you are going to teach Darwin’s theory of evolution in public
schools, you should teach what Darwin actually wrote about it.
Michael S. Class
Author / Photographer / Publisher
E-Mail: class@MagicPictureFrame.com
Address: Magic Picture Frame Studio, P.O. Box 2603, Issaquah, WA 98027-0119
Web Site: http://www.MagicPictureFrame.com
—————
Anthony and the Magic Picture Frame: The History Book with a Message for Today’s Young Americans
Read the book. Remember the truth. Share it with your children.
Web Site: http://www.MagicPictureFrame.com
Watch the Video: http://www.magicpictureframe.com/home/watchthevideo.html
—————
I wonder, would a public school teacher in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
be allowed to say the following:
“It is interesting to contemplate … [all the many forms of life on
earth] … so different from each other, have all been produced by
laws acting around us. … There is grandeur in this view of life,
HAVING BEEN ORIGINALLY BREATHED BY THE CREATOR INTO A FEW FORMS OR
INTO ONE; and that from so simple a beginning, endless forms most
beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”
Just imagine a public school teacher who says those words: that God
creates life and places it on the earth in a few forms, and then that
life evolves according to the physical and natural laws that God put
into place in the universe.
Would that be allowed?
Actually, it should be REQUIRED FOR THE TEACHER TO SAY THAT.
Why? Because the quote is from: On the Origin of the Species, Chapter
XV, Recapitulation and Conclusion, By Charles Darwin.
If you are going to teach Darwin’s theory of evolution in public
schools, you should teach what Darwin actually wrote about it.
Michael S. Class
Author
Anthony and the Magic Picture Frame: The History Book with a Message for Today’s Young Americans
Read the book. Remember the truth. Share it with your children.
Web Site: http://www.MagicPictureFrame.com
Watch the Video: http://www.magicpictureframe.com/home/watchthevideo.html
———————–
hi crazy Mike!
welcome to your worst nightmare.
We’re people with brains, raising our children without religion.
So what, Michael? You can quote mine. Congrats. A poetic turn of phrase will overturn the last hundred fifty years of scientific progress.
——–
Ichthyic, I think you have your hierarchy a bit messed up. Great Cthulhu is higher up in the mythos ranks than Dagon (who with Mother Hydra is considered a lesser Old One, holding few followers outside of the Deep Ones), unless you take the possibility that Dagon is a biblical name that the Marshes used to give a culturally significant name to Cthulhu.
Now those are some gods that one can really fear (and are just as fictional).
Michael Class,
If you are going to teach Darwin’s theory of evolution in public schools, you should teach what Darwin actually wrote about it.
Do you have any idea what a sanctimonious moron you look like coming in to a science blog and lecturing scientists on what Darwin said, and how science should be taught?
Should this quote by Darwin also be taught in public schools?
Your understanding of science is not good. “Darwin” is not being taught in public school science classes, biology is.
I hope the research you did for the other characters in your book was not as sloppy.
My psychic powers are kicking in: I see a trip to the dungeon in Michael’s future.
unless you take the possibility that Dagon is a biblical name that the Marshes used to give a culturally significant name to Cthulhu.
exactly; you can’t build your pantheon from what Lovecraft had to say, if you want to be at all precise.
frankly, he embellished quite a lot (he had to, Dagon hasn’t granted license for an accurate portrayal yet).
Dagon actually had a HUGE number of worshipers long before anyone ever knew of the Judeo-xian “God”.
that should tell you something, I think.
Now I’ve said too much.
shhh!
K, how’s it look for the Mets tonight against Philly?
Ksenya,
Thanks for the compliments.
While trying to get to sleep last night, I pondered what the producers of “Expelled” might have been up to when they accepted our U of M Morris Prof’s mail request for seats in the movie for himself and a guest, and what they may have been up to when they arranged for the screening at the Megamall…oops, I mean the Mall of America, we Minnesotans have our own pet name for that gigantic shelter from blizzards…and planning to boot him out if he showed.
Try this on for size: They KNEW there was a national atheists convention going on in Minneapolis that weekend. They KNEW that the Mall of America is in Bloomington, Minnesota, a suburb of Minneapolis, and they KNEW if they booted out a reasonably well known atheist (the Morris prof) it would probably hit the news wires in minutes (it did). So the whole thing was staged as a gigantic publicity stunt.
What they DIDN’T know was that the “and guest” of the prof was the world-renown Richard Dawkins! Oh, they must have been ticked when they realized they didn’t alert the cops to the possibility that Professor Dawkins himself might be dropping by and to BOOT HIM OUT WHEN YOU SEE HIM! :) They missed a sure bet for achieving Publicity Stunt of the New Century!
What do you think?
BTW, being expelled from “Expelled” is a genuine Eye Ron Eee, as Vince Scully used to say on nationally televised baseball games. :)
The Mets are up 1-zip in the first, but I’d go with the Phils, behind Kendrick, to pound Pelrey and add to the Mets’ woes.
OK, now will you marry me?
Michael S. Class
“It is interesting to contemplate … [all the many forms of life on earth] … so different from each other, have all been produced by laws acting around us. … There is grandeur in this view of life, HAVING BEEN ORIGINALLY BREATHED BY THE CREATOR INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE; and that from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”
There was no possibility that Darwin could figure out how non-living chemical processes could gradually become living processes in the middle of the 19th century. Our scientists on the cutting edge are just beginning to grapple with this subject early in the 21st century.
As you’ll note from the portion you typed in ALL CAPS, Darwin made two guesses as to how life came about. That’s all he could do–guess. He couldn’t know.
He also used Biblical imagery; “breathed by the Creator…” is straight out of Genesis. Do you suppose this was an attempt on his part to forestall the almost certain uproar among religious folks that was sure to come in response to the highly controversial hypotheses on biological evolution through natural selection offered in his book? That these hypotheses certainly were not Biblical in the least? An attempt that was surely doomed to failure?
If we’re going to teach biological evolution in the schools, we have to teach Darwin…and what we’ve learned since Darwin, including modern genetics, chaos and complexity theory, and the wily ways of autocatalytic chemical systems.
That’s why it’s called Neo-Darwinism.
There is an important lesson to be learned here about fr*ming. Darwin added that reference to the Creator in the second edition. (First edition (1859) text can be consulted here; second (1860) edition here. It’s the last sentence in the book.) He was fr*ming, trying not to piss off Christians, and what did he get for his trouble? Misinterpretation of his meaning by knuckleheads like Michael Class for a hundred and fifty years!!
Moral of the story? Abstain from the fr*me.
(Except, oops, I forgot we atheists have no morals. Call it a life lesson.)
Also, note that in the first edition of On the Origin of Species, “by the creator” did not appear in that passage. I normally see the first edition quoted; that version of the passage is from the second edition.
What is more germane, however, is that it has been said that Darwin felt God created life through the laws of nature, a view perfectly suited to modern theistic evolutionary philosophy espoused by Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and many others.
*sigh* I need to compose these things faster. Good catch, Sven! :-)
James F.
“What is more germane, however, is that it has been said that Darwin felt God created life through the laws of nature, a view perfectly suited to modern theistic evolutionary philosophy espoused by Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and many others.”
Sounds like what Pope John Paul II believed, at least that’s what I’ve heard about his encyclical on the subject of biological evolution. I haven’t actually read that encyclical.
Sorry about not knowing that Darwin added that nod to Christianity in the second edition of On the Origin of Species. I’ll have to change my point somewhat to…Darwin felt he had to RESPOND to the firestorm of criticism from religious folks for his highly controversial hypotheses.
watch the whole thing lol
Sven:
Oh my! Well, the Mets won, 8-2, so you may want to withdraw the proposal. My crystal ball has joined my halo in the “tarnished” drawer. ;-)
John: “I guess all you smart guys can explain how my two herniated disks were miraculously healed after praying for healing to the God you say doesn’t exist. I have xrays and mri’s before and after to prove it.”
I wonder how your x-rays and MRI’s actually prove God healed your back, rather than confirming that your back was somehow healed. Did he leave a note?
