I’ve been hearing a few complaints lately that there has been a shortage of creationist cretins around here — you all need an occasional fool to gnaw on to keep your fangs sniny and your pelts glossy, I know. Well, aren’t you lucky: Carl Wieland, head of the Australian contingent of global wackaloons, put up an irate reply to the atheist rejection of his offer to debate us. We’re getting a sudden surge because it included this summary of my dismissal:
PZ Myers’ “in your face, Christians” response
PZ Myers, however, while not giving the courtesy of a direct reply, did so firmly and unmistakably on his widely accessed blog. Not surprisingly, it, too, involved a rejection of the invitation to debate, with all the usual excuses trotted out. Readers who are not used to some of the anti-Christian vitriol on such sites need to be warned, but we think seeing the response may be useful for some of you who may have thought that this issue is primarily about science—it’s not. That much should be obvious just from the emotionalism of this response alone. There is a palpable disdain, even hatred, of Christianity and the Bible. Myers concludes his rejection with a “Here’s my answer to Carl Wieland … “, followed by an image which has a common depiction of the Lord Jesus, with the image of the hand manipulated so as to be giving a rude gesture. For the whole response by PZ Myers, bearing all the warnings in mind for younger members of the family in particular, you can see
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/a_reply_to_carl_wieland.php
Curiously, although I’m not shy about expressing my contempt for all religions, that particular post doesn’t say anything rude about Christianity at all — it does plainly state that Young Earth creationists are not worth wasting time on.
Anyway, it has drawn in some fresh meat. Enjoy it while you can — the new kooks will turn tail and run away soon enough, if experience is any guide.
“keep your fangs sniny ”
Is this a new word I have to add to my vocabulary or just a typo?
Let’s see, they’re trying to force their religious beliefs to be accepted and taught as science, and he’s crowing that it’s not primarily about the science?
Idiot, there’s absolutely no reason to debate you if it is about the science, as you have none. That it’s about theistic politics is the only reason we pay any attention to your garbage.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Hey, kids! Look! The gingerbread house says “YECs welcome”!
Go on in. I’m sure there’s nothing to fear. Maybe the residents will invite you to stay for lunch.
[drool]
Pharynguloids are expected to understand the deep and manifold meanings of the word “sniny”, yes.
Are you implying that our pelts haven’t been glossy lately?
That hurts.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
#1
see: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/oooh_shiny_1.php
So Wieland can link to your site, describe an image you posted, but has to go to another blog to get a droopy, poorly lit photo that is less flattering, than the one you post publicly on your blog?
And what’s with the pouting Dawkins he posted? How can anyone take someone so seriously who intentionally makes his opponents into caricatures while insisting he and his opinions be respected?
…Oh no, the children might see The Bird?
Has this guy been in a public school in.. forever?
Oooh yeah. Bring on the cretinous trolls!
My pelt can never be too sniny.
If Carl Wieland was part of the organization that is planning the atheist summit, he could claim to make an invitation. But he is not, he is trying to place a program that was not part of the plans. That is not an invitation. Very dishonest.
Pure concern troll recruiting. See, those meanies use harsh language. And we all know that the use of such language invalidates any evidence that the evilutionists have.
A word of caution, if one is attracted by such means, do not resort to name calling also. There is one lovely troll calling it’s foes, pond scum. Sorry, lovely troll. Pond scum serves a more useful function in life than you do.
Yet more dishonesty. The disdain is not just for christianity and the bible, it is for all religions and the guiding works. Carl Wieland, use some ethics, try being truthful.
The entire image of jesus is a drawing. It is, by definition, a manipulation. Carl Wieland is greatly skilled at using weasel words to express indignation and showing how he has been “wronged”.
Oooh, fresh lambs to the slaughter!
Pelts? Pelts? Furry kraken… um, just how much root beer did you have last night?
Ah, that explains why my tartar buildup is being eroded away on the other thread.
“anti-christian” and “pro-reality” are synonymous for Young Earth Cretins.
That would explain the sudden thread necromancy by people who seem to think that their willful ignorance is superior to actual hard-earned knowledge.
I roll my eyes in their general direction and return to my bunker to gnaw my bamboo and enjoy my tea.
Happy Monkey, everyone!
The MadPanda, FCD
Let’s see their sessions are going to be from 2 to 7 pm on the Sunday, but the Atheism Conference is finishing around 4 pm, Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker and others are featured on the Sunday and my flight leaves at around 6pm. Sorry, I think I’ll be forced (reluctantly) to give it a miss.
Just how much time is there to waste on people who are clearly delusional with the arrogance of willful ignorance. The proper response to these people is ridicule.
‘Twas a few nights past squidmas
And all through Pharyngopolis
Not a creature was stirring
Not even the decapodists
The children were tucked all sniny in beds
With visions of cuttlefish’s tentacular heads
&c.
I love the word ‘sniny’ and will use it daily from now on.
Mayhap to Wieland, non-YEC Christians are Fake Christians™.
Yay, fresh meat. The mormon missionaries were a bit too thin and straggly. Nothing like a big fat christian to tide me over the new year period.