And as to your overall point, you might get some sympathy for your assumption that your prayers had anything at all to do with your back, but in me you will receive nothing of the sort. I cannot count the number of times I saw soldiers pray for protection only to come back disfigured, or many times not come back at all. And I distinctly remember a chaplain blessing and praying for my platoon on a September night in 2005, only to get 30 minutes out of the gate and get hit with an IED that has left me with a mild brain injury, nerve damage from the back of my skull to my lower back, migraines every two weeks that last for four days, and a limp that means I’ll be walking with a cane for the majority of my life. So excuse me if I don’t take your assumption that prayer fixed your back at face value. Besides being blatantly self-serving along with being highly implausible, it is really quite annoying. And besides being annoying, in my opinion, it is nothing more than using the unexplained (if that’s even true) improvement of your back problem as an opportunistic platform to both trumpet your faith and get smiling approval and recognition from those who already share your beliefs.
In conclusion, I consider myself smart, so I’ll give your challenge to explain how your back healed the old college try — you have no idea how your back healed, and prayer seemed good enough for you. The problem is, prayer wasn’t good enough for those men I never saw alive again, and I can safely assume for myself that the majority of those guys deserved it much more than you.
**To all those whom I see eye-to-eye with on this thread, I’m sorry for the long winded post…This John character hit one of my still-functioning nerves.
No apology necessary, Soldier. I still have friends who say “Prayer works!” and say it within earshot of me, knowing full well that prayer failed to save my mother from succumbing to cancer at the age of 43. I let it pass… for now.
We all know that studies have failed to show that prayer has any effect on anything, but people believe what they need to believe when they feel they have to have some control over the events that unfold without our permission here in the real world. At least they’re not seeking control by doing things the old way, like going to the tops of mountains to cut the hearts out of still-breathing young girls.
Of course, this story is true. Why would anyone make-up such a story?
brokenSoldier, there is no need to apologize, that was the furthest thing from being long winded. You were on point and everything you said backed up that point.
All I have to say is I am sorry you were in Iraq. I am sorry that you lost friends. And I am sorry that you have wounds that will never go away. I wish you well.
Have you ever noticed news reports of survivors of a natural disaster praising “The Lord” for their deliverance while uttering nary a word about “The Lord’s” failure to deliver their fellow citizens who were killed?
Do Christians really think through the implications of a purportedly all-powerful, all-knowing God?
If they did, they’d get ill with disgust.
Kseniya & Janine,
Thank you for your kind thoughts – they are much appreciated. It is people of your demeanor and caring that – to me, at least – make what we went through worth it despite the results.
As for my comments on prayer, I want to make a further point. I had already doubted my faith (Catholicism) before going overseas, but it was the situation that we were all put in that turned my indifference to disdain. By that, I mean that we were soldiers placed in combat by a President not only convinced he had been selected by God for his office, but also entirely sure that God approved of his plans for invasion. (It is one thing to privately hold these beliefs, but when he voiced these opinion in public, I believe he crossed the line.) And in addition to that, I was hit by a bomb planted and detonated in Allah’s name. What we ended up with was an Army caught between two religious camps, both of them convinced that their beliefs were not only right, but worthy of sending humans to die for. The whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth.
Soldier, this war tastes bad to a lot of us. I am both sorry and enraged for what you went through, and are still going through, in our name. But I want to thank you for your service to my country, which I love despite its leaders and most of its citizens. If I were
kingPresident I’d try to put you guys to better use!So: thank you.
Soldier,
Thank you for your service and for your moving words – I can’t even imagine what you’ve been through and continue to deal with to this day. I will happily pray on someone’s behalf at that person’s request or the request of that person’s loved ones, and I appreciate it when people pray for me – it is a way of showing a sort of solidarity and compassion with other human beings. For those who make snide claims about being miraculously healed, as if they get special divine treatment, well…you said it better than I could have.
Soldier, you have my good wishes as well. I am sorry you were sent to Iraq, as I am sorry for all who were sent over there. First rule of “supporting the troops” should be: “Use them sparingly and with great consideration.” It’s a travesty that your benefits are so inadequate (where’s your damned GI bill?).
I wish I had thought of it sooner, but the next time some 19 year old “elder” tells me prayer works, I’m going to ask him, “If so, why the hell are you going door-to-door?”. The only thing prayer does is make the pray-er feel special.
Soldier,
Welcome home. I wish more of your buddies were here (and that you hadn’t been there in the first place, to be honest). Best of luck (and with some political will, a better administration with more invested in provided care to those who’ve served…)
Be well.
I think those who are wondering where T.M. went, this thread seems to explain it best. At about comment 25, Truth Machine begins again to harp on The Obama Failing post, and PZ calls him out. I haven’t seen T.M. since. I also heard nothing about the Molly for that month. C’est la vie.
I just recently was turned on to Richard Dawkins and the wisdom he speaketh. I now find out that here in my little home state of Minnesota PZ Myers resides. Woo Hoo! Go science go!
Erm, I was going to mention it. I noticed that it was being talked about last night, but I was too tired to respond. That thread is indeed the answer to the conundrum. I noticed it at the time and have checked back on several occasions since. As someone put it in one thread (perhaps even that one, though I haven’t checked), Truth Machine seemed to worry over an issue almost incessantly, and regardless of its perceived importance.
As someone who didn’t really comment at that time, I was fascinated by his amazingly sharp intellect, but it seems that his brand of Truth may have been simply overwhelming for some people (including the boss, unfortunately).
Alas, my first Molly nomination was all for nothing in the end. C’est la vie, indeed. Life is a much duller without T.M, though.
May the Truth be with you, always.
PZ’s usually upfront about banning people, and he did not explicitly do so in that thread. TM is not listed in the dungeon which, I am perhaps naive enough to believe, is a complete list of the banned. (I must say, though, that is it was my blog, somebody who called me an “asshole” and then directed a “fuck you” at me would indeed be banned. But I wouldn’t do it secretly, and I don’t see why PZ would.)
On the other hand, it does not seem much like the Machine to stay away just because (s)he didn’t feel wanted.
Maybe somebody unplugged it.
I nominate this thread for most meandering.
Yet does not even the mightiest river meander through featureless prairie plains en route to its final union with the great Sea?
…but to get back on topic, can you believe it? they kicked out PZ but let Richard Dawkins in! I mean, the irony! And, oh yeah, those Expelled guys are Teh Stoopid! Don’t you think?
Don’t you think?
Yah sure, you betcha!
I am very nearly certain that T.M. is alive and well and still posting to Pharyngula. Although, obviously, not using that name.
It’s possible that my analysis is mistaken, but the similarity of style and interests is, I think, far too strong to be merely a coincidence.
Owlmirror, I am intrigued by your suggestion, although I don’t want to know who it is that you have in mind…yet.
Quite how he could get around the I.P. thingymabob if he has been banned, I don’t know.
T.M. once suggested that he couldn’t reveal his identity and I had visions of him being “ultra-strident PZ” in disguise, so that he could really insult the people that pissed him off (which is where my theory breaks down, I suppose). But he had to kill off T.M. because his creation had become so popular that it was about to be awarded a Molly.
Of course, I really need to stop allowing my imagination to run wild.
Wow, Damian… LOL… cool idea, but… Naaaah. I can’t imagine PZ banning TM on the sly, Molly-candidate or not.
So, Owlmirror… so you think old TM is now posting as “Joe Blow”, do ya?
brokenSoldier,
Thanks for posting; you express yourself well. It’s good to hear from people who are serious minded enough to face reality honestly. I assure you, the characters who come here to chide us for failing to worship their god and cultivate the proper obsequiousness with the rest of Christian America, get on our nerves, too.
As for your observations about the president, and that —“What we ended up with was an Army caught between two religious camps, both of them convinced that their beliefs were not only right, but worthy of sending humans to die for.” — I hope that your perceptions are shared by many more within the armed forces (and that they share their insights as you are doing.) If so, then something good will come out of this fuck up of a war–an increased measure of sobriety and sensible thinking. It is certainly needed.
Funny…how Mr. Meyers characterizes this story. First, it was a private screening. He knew it and was trying to get in under false pretenses. Second, not only was Mr. Dawkins allowed in (uninvited as well) but he consumed his share of time and was never disrespected. If says otherwise, he’s not being truthful. I find it strange that if one feels that their argument confirming their faith in Evolution and Atheism is so compelling, then why does the conversation so quickly deteriorate into insults and character assassination? Truth should be able to stand on its own.