Yes but someone has to supply the ridicule. People don’t ridicule themselves you know…oh no wait… these are christians. Carry on…
Pffft.. My pelt is pretty fabulous these days, thankyouverymuch.
Nonetheless, Christians, and their angsty, overbearing splinter-group, the Young Earth Creationists, have never given anyone a reason to respect them. Sure, they like to demand it, a ton. And, they do tend to go on about how “persecuted” they are, but the fact is, they neither earn nor deserve anyone’s respect.
Contempt? Sure.
I don’t hate them, though. I pity them. Greatly.
Twas brillig, and the sniny toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe…
Why, with a population of only 20 million, do we Australians account for so many of the wackjob NEC’s?
typo. The correct word is ‘snihy.’
ice
Stay away from erupting volcanoes, or you might end up like Sniny the Elder.
Wieland, where are your hordes ready to do battle with the dreaded evilutionists?
Possibly because Ye Olde Country offered more Transportation to Botany Bay than to Georgia? Possibly because we have so many whack-jobs here in the States that there is a limit on the number of high visibility ones (though you are still responsible for exporting a couple of very high visibility whack-jobs to the US: Ken Ham and News Corp.). If any of our surplus that are currently being ignored were Canadians or Kiwis they might be noticed.
Bzzzzzt… I’m sorry. Circle gets the Square. The word we were looking for was “Hannah Montana.”
Brkng nws: Athsm s dd frvr! :)
http://skptclcmmnty.cm/phpbb2/vwtpc.php?p=503778#503778
Not only dishonest nutters, but tax-payer subsidised dishonest nutters.
Indexed, a few days back, has a card, http://thisisindexed.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/card2335.jpg, that says that debates are between opinions and doubts, while arguments (I assume in the science/philosophical sense) are between opinions and certainty.
As I have said before, a debate is just like a sermon, and a preacherman telling lies from in a lectern is right at home, and will always seem to win. Science is not done by debate.
So have these cranks settled their disputes with their American brethren?
Oh, we ALL know about David Mabus. I notice he has stolen our fiery goats phrase. The irony was not lost on me.
I thought we stole caprae incendiae from Mabus…but then again, I am an idiot.
“There is a palpable disdain, even hatred, of Christianity and the Bible.”
I know they’re trying to make me feel bad, but it’s not working. I do hate Christianity and the Bible. Doesn’t mean I’m going to set up any pogroms, but I’m not going to pretend that “hate” is the most forbidden of the forbidden words. People use it regularly to describe their opinion towards food items.
Richard Eis, the insane man gave us GOATS ON FIRE. But we have re-purposed it to something more humorous.
Erm, waiter…is our order of trolls ready yet?
*makes second bag of popcorn*
Sniny is the name of the little sidekick that does PZ’s bidding, like fetching him a danish now and then.
PZ strikes me as more of a Bismark eater than a Danish eater.
I wish Carl Weiland had the balls to come here himself. Wouldn’t it be fun to verbally eviscerate the old fool?
*Smack Smack*
*burrrrrrrrrp*
Ahhh, that makes sense… I must have missed that bit and just assumed that PZ had thought of the best phrase to represent burning, painful stupidity and arrogance.
All we get is Mabus and his Sooper Seekrit™ Un-Krakable Kode? I’m taking the pughuahua for a walk unitl this heats up a bit.
I’d rather call them young earth extremists than young earth creationists ‘cuz not only is it politically correct to do that, that’s exactly what these guys are.
pfft, Rorschach and I offered to debate him. Why isn’t he taking us up on it?
Seems we can’t get trolls to come this way. They will turn up when they least expect it ;-)
I say the first thing brought up in any debate with creationists is to ask why evolution is officially accepted by the Vatican and therefore accepted as true by the largest denomination of Christianity. Then watch their heads explode as they try to explain that Catholicism isn’t True Christianity™.
Sectarianism ftw!
For extra points – and fun – throw in that Catholicism is the church originally set up by Jesus himself, meaning that Jesus was therefore a supporter of evolution.
Carl Wieland, you are a worthless, dispicable liar who steals money from gullible fools…you know very well all you say is bullshit, and you don’t care because you’re in it for the money. Why the fuck would any reputable scientist sully their good name debating fucking liars like you and your fellow thieves?
*flips bird just like jeebus*
Some people enjoy a new word
Not caring it may be absurd
It’s all just in fun,
Not hurting no one
Yes, “sniny” is what you just heard.
pfft, Rorschach and I offered to debate him.
Oh, really? I’d make popcorn for that one.
Yeah, check the other thread. Of course this is about attaching to the “celebrity” of PZ Myers, so our offer to Wieland will go down as well as his offer to PZ Myers.
That’s why no normal Aussies know, or want to know, who this fuckwit is?
Sniny = glossy with a snide, how hard was that?
@#45
“Then watch their heads explode as they try to explain that Catholicism isn’t True Christianity™.”