It does, scott… but then people come along and try to insist we’re wrong
As for whether or not PZ was supposed to go to that screening… Both PZ and Dawkins are in the movie. They’re allowed to see how they’re portrayed, especially since it was edited by people known to lie and to use underhanded tactics. Wouldn’t you say that’s fair? And he didn’t try to get in under false pretenses. He gave them his real name, and when they decided they didn’t want him there he accepted their decision. If they couldn’t recognise Richard Dawkins, it’s their fault.
The character assassination is part and parcel of the argument, I’m afraid. We do it to the creationists because they do it to us… generally it backfires, but we still aren’t going to take it lying down. Plus, it’s fun. We’re allowed to have fun, right?
He knew it and was trying to get in under false pretenses.
Lie
Inaccurate. The “invitation” is a red herring. People signed up and were registering, as did PZ and Dawkins. Your honesty is sinking.
If says otherwise, he’s not being truthful. I find it strange that if one feels that their argument confirming their faith in Evolution and Atheism is so compelling, then why does the conversation so quickly deteriorate into insults and character assassination?
because having to deal with the same ridiculous bullshit from continuous streams of fuckwits becomes tedious and tiresome.
Truth should be able to stand on its own.
And yet you idiots keep rejecting it….
next time, try to engage honestly.
Scott, go fuck yourself. All of your lies have already been spewed around and debunked countless times IN THIS VERY THREAD. There were no false pretenses, PZ signed up on a publicly available website using his real name, then got thrown out by rent-a-cops because Ass Prod Mathis is a petulant child. The whole “he wasn’t invited” bullshit was made up after the fact when the nutcase who falsely accused PZ of bothering people in line revealed himself to be a liar.
It’s YOUR side that isn’t being truthful. You’ve changed stories so damn many times you can’t keep straight which lie you’re supposed to parrot today. I know it’s hard for you Liars For Jesus™ to grasp this, but repeating the same lies over and over doesn’t magically make them true.
Truth SHOULD be able to stand on its own. But you don’t have any. You never did. You’re just another Liar For Jesus™, a walking disgrace to everything you stand for. You wouldn’t know truth if it bit you in the ass.
And you’ve wrapped yourself up so tightly in your delusions that reality will never penetrate. No matter how many times it’s shown that the lies you’ve been trained to parrot about this incident are false, you’ll never admit it. The truth is no longer relevant when talking to you, it’s already publicly available, you just need to scroll up to learn the facts, but you’ve gouged out your own brain for fear of seeing it. You’re violently allergic to the slightest speck of truth, you won’t even go near it. Telling you the truth is pointless, you’ll just pretend it doesn’t exist. Ridicule is the only thing left.
It’s impossible to assassinate your character. Your character committed suicide long ago. Don’t blame the murder on the coroner.
MAJeff…PZ was not invited to a private screening. Second, why then did Mr. Dawkins sign in as Clinton Dawkins (clearly knowing that he was not invited) instead of Richard Dawkins? He was never disrespected and was allowed to say anything he wanted.
Third, you just illustrated my point. You fuckwits can’t stand someone asking straightforward questions without talking down to people with your bullshit answers. What bullshit are you talking about? I never said anything for or against. Fourth, I never claimed to be a creationist. However, there is not one scientific fact that proves any theory of Evolutionist’s explanation for the beginning of life. If there was, it wouldn’t still be just a theory.
By the way “wazza” Mr. Dawkins sat through the entire movie and admitted, in the discussion following, that he was portrayed honestly. He acknowledged so in front of the crowd. Get your facts straight.
Oh, the irony. The excruciating, endless irony.
What part of “All of your lies have already been spewed around and debunked countless times IN THIS VERY THREAD” don’t you understand?
If you weren’t so goddamned lazy you could answer your own questions. Get to it, or prepared to be mocked… or worse, mocked in a French accent.
Go on. Hop to it. You can do this! I have faith in you.
Oh, by the way: statements like that only make you look like an ignorant fool. You’re clearly not unintelligent, so it shouldn’t be difficult for you to solve that one, too – IF you’re willing to spend a little time educating yourself.
phantomreader42 – You guys are hilarious…and proving the point…all you do is talk down to people…never, and I mean never willing to answer anything. I have said nothing about what I believe …yet you assume anything you put your mind to. And, you show just where you are coming from…willing to screw over anyone who might disagree with your opinion…with the language of a slut sixth grader.
ROFLMAO
He says he’s not a creationist, then says there’s no evidence for evolution, otherwise it wouldn’t be just a theory…
Ever heard of the theory of relativity? Think that’s just bullshit?
Go on, get out of here, ya little scamp… get back to high school, I think you’re missing a few science classes.
What was that about character assassination and personal remarks?
We’ve answered these questions hundreds of times. The answers are publicly available. You don’t seem to understand them, thus earning yourself a good talking-down-to
ok “wazza” how does the Theory of Relativity explain the origin of life? This should be interesting. Because I just saw on TV the other day a prominent scientist try to convince the host that somehow life started by aliens dropping off their remnants here on earth. I thought in your eyes this shit was already settled. So, if it is…then why are they still trying to find ways to explain it? Can’t you guys ever talk to anyone without insulting them at the same time? Geeezzz it gets old. Just put forth your answer.
I invoked the theory of relativity as another theory which is accepted by all scientists who actually looked at the evidence as the best explanation we have… which is exactly the same as evolution. Relativity has nothing to do with the origin of life. Nor, technically, does evolution; evolution is a force which acts on life once it is present, causing it to increase in fitness to its environment.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about with the alien thing, but it seems to be some form of directed panspermia. This is one of the explanations for the origin of life on earth, but most scientists find it intellectually unsatisfying, since the origin of life is merely moved back to whatever world delivers it here…
And yes, we can talk to people without insulting them. This is dependent, as with all people, on our finding the subject worthy of not being insulted. Unfortunately, I’ve never met a creationist yet who wasn’t willfully ignorant, logically fallacious and willing to twist anything to his cause. Nor have I ever seen any evidence which casts the slightest doubt on the theory of evolution. Ergo, anyone who disbelieves in it is either misinformed or an idiot. Given that it is taught in schools, the latter seems the most likely option.
Scott, you’re making baby Jesus cry.
Scott,
The “invitation” canard has been long debunked. PZ signed up online on a public website, and registered a guest. Dawkins just happened to be that guest. You’re claims are demonstrably false.
Please move along.
Ok..Kseniya I will give you one example (by the way…I was just repeating the same language that MAJeff, OM had used. Ok, the one example…explain how life can come from non-life? Because, if memory serves me right, didn’t Pasteur dispel that back in the mid-1800’s? …and isn’t it the Second Law of Thermodynamics (proven scientific law) that states that all kinetic energy in the universe is in the process of running down…not the other way around as Evolution tries to state?
As for TM, forgive the meandering ;-), I highly doubt he’s been banned, or is posting under a different name. Though he may be a grade a asshole, I think he has more anal-retentive integrity than that. I simply believe he left, having no wish to remain.
Scott,
The second law deals with closed systems, not open ones such as the earth. Please move along, you’re acting like a troll.
Life is not a special kind of matter, man
at its most basic, it is just a special collection of chemical reactions
the second law applies to a special model of gaseous motion, but fails when applied to more complex systems. Plus, living things give off heat, so I would assume that overall entropy increases nevertheless.
And yeah, that pasteur thing… he just proved that some guy had flunked basic experimental design. It happens. Now we’re designing proper experiments, and we’re making life and stuff. Very cool. And not debunked.
Am I allowed to add an insult here? No? It’s just you’re being kind of obtuse…
Hey wazza…there is a whole lot that is taught in schools that is complete BS. Just because this is taught doesn’t mean that it is correct. And, Evolution IS being taught as fact as an explanation for the beginning of life…when it is clearly flawed. If it is fact, then why are we still debating it?..even within your own community. Yet, as magnanimous as you would like to sound, you still characterize anyone who disagrees with or questions your “faith” (because that is what it truly is…”faith) in Evolution as an “idiot” or ignorant. This effectively nullifies any true and honest debate (or questions for that matter) because, sooner or later, you have shown yourself as one who cannot objectively see anything past your own opinion.