I’ve tried this line of reasoning with my Fundie/Puritan sister (Southern Baptist)….and she calmly informed me that Catholics are not ‘Born Again” and therefor will get the eternal damnation they deserve…(they’re pagans)
The Jews go into some kind of limbo when they die and will, at some point in the future, get “another chance”….but the Catholics are going to burn.
I guess it helps a little to be one of Gods chosen people.
this is about attaching to the “celebrity” of PZ Myers
No shit.
Which thread?
Since there is no scientific evidence for the flood, I presume his talks are pretty short.
What? What was that you said? He lies and also spins yarns of ignorance about geology?
Oh. Well then I guess he probably gives a pretty lengthy talk after all.
Ooo… Snidely shiny. Like Ted Haggard?
“A Reply To Carl Wieland”
Rorschach’s original comment and my follow-up.
Kel,
For sure that loathsome waste of oxygen is reading this…
So “Dr.” Carl, Liar for Jeebus™, you want a debate? Here’s a couple of local boys, ready to take you up on your offer. Surely, you can hold your own with two unknowns?
Richard, sorry about the delay, my computer is acting up. Here is where GOATS ON FIRE comes from. You must have missed it.
The Aussie wackaloon already being sufficiently mocked and ridiculed, I will use this brief space within this well accessed blog to announce my very first nature video. Can’t promise any duck boners or sexy squid, just a genuine National Geographic backyard moment.
Enjoy.
Does Wieland get a special prize for sending people over for deconversion?
I think we are being harsh on the YECs. They do have, after all, a scientific equation for creationism:
INORGANIC MATTER+ENERGY+TIME+INFORMATION=ORGANIC LIFE
It says everything, doesn’t it? We can close all the biology departments in all the universities. I got that gem from: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/721
the audio of the 1986 Oxford Union Debate. I now see why Richard Dawkins now refuses to debate creationists. I admired his patience. I’d have strangled the crazies after the first interjection.
That’s the plan. Of course, my celebrity is limited to my OM and a blog that gets a couple of dozen hits a day. But then again, since I’m just some kid (well 25) with a computer science degree, he could use me as fodder to look good.
Yeah, those guys love free speech. That’s why Ken Ham’s blog doesn’t allow comments, and is why Weiland doesn’t have one in the first place. On the other hand, PZ Myers’ blog does allow comments.
(provided that typepad bullshit lets me through)!
Super buzz kill! And open invite by PZ 4 & a half hours ago, and no fundies yet! Cmon you creotards! What are you waiting for?
The link to his blog could keep even the most ravenous kook stomper busy for eternity.
What a horrible, infuriating place.
I have just spent two days reading through the whole Mormon Prophecy-thread (great stuff! :))
But where is this surge of creationists..? Could anyone link to the thread(s)?
It’s the link in the post: “a reply to Carl Wieland”
Minor threadjack here. I exercised a little civil disobedience again at Barnes and Noble by reclassifying some creationist/anti Darwin books from the science section to the religious fiction section. I even placed them alphabetically by author. One of them was Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson. The other was The Darwin Myth by Benjamin Wiker. Yeah, it was petty of me but I sure feel better when I do this.
ernieball #66,
it’s just a trickle now, if there ever was a surge. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/a_reply_to_carl_wieland.php
As usual, a great boom of “take this evilutionists”, then “ha you have no answer, and I refuse to look at anything you give me” to “pah, I proved you are all meanies, I’m leaving”.
yawn.
“…harsh language. …the use of such language invalidates any evidence”
No not invalidation, but reconcideration. Use of course language, where even toned or polite language could express the same idea, makes many who might concider the idea wonder about the intellegence or the individual writing the comment.
Sandiseattle, quit being such a fucking simpering simp. In your polite tone, I have not seen any intelligence that I should give respect to.
sandiseattle @70, your concerns about tone are noted and filed where they belong; in particular your amusing conceit that the intelligence of the commenter is linked to it, rather than the substance.
PS have you considered getting a spellchecker? ;)
Creationists have no reputation or respectability through their efforts or actions, so they try and have their names attached to well-known opponents, or hold meetings aand debates at the location of scientific organisations and the like.
That’s why Wieland wouldn’t be interested in debating Kel and me, best he can get out of such a debate would be not to look like a total idiot.
Still though, it would look better on his resume then on mine, as the saying goes…:-)
@70:
Except that’s absurd. The tone of an argument is wholly disconnected from it’s truth value — to use the tone as part of the process of determining whether something is true or not is irrational to the extreme. It’s like when people try to say, “look how great religious charities are! therefore god exists!”.
Might I also note the piss-poor quality of mook that Wieland wields. Not up to standard.
If they were chew-toys, they’d be made in China™: cheap and nasty, and don’t last long.
AF Comm Guy, sometimes the employees at the bookstore engages in the same kind of activities. I remember a window display that had all of the usual wingnut best sellers; Hannity, C**lt*r, Limbaugh, Gingrich and so on. In the middle was the novel by John Kennedy Toole, Confederacy Of Dunces. It was glorious.
Yah, but fuck-off is easier to spell than consider or coarse!
Sandiseattle wrote:
You spelled three words incorrectly and misused another. What does that say about your intelligence (note spelling) exactly? Would it be fair to say it implies you’re a clueless dumbass?
But you might have a valid point. Can you cite for us any studies that demonstrate that using words and expressions such as ‘ass’ and ‘fucking clown shoe’ is in any way correlated with the incorrectness of the position of the person using those words?
Because, until you do, you can feel free to cram your whining opinions up your ass, you fucking clown shoe. Obviously, your grasp of sociolinguistics and rhetoric are is substandard as your grasp of science, logic and comparative religion.
#70
You appear to be under the unfortunate and inaccurate impression that none of us have ever tried the polite and reasonable discussion approach before.
You might also be under the impression that a vicious curse, delivered politely, is somehow less rude than the same curse delivered directly. In which case you ought to expect repeated invitations to perform structurally impossible copulatory actions upon yourself and retire forthwith to the most dismal of infernal regions.
The MadPanda, FCD
Okay first of all, a spellchecker wouldn’t have caught course/coarse, and blame phonics for concider. Consider and concider sound the same in my head.
Exactly. He’s a con-man, there’s no profit debating you. Dawkins, there’s a name he can cash in on…
Oh, eye sea what ewe mean.
Legion, BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Nicely played.
“But you might have a valid point. Can you cite for us any studies that demonstrate that using words and expressions such as ‘ass’ and ‘fucking clown shoe’ is in any way correlated with the incorrectness of the position of the person using those words?”
He’s talking about perception of accuracy, not actual accuracy.
sandiseattle, your semi-illiteracy is noted and forgiven.
Now, about the substance of the issue: Do you seriously consider that the ideas (or arguments) expressed in a comment are in any way diminished by its tone?
Are you even aware of the genetic fallacy?
Of great rarity, I have to agree with Janine, Legion at #82, funny.
Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula:
Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.
This pathetic strawman again. Science is not faith. Evolution is an observed fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection is supported by evidence and has no competing theory. Accepting this does not require a loss of religious faith but does require abandoning biblical literalism.
Grow a brain.
Such is the power of religion. They choose to ignore the truth because acknowledging it might make them feel bad.
sandiseattle:
You’re a good sport ;-)
Continuing the OT discussion for a minute…
AF Comm Guy said,
I am sympathetic towards your approach. I enjoy taking, scanning, and re-wording promotional pamphlets from new-age shops on subjects like homeopathy, reiki, and other pseudo-scientific superstitions, then returning a stack of the subtly but decisively altered texts to the store.
The outcome is usually something like this,
Homepathy is a scientifically
provendebunked, pseudo-medical practice that claims to treat the patient as whole, rather than effectively addressing the underlying disease or even the symptoms. Homeopathy dates from 1799AD (much the same as leaches) and involves the use ofactivearbitrarily selected ingredients (such as duck liver) diluted past the point of a single molecule remaining in water or alcohol. Homeopathy is useful (only as a placebo) for treating a range of mostly self-limiting illnesses and conditions in gullible people with too much money.I like to think of it as enforced honesty in advertising.
“Such is the power of religion. They choose to ignore the truth because acknowledging it might make them feel bad.”
Now hold on. It isn’t just religion that retards scientific literacy. Even a 100% correlation between the high level of religious-ness referred to in a previous post doesn’t supply ALL of the numbers for Merika’s scientific illiteracy, full stop. Let’s leave some room for plain old failures of education.
Maintaining an appearance of accuracy is something science SHOULD be concerned with, because full papers can be dense and difficult to explain to a layman.
@67 and 69:
Thanks. I thought it was more of an upheld “siege” of religious posters. But this will do for some enetretainment before bed :)
enetretainment?? How the hell… Entertainment!
@speedweasel: your post was, like, OMG hilarious!! Altering pamphlets? LOL!!!
But please, in your next batch don’t lie to the people: medicinal leeches have a history much more ancient than the 18th Century.
In summary: if your plan to take, scan, modify and print these pamphlets ever progresses beyond the “wouldn’t it be cool too…” stage, then please make sure you give them actual facts.
Yes, that caught my eye too.
My initial response was, how many errors can you cram into a single sentence?
But then I remembered who wrote it.
Which means, stop lying. And that is almost impossible to do for the brainwashed zombies.
I always wonder what creationists think on their deathbed? It can’t feel very good to be lying close to death, let your life pass in front of your eyes once more, and think ” I did good, I lied to people and to myself all my life and tried my best to lie to my children and fuck things up for everyone”.
@SlantedScience
Thanks for your advice, I’ll take it on board and spend some time looking into the use of leaches in early medicine.
The really sad thing for homeopathy is that my crack about leaches is the only untruth in that whole paragraph.
I’m actually of two minds on debating creationists. I agree that their beliefs don’t deserve the time of day, but the practical problem is that there are lots of people who find those beliefs persuasive. So maybe having a few debates in which their ignorance and stupidity are meticulously and exhaustively exposed for what they are wouldn’t be the worst idea.
NI,
Been tried, doesn’t work. All it does is evince to the gullible that they merit a stage with actual authorities, and by implication that there is in fact a “debate” regarding the validity of evolutionary theory.