There are many holes in Evolution. I have never said that I know the answers. However, there is not one person on this thread that has not characterized a person who disagrees with Evolution or questions its very premise as anything less than an “idiot” as you have done more than a few times.
What is so dangerous about asking questions? And, why must you always believe that I (or others) are trying to turn everyone else into some sort of religious freak? I don’t give a rip who or what you bow to. However, I see the same zealousness any time someone is challenged on Man-made Global Warming.
Scott, think of aliens seeding life on earth as an example of the problem of infinite regress of creators. Say that aliens did seed life on earth. That cannot be a complete explanation of how we came to be; it merely posits another event in a chain of events that led to us. Where did the aliens come from? We need an explanation of their origins.
Likewise with God. God in your theological thought experiment is simply playing the role that aliens did in the panspermia thought experiment. Positing that God did it is simply adding another step to the ultimate explanation. Because it doesn’t explain where God came from.
And since God not only created life on earth but the universe itself* He/She/It must be even more complex than the universe. That is to say, claiming that God did it presents an even more complex thing to be explained than the universe itself. Where did god come from? Did an Uber-God make Him? The Uber-God must be even more complex and amazing than God. But from whence the Uber-God? I know; the Hyper-God? Yet another entity demanding an explanation. See the problem?
(*And not just as a mindless – “infinitely simple” – prime mover but specifically assigning the properties of each and every thing like an engineer, watchmaker, animator in those Daffy Duck cartoons in which creator interacts with his creation, what have you)
That’s an infinite regress of creators. Of so-called explanations. But it’s worse than that – each explanation leaves even more to be explained. That’s worse than unparsimonious; it’s “explaining” something by creating even more mystery.
You probably don’t like the chain of God-creators. So let’s leave it at one omniscient, uncreated God. Still the same problem – you have “explained” something (life, the universe, everything) by asserting the existence of something else (God) that requires even more explanation. Something that adds to the sum total of mystery. On the basis of what evidence? None.
So go ahead and laugh at evolutionists for not knowing precisely how life on earth formed. You’ve assigned yourself a much bigger explanatory problem. Unless you’re not really interested in explaining anything at all, but are just delighted in basking in a self-imposed mystery borne of ignorance.
Wazza – hate to break it to you… but the Second law of Thermodynamics applies to all energy…not just a certain kind. It is a scientific law. ..which means that is a proven fact. Organization and Complexity does nothing but descend into Disorganization and Chaos. If I leave a VW in the dessert over a 100 years…it does not become a Mercedes. Life does not spontaneously come from non-life. It never has…and never will. I don’t know what the heck you are talking about. Energy is energy. Spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.
There’s nothing dangerous about asking questions… so long as you’re interested in the answers. In fact, science is all about asking questions, and going out and finding the answers.
If anything in schools is wrong, it’s because it’s simplified to aid understanding, and will later be replaced by a more precise truth. Evolution is taught because all the evidence supports it. What holes there are don’t disprove evolution; they guide scientists towards fruitful areas of research.
How is evolution “clearly flawed”? The theory has evolved with the findings, to provide explanations and predict what we’ll find next. It explains everything we see in biology and tells us what to look at, and so far all the surprises we’ve had have been within the bounds of the theory.
I’d like to hear what you think the flaws in evolution are. I’ll bet you a toe that I can explain all of them… because evolution has been carefully examined, and proven to work. It doesn’t have any flaws yet. If it does, we’ll find something new that explains things even better, because that’s what science is about.
And Scott, when the evidence says one thing, and you insist on another, or when you don’t even know the most basic evidence… yes, you are an idiot, and yes, you are ignorant. That’s pretty much the dictionary definition. Hence our characterisation of anyone who denies evolution as an idiot. Because they are, by definition. The evidence says yes, and it won’t change if you yell “no” loudly enough.
And the same goes for global warming, too. The evidence is behind the idea that we’ve caused it, and no amount of blubbering is going to change that.
As for not wanting to convert us… Insisting on intelligent design is insisting on a deity, which is, by necessity, against my personal view of the universe. Like many scientists and sciencers (a neologism referring to amateur enthusiasts of science), I don’t have faith in anything but the observational power of the human mind – and even that, I have to check with other people before I’ll trust it. Oh, and I suppose I have faith that I’m not the solipsist, but that’s pretty much a given. If you insist on intelligent design, you try to force belief in a deity on me, so yes, you are trying to convert me. Show me the evidence, and I might believe. If it’s convincing, and peer-reviewed by people I trust.
Then how can a zygote become an embryo become a fetus become a baby become an adult, Scott? Isn’t this process in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
See, Scott? that last comment on thermodynamics is why I want to insult you. You don’t understand the second law of thermodynamics (which, by the way, is simply a theory that has lasted so long it’s called law because it’s easier. It can still be disproven. Nothing in science is proven) and then you use that ignorance to disprove evolution, another theory you don’t understand.
Also, the VW analogy doesn’t work. Cars don’t reproduce with slight errors and get selected based on how much tail they get their driver. If they did, a vw WOULD turn into a merc.
Colugo – I am not trying to explain any position. I don’t have the answers…and am not trying to say that I do. However, when engaging anyone in a debate relating to or questioning Evolution, one is either labeled a “religious nutwad” or irreparably ignorant. But, it (people arguing for Evolution) has become such a fascist response…that it has gotten to the point of almost down right persecution. I have neither disrespected or insulted anyone. Yet, look at all the responses to the contrary to my inquiry. My kids are being taught something that I know has so many holes in it. But, they are not allowed to ask questions for fear of the same “religious” Evolution response that I am getting here.
Can I explain the origin of man? No. I never said I could. But I know bullshit when I see it. And, if proponents of Evolution are so indignant of anyone challenging their point of view, it just makes the argument even more suspect.
Scott, you haven’t explained these holes. I see no holes. That you see holes in evolution is itself an example of pure, burning stoopidity.
If you tell us what these holes are and we can’t explain them, we may revise that estimate. Or maybe we’ll just call PZ, and we’ll all get a lesson in biology.
Wazza…sorry, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a proven scientific fact. Plain and simple.
Colugo – since when is a zygote non-living matter? Pasteur proved that life cannot come from non-life.
Didn’t you guys ever take biology in school? An alligator cannot become an Elephant. A cell (or whatever you want to call it) did not just appear somewhere. Also, a micro whatever does not, over time, become something else. It has never been duplicated ever. If you believe it has…then where are all the supposedly transitional figures/fossils proving it such? There is not one example found anywhere. Fossils found show completely formed entities.
Crap. Now I’m involved… and with these kinds of misconceptions… I blame it all on SIWOTI.
A zygote isn’t non-living matter, but it has to necessarily become more complex in order to become a full-grown animal… breaching your conception of the second law of thermodynamics, which is proven, but not as widely applied as you seem to believe. It works on gases. Horses, not so much.
I took biology. Did you? Alligators don’t become elephants. The leap is just too huge. But an alligator can, with time, become something else which is crocodilian, lives in the water, is cold-blooded, has a splayed gait… but is not an alligator. Evolution is all about tiny changes adding up over long periods of time.
It has been duplicated. My dad did it in university level biology as a simple lab experiment.
And all fossils are transitional. It’s just that each transitional form between one thing and another also has to be a thing in and of itself, and so they look complete… but the tiny squirrel-things of the tertiary period became apes, in the fullness of time, despite being fully formed themselves, and snakes for example have been found with vestiges of the legs they were losing, as a transition from lizards to snakes.
Plus, we’re a transitional form. Do you realise how many compromises there are between our bipedal form and our quadripedal past? Very poor “design”.
I am sorry…but can you really believe what you are actually saying?
First, I never said a “zeygote” was a Non-living matter. Colugo was making that statement. Pasteur proved that something cannot come from nothing. Life cannot come from non-life. However,that alone is the basis for Evolution…that something just spontaneously started. That never happens…never.
An egg/embryoe or whatever, evolves through its own LIVING genetic design. How does that contradict The Second Law of Thermodynamics? You lost me on that one.
As for Transitional figures…there is not one example anywhere. How does a cell decide it will become a tree or a shark or a bumble bee? It simply doesn’t …and there is no evidence to the contrary. Man did not come from apes…or something that used to swim. That is the most ridiculous argument of all. If it were true…we would have found many many examples of transitional figures everywhere. And, why are there still apes?