Meticulousness and exhaustiveness aren’t available in a debate format, and the demagogic creationist debaters are masters of rhetoric, “gish galloping” and ignoratio elenchi.
It doesnt work like that unfortunately.
You can not convince a creationist or religious wooist of anything with the same tools 2 scientists or rationalists might convince the other with presented evidence.
Those people “know” what is truth, and no argument will ever convince them otherwise.
The creationists are even worse then the wooists, in that they deliberately lie and distort, they are con-men.
For an audience that hasnt been reading Pharyngula or is well versed in the creobots’ tricks, they will be able to get away with the same old lies again and again, and complain about tone, and a neutral observer might not recognize what’s actually going on.
And I said above, they like their names mentioned next to the names of real scientists, it gives them credibility.
No, they just need to suck it up, that no proper scientist wants to be seen within a mile of these assclowns.
I want to agree, but I suspect that for every person that attends the debate and is show the vacuity of creationist arguments, there will be 1000 people who catch a 30 second ‘balanced’ news piece reporting that Richard Dawkins is debating a ‘Christian Scientst’ at some prestigious university. Which is exactly the sort of publicity creationists want. As has been pointed out already in this and other threads, creationists desperately want to borrow the authority of scientists and scientific institutions.
They are already hanging out in the back of our photographs, trying to look cool by association. Lets not put them front and centre.
speedweasel #91
The Greeks and Romans were using leeches for medical purposes over 2000 years ago.
Thats Tis, I am being well schooled in the history of leeches at the moment. :)
I will find another, more accurate historical medical curiosity to compare homeopathy with.
Cheers,
speedweasel,
You’re on the right track, it’s only the date that’s an issue. Really, the woo is that it was a form of bloodletting.
Animal magnetism was invented by Franz Mesmer around 1774.
Besides, leeches, unlike homeopathy, actually have legitimate medical uses, like preventing blood from coagulating in amputees undergoing re-attachment surgery.
Have homeopathy trolls been dancing for the masses recently? I have been out of the loop for a while.
Rohrschach # 96
I always wonder what creationists think on their deathbed?
That’s why I almost feel sorry there’s no life after death. I wish it was possible to wait for them and watch them realize their whole life was a lie and then do the Nelson-HaHa.
Re: sandiseattle @70
I just caught this mis-spelling in the random quote sidebar:
For shame!
Registration is off? I haven’t been able to comment for over a week. The world is a poorer place for it, I am sure. Please, please fix.
BS
Sorry Tis, a simple typo made that sound harsh.
Oh FFS! I went to religious school for 12 years, and the creationist view was left behind after kindergarten.
Blockquote fail
Really, we’d be way out of his league. He’s a professional creationist, he knows the rhetorical devices and he knows his audience. Do you think you could give a decent account of why flood geology is stupid, and do so to a hostile audience who have already made their mind up that the bible is Absolute TruthTM? I don’t think I could.
Though I’d find it an interesting challenge, it’s one thing to snipe stupidity when I have the internet to back me up when I’m unsure. But in person where I have to talk on the spot? I’ve got to say I’d like to see myself under pressure in a way that I don’t experience here. When I say something stupid on here, I have David et al. to call me out on it.
I’m with you there, Kel. If Francisco Ayala can come off so badly debating William Craig, there’s not much hope for the novice debator.
http://bradleymonton.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/report-on-the-craigayala-debate-at-indiana-university/
“We’ve got huge, sharp… er… He can leap about….look at the bones!!!”
Would someone kindly pass the ketchup?
OT, but is there going to be a Pharyngula get-together in Melbourne during the conference? It would be great to put faces to names. Any good watering-hole suggestions?
Even Christopher Hitchens got spanked by William Lane Craig – that guy is a master debater. Though from what I heard, Victor Stenger took him to the sword, which is to be expected given how Craig relies on (misconceptions of) cosmological arguments.
If there isn’t, it would be a travesty. But something is in the works I believe. Ask Bride Of Shrek about it.
Re debating with YECs, I’m sure I couldn’t do it. Whenever I’m face with someone making creationist sorts of statements I’m so overwhelmed with the sheer depth of their ignorance I don’t know where to start. How do you give someone an entire scientific education in a few sentences? My mind rushes back past years of formal study plus decades of further reading and I’m speechless at the enormity of what they don’t know. Those who are prepared to undertake it have my heartfelt admiration but it won’t be me.
Kel & Rorschach
If you guys can get Carl “chickenshit” Wieland to the debating table then count me in as head
slutcheerleader. I’ve always wanting to be a debating groupie...and whoever it was that was asking re the Pharyngulite dinner ( well tables at any rate) at the conference, yes plans are a foot. If you haven’t already emailed me to be included on the list send a short email to laingshort@hotmail.com and I’ll out you on the mailing list. I should have info re the seating in the next couple of weeks and will send an email out to everyone already on the list then.
Aha, Bride of Shrek, just the person I needed to see. Any plans for a Pharyngula get-together in Melbourne during the conference?
“So maybe having a few debates in which their ignorance and stupidity are meticulously and exhaustively exposed for what they are wouldn’t be the worst idea.”