Biogenisis is simply a FACT/axiom of Biology that states that only life can come from life…which leaves Evolution baseless. Life did not just appear…then become other forms of life…over billions of years. Basic science and biology prove that.
Even Darwin admitted that.
Ugh
Do I have to?
Colugo made the point I made, then you misunderstood him. Pasteur merely disproved the model someone else proposed, which was that boiled beef broth (!) could produce life if left alone long enough. He didn’t disprove the later experiments in abiogenesis, which have been fairly successful.
The egg grows, and as it grows, it increases in complexity. If you’re going to apply the second law to evolution, you have to apply it to development, too, which makes growth theoretically impossible. Or you could accept that the second law is limited in its application – which any physicist could tell you – and then there’s no objection to growth OR evolution.
Did you not read my explanation of transitional forms? They’re not some half-elephant, half-tree freak. They’re a working form which is going to be selected in some way that will eventually change into something else, without themselves being less then well adapted to their environments. Everything on earth is either a transitional form, or headed for extinction. Or both. Panda bears have a carnivorous gut, but are gradually changing into herbivores, including growing a bone spur as a thumb, allowing them to pick the food they eat.
Saying “life can only come from life” does not disprove evolution. You haven’t proved it. You haven’t even provided evidence of it.
And all the evidence of “basic science and biology” is what lead us to the theory of evolution. If evolution was wrong, it would have lead us elsewhere. Because that’s what science is: the best way of explaining the facts.
The second law of thermodynamics states that dS >= dQ/T. Which bit of that disproves evolution? Show your work. Otherwise, admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Oh for goodness’ sake!
Scott, go see responses to all the claims you’ve made and the ones you will make, and stick to the topic of the post. You know, the irony of PZ being expelled from Expelled.
I doubt you will, just as I doubt you’ve read this thread where every one of your claims has been exposed.
<sigh>
Thanks, Zarquon…
spending that long immersed in stoopid has to be bad for my brain
We are certainly not dealing with a Michael Denton or Michael Behe grade of “Intelligent Designist” here. (Not that those two have not fallen into extreme error themselves, but they know far better than to use such utterly unsophisticated and egregious arguments.) More of a Jack Chick or Kirk Cameron level in terms of knowledge.
Colugo: that’s why it hurts so much
but they know far better than to use such utterly unsophisticated and egregious arguments
If you watched the back and forth between Behe and ERV, you might think twice about whether Behe knows when not to use such arguments.
It was like watching a uni professor argue with a 5 year old.
…and Behe was most certainly playing the role of the 5 year old.
Scott sez:
I don’t have the answers…and am not trying to say that I do.
followed by:
Biogenisis is simply a FACT/axiom of Biology that states that only life can come from life…which leaves Evolution baseless. Life did not just appear…then become other forms of life…over billions of years. Basic science and biology prove that.
O.o
you gotz issues, boy.
Oh, the irony. The excruciating, endless irony.
indeed.
I’m sure this thread will make it over 2k posts, though it’s getting so slow to load I doubt I’ll bother to check on it much after that.
Hey John,
what’s the count up to at this point?
Maybe somebody unplugged it.
actually, I’m a tad worried it might have unplugged itself.
He always was a bit high strung.
Scott, you lost when you wrote this:
;)
2nd Law – you have so egregiously misapplied this that it’s amazing you can spell “thermodynamics”. You were already told that’s for closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system. The solar system could be (crudely) modeled as a closed system, but tell me, what’s at the center of it? A great honking source of energy. That source of energy is dying, but dying very very slowly. As it dies, it is pumping out HAAAYYYUUUUGE amounts of energy, a miniscule fraction of which this planet intercepts. That tiny fraction of the sun’s energy output is sustaining life on this planet, and has been doing so for eons; such a very long, long, LONG time that the life that occurred has evolved to the present variety of terran flora and fauna.
I’m trying to give your remarks as much objective treatment as I can, but I will happily join in the mocking (in French accent) if you continue with your willfull, intentional ignorance. Educate yourself: you have the friggin intertubez at your fingertips.
Where were you guys?
It was horrible…
I dunno, Ichthyic . This thread’s prolixity seems to be on an asymptotic decay curve.
I suppose it’s a bit much to expect new commenters to read the comment thread before posting; even more to expect them to do a page search for terms. And it’s only April 11!
Die, thread! Die!
oh, but it’s so close to 2000 posts!
it’s like staying alive for your telegraph from the queen. Probably not going to seem worth it from the back end.
Scott the Liar for Jesus™
What, you had a point? Besides the one on top of your head? Where?
You came in here repeating lies that had already been debunked. And it’s not like you can claim it was an honest mistake, every one of your lies was dissected and proven false IN THIS VERY THREAD. All you had to do to know you were wrong and find out the actual truth was to READ THE PAGE YOU WERE POSTING ON! You clearly didn’t do that. You have demonstrated that you have no interest in honest discussion and you place no value whatsoever on the truth. What could possibly make you worthy of any response other than ridicule?
Contrary to your lie that I am “never willing to answer anything,” I demolished your idiotic parroting of the “he wasn’t invited” lie, and pointed out that this had been done before, several times, and all you had to do was scroll up to see it. But you didn’t do that. You just keep vomiting up more lies. Lies are all you have. Lies are all you’ve EVER had.
Scott, you are stupid, dishonest, and lazy. These are not insults, they are FACTS. You are stupid in that you have been presented with clear and accurate information proving you wrong, but you fail to even attempt understanding it. You are dishonest in that you continue to repeat false statements, which you must know are false. You are lazy in that you cannot bring yourself to read the very page you are commenting on and see that all your pitiful excuses for arguments have already been addressed, and found to be utterly devoid of merit.
More of Scott Lying For Jesus™
The stupid, it burns. You didn’t need to claim to be a creationist. It’s clear from this statement that you ARE one. You irrationally reject the evidence for evolution, which is the act of a creationist. In doing so, you repeat long-debunked creationist talking points. If you are not a creationist, you are so similar to one that there is no meaningful way to discern the difference.
You dumbass, you don’t even understand the meaning of the word “theory” in context! You don’t have the slightest fucking IDEA what the hell you’re talking about! And you clearly don’t WANT to know.
The “just a theory” canard is total bullshit. You’ve already had this explained to you, with the Theory of Realtivity as an example, but you refused to listen.
Evolution has been observed to happen, in real time, in the real world. In that sense, it is a fact. The Theory of Evolution refers to the mechanisms and principles used to explain these observed facts. To say “it’s only a theory” shows nothing but your own willful ignorance.
Scott hallucinating controversy to deny reality:
In this case, because morons like you persist in refusing to look at the evidence, and lying about it.
Among people who actually know what the fuck they’re talking about, the debates are in regard to improving our understanding of the mechanisms and details of how evolution works. Among actual qualified scientists, there is no debate about the fact that evolution occurs, only about HOW it happens.
Scott shows he doesn’t understand thermodynamics either:
Scott, you’re a real Renaissance Idiot. You’re willfully ignorant not just on one subject, but on EVERYTHING you comment on.
The Second Law Of Thermodynamics states that the total entropy of the universe, or any closed system, will always increase. However, it is entirely possible for the entropy of some part of a system to decrease. Doing so requires expenditure of energy, and results in an increase in entropy elsewhere in the system, but it is not impossible as you claim. If it were, crystals could never form. And yet they do. This can be observed in real time, in the real world. A solution of random disorderly particles produces a rigid and regular solid lattice, while the whole thing is just SITTING there. The excess entropy is exhausted into the surrounding environment, without any need for some invisible sky daddy or mysterious Noodly Appendage to push the molecules into place one by one. It’s self-organizing. You can try this AT HOME. Ever made rock candy? You can actually cook up a jar of bubbling undifferentiated goop and leave it sitting for a few days and have something exhibiting obvious order. If you weren’t so terrified of learning, you could find information on this online.
It is impossible for entropy to decrease in a closed system, because there is nowhere for it to go, and no energy supply to get it there. But the Earth is not a closed system. It receives massive amounts of energy from the Sun. Living things are not closed systems, they take in food, excrete wastes, and interact with their environment in countless ways.
Scott objects to accurate labels:
But you aren’t irreparably ignorant. That’s the sad part. Your ignorance could be easily repaired if you were willing to take a little time and actually learn some things. For example, if you’d actually read the comments on this very page, you would’ve known that your first post was nothing more than a worthless steaming pile of bullshit. But you didn’t do that. You CHOSE not to do that.
The problem isn’t that your ignorance is irreparable. It’s that you CAN repair it, but refuse to do so. You are ignorant by choice.
More burning stupid from Scott:
Ugh, you fucking moron, can’t you even come up with some ORIGINAL lies? You’ve never even had a thought in your head have you? Every single claim you’ve made has been parroted countless times, after being debunked again and agai, in some cases DECADES AGO. You’re not the first to tell these lies, you won’t be the last, but damnit can’t you even PRETEND to think for yourself? Your bullshit has been pre-refuted in the Index To Creationist Claims.
You have access to the Internet. So much information at your fingertips. You could educate yourself. You could actually learn something. But you choose not to.
It’s not bad enough that you’re an idiot. You have made a conscious and deliberate decision to remain an idiot. That’s SAD. I actually pity you. What’s it like to go through life with your brain deliberately turned off?
Michael X: “I simply believe [t.m.] left, having no wish to remain.”
Oh, anything’s possible, I suppose – but I agree. I’ve always thought that was the most likely explanation. (I also suppose that he preferred to reserve the right to return, rather than escalating the argument only to get banned after all.)
Holy crumbling shortcake! Scott’s like a walking, talking, typing compendium of creationist claims. He’s obviously not stupid, he’s just uneducated, and too arrogant to realize it. Sigh. Willful ignorance, the enemy of enlightenment….
Wrong again. I didn’t call you an idiot, Scott. I said you were lazy for not finding out the truth behind the lies and disortions swirling around the “Expelled!” screening brou-ha-ha. I pointed out that you are uneducated about the theory of evolution and science in general, but that you are more than capable of educating yourself if you are willing to put a little time into it. I don’t see how that reduces to “You’re an idiot.” Your claim is therefore refuted.
I did get a chuckle out of your creationist take on the Second Law, though, which always reminds me of the infamous “Creationist Almost Discovers the Sun” comment.
No offense, boyo, but please. Do your freakin’ homework.
If you weren’t so goddamned lazy you could answer your own questions.
Perfect. I’m adopting that as my standard response from now on when dealing with people like Scott. The time he spent here doing a perfect imitation of a creationist could just as easily have been spent Googling his questions and learning. The entire internet is at his disposal! There are science sites everywhere that explain why evolution does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics!
Googling the phrase: “Does evolution contradict the second law of thermodynamics” gives a site called Curious about Astronomy that explains it rather well. It’s the very first site at the top of the page! Five minutes, tops!)
Why this stubborn, insistent, coordinated resistance to leaning?
LOL! I see I’m not the only one irritated by this willful dumbness.
Dude, it’s the Fear.
RamblinDude:
In the immortal words of Mr. T, I pity the fool!
Dude, it infuriates me. Not only can these shlubs not find their ass with two hands, they can’t find it after we say “It’s right behind you!”. No, they say “Impossible! Show me the evidence.”.
Oh, (sheesh) there’s also a resistance to learning : )
You know, that remark was uncharacteristically short-tempered of me. Of course, Scott wouldn’t know that, being new around here. Sorry, Scott. Patience does eventually wear a little thin after the same crap (and the “Clinton Dawkins” thing is a perfect example) gets recycled over, and over, and over, and over, by people who suck up all the lies, demand explanations, and often don’t listen to the answers. This is why you see a lot of short-tempered and dismissive come-backs here – not because the irritated commenters are necessarily born assholes, but because 1,000 creationist trolls will wear you down.
When someone shows up and appears to be trying to honestly engage in discussion and to be open to absorbing new information and adjusting his views accordingly, he’s typically treated not only fairly, but kindly. And even then, sometimes the mask comes off and the “honest engager” turns out to be a troll anyway, and those who spent time and energy trying to share knowledge feel burned – justifiably. And so it goes.
LOL @ TrueBob and “resistance to leaning” – I missed that!
Dude, it infuriates me. Not only can these shlubs not find their ass with two hands, they can’t find it after we say “It’s right behind you!”. No, they say “Impossible! Show me the evidence.”.
Yes, it’s even more puzzling when it’s backed up by the bible!
How is this supposed to be a bad thing, especially given as how every new concern moron who comes here uses the exact same moronic arguments?
Anyway, I stuck this on another thread, but it probably belongs here more. There certainly is one reviewer, Bruce Bennet, working for the New York Sun, who is as dumb as any creo troll on this thread:
Dear Bruce,
First of all, God you’re a dumb suck-up to Stein’s lies.
Why don’t you, like, act as if you were a thinking person, and ask what fucking evidence exists that there is an “inflexible Darwinist dogma” in existence, and ask why a lying hound like Stein should be believed by you. The fact is that Stein is too damn ignorant even to know what is covered by evolutionary theory, and pretends that issues like gravity and the Big Bang can’t be questioned due to the suppression by “Darwinists”.
But then apparently the ignorant readily deceive the gullible like yourself. You’re a disgrace to all journalism, as well as to anybody who actually thinks prior to speaking or writing. You’re a pathetic waste of air. The only good thing is that you’re in an area that has many people much smarter and better informed than yourself, and you will be jeered for your gullibility, lies, and general stupidity.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Glen,
Let’s not forget that Paramount is doing a movie version of the Dover trial. The Global Darwinist Conspiracy™ will prevail!
Yes, but we had better not be complacent. Suppress, persecute, expel. We must make use of all of the investments we’ve made in torture devices, high-quality temperature-resistant stakes which will take the flames of burning theists, and dungeons into which we cast our enemies.
I know, I know, we’re killing and imprisoning thousands every day, but that’s just not enough!
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
meandering on toward 2K…
I don’t know. Scott made a couple of good points, I think–arguments I have never heard before that really do cast some doubt on my entire worldview. The arguments to which I refer:
1. Evolution is full of holes. How could I have been so blind all these years not to notice all those holes? They gape! How they gape! The scales have fallen from my eyes and now I see the holes!
2. the Second Law of Thermodynamics–you know, that proven scientific fact that all kinetic energy is running down (so I guess the inevitable endpoint is every particle standing stock-still in space). Why has nobody else ever brought this proven scientific fact to bear against the silly notion of biological evolution? Scott, hurry and publish!
3. Why, indeed, are there still apes? I just can’t seem to shake this haunting question…Kudos, Scott, for your brilliant and original thinking. If only someone had asked this question in my presence before I wasted all those years learning biology, years I now realize would have been far better spent trolling scientific websites and asking, again and again, that simple, devastating question.
There’s just one word for the damage Scott’s penetrating insights have done to my formerly deluded psyche:
WATERLOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
Ahhhhhh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sven DiMilo: “How could I have been so blind all these years not to notice all those holes? They gape! How they gape!”
You’re right! Evolution is a … Goatse!
I think such a documentary film should also be made out of the DINOGLYFS or dinolits:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/dinosaur.htm
It seems that the ancient man not only saw but also documented the last megafauna (gigafauna, I should say, really!)
pauli.ojala@gmail.com
Biochemist, Finland
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-the-Movie-Evolution-Intelligent-Design-ID.htm
Stein’s usual ignorant driveling tripe.
The guy can’t learn a damn thing, you know.
Anyway, here it is:
No, liar, it was the Jews who were more inclined to accept good science. The Nazis weren’t teaching Darwinism, by contrast, and it is said that they even banned Darwin (I haven’t checked, so I can’t say for sure).
I suppose the obvious, if hardly new, question is why the anti-evolutionist leaders always lie (if anyone knows of an exception, it’d be news to me).
Now that would be worthy of some news coverage, although we already know that many like Stein lie because they know nothing and aren’t at all willing or able to learn. Indeed, they are far from open-minded, so don’t know what freedom even is, and cannot make any intelligent comments about it.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Oh Pauli, not only are you a disgrace to Biochemists and scientists in general, this quote:
“two Darwinian defenders, who accepted payment to talk like buffoons on the film, tried to bust into a private screening in Minnesota.”
also makes you a fool. An ignorant fool or a lying fool is the only question now. But it’s probably a waste of time answering that as I suspect you’re both.