I tend to agree, but not in the way that I think you mean. Scientists are entirely the wrong people to be debating professionals who are skilled at playing with words. You need another skilled word-game-player to knock these fools down.
I’m a lawyer and have had several face-to-face encounters with creationists. They always end up simpering and backing off, because I don’t play their game the way they want.
For instance, when a creationist starts talking about the laws of thermodynamics, I tell them I’m not a scientist and neither are they. They don’t know what they’re talking about and I tell them I won’t engage in a discussion about the fine points of science. Rather, I ask them whether they really believe such nonsense as God impregnating a woman, who somehow remained a virgin, so that he could become his own father and commit suicide by being crucified, to provide himself with a blood-sacrifice so that he would forgive all of us for sins we didn’t commit (since we weren’t born yet) and then rise from the dead so he could go up to heaven and sit by his own side. I then suggest that it’s based on such foolishness that they refuse to actually consider the evidence of evolution, because to do so would shake the foundations of their faith.
They start muttering and backing off and explaining that they really don’t believe those stories and they start redefining terms. I keep pushing and they keep redefining their terms. They look stupid and everyone around — including the religious — know it.
I would love to have the opportunity to take the stage with one of the professional creationists. It would be a blast.
Is there any plan for something external to the dinner itself for those of us who aren’t forking out $100 for a meal?
If nothing else, I’ll be up for some boozing on the friday night.
…err, that should be “put” you on the mailing list not “out”. That’s a whole ‘nother list ;-)
and I also forgot we are also working on a “get together” in Melbourne on the Friday afternoon for those not attending the conference dinner on Saturday. There is a cocktail thingy on the Friday night for those with a wekeend pass but I thought we’d have something earlier in the afternoon for everyone to get togeher and those that have to PO to the cocktail party can do so. It will be somewhere central and I’ll let you all know ASAP.
BoS @121:
Heh!
BTW, did y’all see this?
http://sni.thelightbulbs.com/
Thanks, Bride of Shrek – email on the way, so I can be outed.
Are we wearing best atheist t-shirts?
@Shocked:
Thank you, I needed a smile. Now, here’s a question:
With a skilled debater, can the science itself win a debate? I mean, you’re right. Scientists spend entirely too much time on their job to be as good at debating as these folks, whom are legitimately good at rhetoric and who put lots of time into it. So what if we had someone equally schooled in rhetoric, with access to the evidence, to put their time into refuting Creationist nonsense?
From what I’ve heard, Donald Prothero and Ken Miller are damn good debaters and hold creationists to the sword.
speedweasel @91 and 97,
As you are researching leeches, my wife the pharmacist reports that they were in use as recently as the 1980s, though only for (pre- or post-, I forget) surgical wound cleaning. They kept them in a bin in the fridge.
Kel @ 114,
I don’t think I could either, especially remembering how we were witness to 2 geologists failing to convince a creationist of the same thing over about 5000 posts just recently…:-)
But I don’t think that’s necessary actually.You can point to Ryan and Pitman, to the sumerian flood myths, and if there is anyone openminded in the audience, they will go and look it up.
I wouldn’t go there with the erroneous idea that I might actually get a creationist to think for him/herself LOL.
And as the commenter @ 123 said, if you play their game of lies and strawmen with them, they come out looking good.ERV experienced that firsthand IIRC.
OT but good. Looks like Thunderf00t and Dawkins had a nice little sit down. Video is now up on YouTube.
If there ever was such a fellow as jesus then he probably would give the YEC’s the bird.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/a_reply_to_carl_wieland.php
So PZ’s reply on behalf of jesus is quite apt in my view.
Rutee
“With a skilled debater, can the science itself win a debate?”
Possible, but unlikely. The science is going to be beyond the lay audience. So, for them, the debate is simply a liar’s contest. Who are you going to believe on the science, the baby-killing, librul, atheist or the moral, god-loving, creationist? The listener will tend to believe the person who has the greater credibility in his/her mind.
The creationist will spew lie after lie, putting the scientist on the defensive, trying to disprove every lie. And there never is the time to do so.
In a debate about matters that require expert understanding, you either have to have the time to explain the information — which never exists in these types of encounters — or you must destroy the credibility of the opposing expert.
We already know that we cannot destroy the opposing expert with scientific evidence (see above), so we have to destroy the credibility with non-scientific approaches. Once the liar’s credibility is seriously eroded, then we can talk about the science.
Perhaps there are situations in which the science is accessible enough for a scientist to quickly establish that the creationist is wrong. But those situations are few and far between and would quickly be swamped by a flood of more lies.
At least that’s my take, for what it’s worth.
I remember, my concern is that without the knowledge of Josh or AlanB it just means that he can point and go “what about this geological structure?” And we’d look stupid because we couldn’t account for evidence X. But point taken, there are other obvious things to focus on of course.
So Mr Wieland, if you’re reading then myself and Rorschach would be more than happy to debate you and a creationist buddy if you’re up for it.