Refuting Scott’s mad Gish Gallop could bring this thread to three thousand comments. But I would just ask one question to Scott to keep things somewhat on-topic: Why would PZ and Dawkins NOT be allowed to see the movie that they appeared in? Is it because the Expelled crew are a bunch of hypocritical wankers, out to suppress the very debate that they claim to want so badly?
Owlmirror (##1874):
Ah. I think you refer to Holbach, no?
you could be right…
oo…can I pile on Stoopid Scott just one…more…time?
If you’re serving desserts big enough to leave a VW in, I hope you also get some regular exercise.
(And, by the way, you probably think that your hypothetical VW to Benz transition represents some kind of “progress,” don’t you? If so, you would be wrong yet again. The 1967 VW “Beetle” represents the absolute pinnacle in efficient, effective automotive design, and it’s all been downhill since.)
(for Pauli)
“von Döbeln rode, inspecting the holes”… in EVOLUTION!
Sven diMilo, my cousin the ambulance driver told me that ambulance personnel hate the Volkwagon bug because in an accident it cuts people’s throats. I’ll take padded dashes and airbags.
I propose a new term:
Goatseist
Those who fixate on alleged gaping holes (or big gaps) in evolutionary theory, or are “just asking questions” about the same.
Monado:
Well, uh, yeah, there’s that.
But, see, you’re not supposed to crash ’em.
For whoever said that the makers of Expelled can’t be Christians because they told a pack of lies: some years ago I was shocked to discover that some of the Inquisition’s tools were special-effects gadgets. Picture a six-inch needle with a seven-inch handle. It was used to probe all over a supposed witch’s body to find the one insensitive spot where the imaginary Devil had allegedly kissed her. (Being female was tantamount to evil and half-way to being a witch.)
But this tool had a secret button—-so that sooner or later, the Inquisitor could press the button, stab with the needle of inquiry, and have the needle slip back up into the handle! Then the Inquisitor could announce that he had detected the numb spot, the sign of the Devil. All Good Christian practice in the bad old days.
With an example of Christian Honesty(TM) like that, why would anyone want to go back to the Good Old Days? Remember that you could be arrested if your neighbour dreamed that you were a witch, if someone coveted your property, or (and there are historical records of this) if you refused to be the supposedly celibate priest’s mistress.
Give me nice, clean atheism any day. Except, back then, you’d be executed for admitting you were an atheist or even guessing wrong on some theological nicety.
Re comment #1465.
Oh, PZ, say you”ll come up to Toronto for an interview on The Hour with George Stromoboulopoulos (“Strombo” for short; you can see why). We have brew pubs! Dark beer! Meet me at C’Est What. I’ll wear my “Great Lakes 666 — The Devil Made Me Brew It!” black T-shirt or, if it arrives on time, the “Lock Ness Imposter” which is brighter and easier to find in a pub. Or somewhere closer to the CBC, if you like – though I think a little 15-minute stroll thru downtown would be nice. Just head for Church and Jarvis, SE corner, and downstairs.
“There are people who believe that dinosaurs and men lived together. That they roamed the Earth at the same time. There are museums that children go to, in which they build dioramas to show them this. And what this is, purely and simply, is a clinical psychotic reaction. They are crazy. They are stone cold f*** nuts. I can’t be kind about this, because these people are watching The Flintstones as if it were a documentary.”
-Lewis Black
Hey wazza et al. I went to your web site…I find it actually funny…because I found in your very own web site that Evolution cannot explain the origin of life. Duh…
Since you all love to insult and talk down to people…here goes: Hey asshole, I will explain one simple hole: Transitional figures…because this was put forth by Darwin himself.
Fossil record of transitional remains is the assertion by Charles Darwin that if evolution were true there would exist ample evidence of transitional skeletal remains otherwise known as “missing links” within the earth’s geological strata. He predicted man would find a gradual upward evolution of species to greater and greater complexity among the sedimentary levels of the earth. But the record from Mr. Darwin to today has revealed just the opposite. Paleontologists have devoted whole careers to looking for these transitional forms, but what they have found in the fossil records are species fully formed with no transitional intermediates or missing links. If evolution were true, they would have found literally millions of transitional forms from one species to the next. The following excerpt is taken from “Acts and Facts,” which was authored by Dr. Duane Gist, who received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of California at Berkeley.
The fossil record shows the sudden appearance, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods, and trilobites) without a trace of ancestors.
The fossil record also shows the sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) without a trace of ancestors. This proves beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution has not occurred. If evolution has occurred, our museums should contain thousands of fossils of intermediate forms. However, not a trace of an ancestor or transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures!
Now even though evolutionary stages or links between separate species have never been proven to exist, there is ample evidence that supports evolution within a species. In fact any person is an evolutionary step from the combination of DNA from his father and mother.
Get it fuckwit?
Unbelievable.
It’s kind of sad that Scott will probably never know what a fool he’s making of himself.
By the way, Scott, your lying hero is named Gish.
Scott, there is a post on this very website, that is up right now, called “fossil snake with legs.”
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/fossil_snake_with_legs.php
That is even the link to it. Go there, and educate yourself. You’re making a fool of yourself otherwise.
A list of these major kinds of fish, please?
It’s ok Sven DiMilo – don’t know who Gish is…however, since you cannot complete a sentence without an insult (which is typical), have a nice Evolution. I am sure that your lying hero is named Gore.
Michael X – you guys are such a fucking joke. First, how in the world can you prove it was 92 million years old? Second, if Darwin was right…we would be knee deep in this type of evidence. You all argue from a standpoint of ruling out any answer that you absolutely will not consider, then ask the question. One freaking fossil, which could be a species of something that has since gone extinct…and you point to that as proof to pave your theory into fact? Unfucking believable.
By the way…since you can only seem to argue by insulting people…thought I would try it myself in order to relate to you assholes.
Now wait a minute, Scott! Gore’s Law only applies to discussions with climate change denialists!
Oh, and Scott? If you really want answers to your questions (viz. how they know the age of the legged snake fossil, how many transitional fossils one would expect according to modern science, and how many transitional fossils we’ve actually found), they can be easily found. I strongly recommend that you educate yourself. It’s not that hard, and it’s extremely rewarding.
Education: try it, you’ll like it!
Scott is right, it’s all a fairy tale!
Scott,
Childish and foolish as you’re acting I have yet to insult you. You will be very aware when or if I choose to do so. As it stands acting a fool is acting a fool. You happen to be doing that. I’m trying to get you to stop.
But onto you’re, er, statements. We know the ages of rocks by measuring the steady radioactive decay of certain isotopes. Not just carbon mind you, but many others that last longer and help us trace ages further back, such as phosphorus and argon among others.
Here is a link to wiki that outlines it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
As for fossilization, we shouldn’t actually expect to be knee deep in anything. Fossilization is a rare occurrence. This link (and the whole website in general) is a good starter: http://science.howstuffworks.com/fossil.htm
As for the fossilized species itself, it has gone extinct. And it is an intermediary of lizards and snakes by the very fact that it has legs like a lizard and the body of a snake. Simple.
I now have a question for you. If every fossil that is shown to have intermediate traits, is simply brushed off by you as “just another fully formed species” then how in your logic can intermediate species exist at all? Thus, by your own logic you shouldn’t be asking us to provide them. By the way, do you actually know what it would take for you to be proven wrong? I’m guessing nothing will, but I’ll post this in hopes that I’m wrong.
@ #1959: Wow! I never realized the they had proof that we aren’t descended from animals. Unfortunately, I also discovered that Scott isn’t actually descended from Adam and Eve. I wonder how he got here with no ancestors . . .
Scott:
The ToE attempts to explain the diversity of life on earth.
The ToE does not attempt to explain the origin of life. You’re not shocking anyone by pointing this out, doing so has all the rhetorical punch of claiming that a Porsche is not a car because it cannot fly.
Gore? Al Gore? He’s a paleontologist? o_O
Are you making this a political issue, now? How surprising.
And yet you cite him as an authority. Hmmm…
By the age of the rocks in which is was found? Radiometric dating, maybe?
Not necessarily. Anyway, it’s not all about Darwin. He got some thing wrong, you know. Are you aware that he knew nothing of genetics? It was 150 years ago, and the world didn’t stop spinning on its axis when Origin was published.
Fossils are relatively hard to come by, and by no means do fossils “prove” the theory, nor are they the be-all or end-all of evidence. Fossils are a snapshot, nothing more, but snapshots can be useful.
Nice pocket description of ID! :-)
One of many. Surely you haven’t convinced yourself that it’s the only transitional form ever uncovered. Of course it’s extinct, but that difference does it make?
There is no “proof” for a theory – you keep saying things that only serve to demonstrate that you don’t know what a theory is. Observation show us that evolution occurs. The theory attempts to explain how. Not every mechanism is understood. The same can be said for theories of gravity.
Back to the fossil. Here we have a snapshot of a creature that is very much like a modern snake, but which nonetheless has legs unlike any modern snake. This suggests that we have a snapshot of a branch of the evolutionary bush which includes a snakelike thing at one end, and a lizardlike thing at the other. The lack of thousands of fossils which show an unbroken chain of incremental variations connecting the two ends of the chain does not mean that no such creatures exist.
You say no fossil is transitional. Try looking at it another way: All fossils are.
You really need to take a stand here, Scott. Either fossils are meaningful, or they’re not. If you think they are not, then you cannot complain about “gaps”. If you decide they are meaningful, then you must acknowledge the many forms that have been uncovered that serve, as does our legged snake, as snapshots of creatures at certain points along other evolutionary branches.
Consider Tiktaalik roseae. The significance of this find was not so much that it provided another snapshot along a certain branch, but that its existence was predicted – but not in the casual sense of “there must be a fossil fish with leg-like fins somewhere on earth to fill a gap between fish and amphibians.” It was predicted – by application of the Theory of Evolution, mind you – that a creature much like Tiktaalik must have existed during a very specific range of geological space-time. Scientists went looking for fossils in rocks which represent locations in that geological space-time, and sure enough, they found the creature we now call Tiktaalik.
This was a significant find, but it’s just one of many. It’s important to note that although fossil evidence is fascinating and significant, it’s a quantitatively small proportion of the sum of evidence that supports the theory. Much of it is cross-disciplinary, and includes geological, biochemical, genetic, anthropological evidence and more.
Are you so well-acquainted with this evidence that you can offer a reasoned and well-supported refutation?
The theory stands until disproven, and after a century and a half of trying, nobody’s been able to do it. A scientist who disproved Evolution would be as famous as Newton, Darwin or Einstein. Why, then, do you think there’s a conspiracy to protect the theory from critical examination? That’s what EVERY experiment is: a critical examination of the theory.
Geez, I told myself I wasn’t gonna do this…
You realize, of course, that a thorough explanation of the theory, and of the evidence that supports it, could fill thousands of pages. May I ask how you justify dismissing it as nonsense when you know virtually nothing about it, and do not even seem to know what a scientific theory is?
[Cue David Marjanović…] :-D
Yes, Michael X! That’s exactly what I was getting at when I spoke of taking a stand!
Then why do you cite him as an authoritative source on all things biological? Just because he has a PhD (in biochemistry) from UC Berkeley?
Well, Scott, I too have a PhD from the University of California (LA, 1993, and mine’s in Biology). Now will you believe me when I advise you that you’re making a perfect fool of yourself?
somehow I doubt it…
Cue Scott to say radiometric dating has been proven to be rubbish in 3..2..1..
Kseniya X, OM
I see you brought out the big guns ;-)
You on the other hand explained the intermediate significance of the fossil far better than I could. So well done yourself there. I think a high five may be in order.
Dude,
I was thinking the exact same thing. I only hope he sees the words “Phosphorus” and “Argon” before his fingers pound the keys.
I’m not sure what can be gained by indulging an especially uninformed Goatseist (see above) like Scott, but for more information on transitional forms I suggest that he consult Wikipedia. Specifically, the articles with these titles:
Tetrapod
Evolution of mammals
Evolution of cetaceans
Human evolution
Sven: GMTA. Dude, Michael: Yes! I confess that I framed my response to the dating issue a pair of questions in hopes of stimulating some investigation…
MAJeff, there’s no Pharyngufest on Urban Dictionary yet.
Colugo, “Goatseist” is pretty funny, even though I hadda drive the Google to figure it out.
Well, for one thing, we can get to a nice round 2,000 posts. Am I correct that this is far and away the record breaker?
Sven, you get half the credit since you came up with the inspiration: “They gape! How they gape!”
I like Goatseist more than IDiot since the latter is case-sensitive. “cdesign proponentist” is funny but uses a lot of characters. Goatseist is more subtle than creotard. And it goes along with terms like theist, deist, and atheist. But one never knows which memes will thrive.
cdk007 has some fantastic videos on the subject, including What Every Creationist Must Deny. Triumphantly set to Green Day. Check out transitional fossils bit around 3:00. No transitional fossils, my ass.
I hope that everyone has read “‘Expelled’ ripped off Harvard’s ‘Inner Life of the Cell’ animation”, by David Bolinsky, the medical illustrator chiefly responsible for The Inner Life of the Cell?
I don’t know what’s happened to the big man today, but while the cats away…..we keep the place nice and tidy by cleaning up all of the mess that is deposited by the likes of Scott. Good job team.
Ah… the cooling balm of factual evidence…
Scott, it’s not that we’re maliciously trying to destroy your worldview… it’s just that you’re trying to convince us that, metaphorically, black is white, when you’ve never even opened your eyes
Yeah Damian,
I posted a link to it on the Peter Irons thread as well. Bolinsky rips those guys something fierce.
Now a message to everyone else. I’m leaving for my fiances show opening tonight, and I leave for a weeks vacation tomorrow. (Life is hard, I know) SO! Being that we’re under 25 comments to 2000, do me the favor of talking alot while I’m out tonight, so that I won’t miss this trivial but nonetheless mind-boggling benchmark of endless trollsmackdownery that will be the 2000th comment of the Expelled thread. Thank you, that is all. You may now return to your regularly scheduled smackdownery.
Goodness! No. Or at least, not from my observation.
Holbach has never, to my knowledge, posted anything other than an insanely angry rant. And (to respond to Kseniya, who may not have been entirely serious) Joe Blow has never, to the best of my knowledge, been anything other than merely a particularly annoying troll.
It was precisely the progressive descent from rational discourse into an insanely angry rant of a particular idiosyncratic style that provided the clues.
Owlmirror you coy little bugger! Now I don’t even care if it’s true, I’m just interested in who you’re thinking of.
Michael, me too!
Owlmirror: Goodness! I was totally kidding when I proposed that tm=JB!
Oh, the price of education. I could not stand to remain ignorant of goatse, and now I’m scarred for life.
On a side note: is anyone here an electronic or computer engineer and regular visitor of bash.org’s quotes board?
I’d like an update on the device for stabbing people in the face through the internet
Just, you know, out of interest
The David Bolinsky letter was hilarious, especially the part about following the money trail. And Dembski – is there a foot big enough that it would not fit his mouth? Even with snakes already in it?
I reserve judgment on ‘Goatseist’ until it is vetted by MAJeff and/or Sastra. But it does make me grin.
Scott, could you do me a little, tiny favor, and read comment 1608 above?
I took quite a lot of time to make it very, very simple.
Yeah Bob, I did the same thing about 10 minutes ago. I’m glad I only looked at the wiki description and not the page itself. I think I may have saved my dinner that way. But still, I think it will take some time to not twitch at mention of the word “gaping”.
Scott, you may have missed my post above, but it applies to you as well. Your ass is behind you, where your legs and back meet, around where your poo comes out. With both hands behind you, you may be able to find it.
Oh yeah, of course you were!
Anyway, I think that Keith Eaton is Truth Machine gone bad. Hurt and confused, he has turned to the dark side and is now out to destroy the evolander world view.
Whaddya think? You know I’m right.
Goatseist. I will no longer be able to make a ‘God of the gaps’ argument with a straight face.
Truly, you are a great clairvoyant. You did not see the film, yet you conclude it is propaganda. I believe you are a twit.
Sincerely;
Gene
Gene, didn’t your mother tell you not to play with your brain when she isn’t around? Now go put it back and wait for her to get home.