I love how christians cringe at swear words, I make sure every time one of them cringes at swearing that I pepper every sentence with swears. I love words like fuck and shit, it makes christians lose it so fast. The only thing that makes them scream faster is when you tell them that jesus if he lived today would be a communist.
“Emotionalist” – that’s a new one!
And I thought Evolutionalist scientists denied their Emotionalist tendencies.
Well, if the christians aren’t serious enough to pay my airfare and conference fees (their god idea will provide if they are real christians of faith), I really haven’t time to seriously debate the christian who has no true faith.
It boggles my mind that someone could know about, much less grow up in Australia and be a young earth creationist. How did all the unique life forms get from the top of Mt Arawhocares to Australia again?
It’s not just that I don’t understand how a person could be so stupid. How could a fellow hominid be so dumb? I bet if I could even speak bonobo and ran that story by them they’d say “What? No way, get the F out of here. That’s crazy talk.”
Well, if we could “speak bonobo” we’d all be happy monkeys!
I think PZ ought to retitle this post “A Non-existent Flood of Young-earth Creationists”.
Sorry to comment off topic, but can someone please point me to commentary on the “Catholic Come Home” television commercials, whether by PZ or someone else? I am stunned to learn that the Catholic Church is responsible for the development of the scientific method. Thanks!
@142: Don’t you see, the lack of evidence for a flood is a trial of faith by PZ. Keep the faith, brother. The flood happened, evidence or no. Why would Noah have built the ark if there was no flood?
I find that arguing with creationists works well if you know how to turn arguments on them. Take that hoary old bastard, the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument. I immediately start asking things like, “Explain what you know about it.” Or, “What is the first law?” Or, best of all, “How many laws of thermodynamics are there?” And so forth.
Think of it as a reverse Gish Gallop. I bog them down with defining and explaining and details, details, details, until they get so cornered that they never bring it up again within my hearing–or that of anyone who would tell me about it.
Of course, I’m dealing with the booboisie, not the paid shit-shovelers, so maybe that makes a difference.
I don’t know if anyone has seen this. The story reads very well; halfway through, I looked up the subject matter on Wikipedia to see if there was any validity. The article itself eventually got to the connection with Ray Comfort….
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/8CA33A4D9B3F31C08625768A001A23E1?OpenDocument
With regard to the comments on the subject of tone versus truth value, I submit for the consideration of the here assembled peers and pharyngulites the proposition that it matters not how, or in what words, truth is expressed. Those who would object to accurate content based solely on the means by which it is delivered are not primarily interested in facts, but rather in a passive aggressive form of ad hominem attack that belies their true position.
And, for those who actually prefer a saltier presentation, I provide the following spices which you may pepper throughout as suits:
Asshole, idiot, brainless fuckwit, moron, backward imbecile, fuck you, fuck your mother, motherfucker, dirtbag, scum sucking mutant piece of garbage, fucktard, get fucked, eat shit, drop dead, useless git.
This is not an Atheist site. You’re all a pack of Animists, as
foretold in Romans 1:23.
SNINY fanged animists, with glossy coats, as commanded in Myers 2010:01
Well wiley, animism was dead back in Aristotle’s time.He had that one figured out 2400 years ago.
Maybe you missed the memo.
cousinavi,
I believe you just won the thread!
/wipes beer off of monitor & keyboard
@78:
‘you fucking clown shoe’ is now my new favourite insult.
cousinavi,
I disagree. Cogency, relevance and clarity matter.
As an (extreme) example, I offer this.
Friends, Romans 1:23, listen up:
It would seem then that we weren’t exactly made in God’s image, after all.
Craig @ post 131
Medicinal leeches are still in use in medicine, usually for either reattaching amputated body parts or in breast reconstrucitve surgery. They cause blood to drain that would otherwisae remain stagnant, facillitate blood flow and tissue healing. About 2 -3 leeches are applied per patient, and they fall off after 40 minutes.
U.S. federal Drug Administration has classified them as “a medical device”, like pacemakers. They can be ordered from medicinal breeding farms, and cost approx. $8.00 each (+shipping)
John Morales:
I disagree. Cogency, relevance and clarity matter.
As an (extreme) example, I offer this.
I fucking well take issue with that bit of limp drivel. First of all, in the first draft, it was titled Pincipia Mathmatica – Vado Concubitus Per Vestri (Mathimatic Principles – Go Fuck Yourself!) but the publisher was an uptight ball sweat licking sonuvabitch who altered the cover without notice or consent.
Secondly, the statement 1+1=2 is rendered no less relevant, cogent or clear if expressed “Goddamn 1 plus goddamn 1 equals motherbitching 2.”
I contend that what it gives up in brevity it gains in style.
Thirdly, when dealing with simpering moronic airheads who argue for creationism, I rather enjoy sprinkling the counterpoint with terms they find objectionable. Since they either refuse to listen to the content or are incapable of wrapping their warped little perspective around it, I might as well enjoy the process and take some small pleasure in metaphorically pissing in their cornflakes by injecting vocabulary their imaginary super git god prevents them from similarly employing.
Fourthly, I’ve heard that one of Stephen Hawkings great disappointments is that his voice simulator doesn’t handle the phrase, “Go fuck yourself, you ignorant bonehead” with nearly the force he intends. This is, of course, probably not true…but it should be.
Wowbagger, #78
Skeptic Fail #10
Skeptic Fail #10: Thinking that disrespect and mockery are ever effective outreach. At best, superiority entertains the base.
But since you are superior obviously this does not apply to you. You spelling nazi you. :)
Why is the Theory of Evolution superior to Creationism?
Because there is evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution while there is no evidence whatsoever supporting Creationism. Evolution is a mechanism, evolution can be observed in action. Evolution has a verifiable history and the theory can be used to devise testable prediction. None of this is true of Creationism.
Creationism is not scientific, Creationism is a system of belief unsupported by any facts, any proofs. That is a simple statement of fact and needs no snark, no sarcasm to support it. It is a fact that atplies no matter how many tie-poes sneak into a declaration. Just as tone does not validate or invalidate a statement, so spelling and grammar neither validates nor invalidates a statement.
Though tone and attitude does alienate people and turn them from your argument. That is a simple fact of life. Attack somebody personally and you can end any chance you had of persuading him. Unless, that is, he’s conclusively shown he is an obtuse jerk who’s not about to change his mind.
So wait until your opponent demonstrates conclusively his douchebaggery before naming him a douchebag. And being upset by something he says does nothing to prove he’s a douchebag, only that you were upset by something he said.
ShockedISaid is completely righ.
A public debate is not about who has the reason, but who wins the public. since you can not bring the “facts” to show you are right, the public expect instead to have easy answers and explanations… no matter how wrong they are.
The only way to counter creationist and similare delusions in public with their own kind of arguments, no matter how silly they are…
Unfortunatelly any good atheist and scientist would reject to go to such low levels. But i think there must be some midle ground, after all we have the facts.
An examaple comes to my mind. Galileo discovered the laws of motion by experimentation. He found that all aristotelics physics was pure nonsense…
But he new that experimentation was no apreciated by his colleages, so he had to create a set of arguments based on aristotelic logic, to convince them.. no matter that those arguments are not real proofs.
In modern science, a logical proof, is worthless is it nos based on facts. If facts are against logic, we must adapt the logic… not the facts.
But that is difficult to explain to lay people. Taht is why ins a discusion between a philosopher and a scientis, to the eyes of the people, the phylosopher wins…
Science acepts facts that seems contrary to logic. Just think on the relativist and quantum phisics.
So.. the facts of the origin of the universe, and evolution, should be explained with analogies tied to the daily world. What is important, is that they coould deliver the message.
As soon as you began speaking of cells, genes, dna sequence, quarks, background radiation, curve space… you are going to loss the audience. thos are only good for people with the correct background.
So…How do you explain the second law of thermodinamics to anyone?…
First.. I know analogies are dangerous… because while they can help to explain… they can extrapolated but the extraplation are not valid, since they are not the real thing…
But… Lets try. I have tried this analogy.
The second law of thermodinamics says that in a closed system, disorder grows. But if you put energy in the system, you can diminish disorder.
Somethings every housewife (or househusband..) knows.
The disorder in a house grows unless you invest energy to put order. Of course, You can use less energy, if you hide the disorder in the basement.. or in the trashcan…
But as long as you put energy (food, light, heat) there is no violation of the second law.
(it does not sound very good in english)..
Can you help me to refine or trim this analogy?
i have found it usefull…
I’m curious, wiley. What brought this on, exactly? Do you have any evidence for your assertion, or is it just the voices in your head?
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought to check the finishing time for the convention, just to see whether we could sneak in a little creationist amusement on the way home.
I suggest on the Friday we shall know each other by our Tim Minchin concert t-shirts.
“Right. When you will be just a little older you will doubtless learn the advantage of minding your own business. If you will be so good as to turn your head slightly to the left, you will see the door. I wish you good-afternoon.”
– In a novel by W. Somerset Maugham.
“Logical foundation”???
The First Letter to the Corinthians makes very, very clear that Christianity is proud of lacking a logical foundation. The Epicureans, and rationalists in general, are mocked throughout. Wisdom – called such! – is mocked, Christianity is called “foolishness”, and God is praised for sticking it to the wise people and elevating foolishness above them. See also Job 37:24 (the concept isn’t new).
The Bible itself requires abandoning biblical literalism because of all its contradictions which range from the two mutually contradictory creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 to the many, many contradictions on what is necessary and what is sufficient for salvation.
Worse yet: it doesn’t even try to treat anything but the symptoms. Remember how homeopathy started? By Hahnemann’s discovery that, if you give quinine to someone who has malaria, they stop shivering and freezing, while if you give quinine to someone healthy, they start shivering and freezing.
Hahnemann reduced malaria to the symptom of shivering and freezing. He had no idea about Plasmodium – and didn’t even try to find out. He wasn’t interested in trying to figure out what is the cause of malaria.
Quinine interferes with heme excretion by Plasmodium so it basically chokes in its own shit.
The 2nd law holds only for isolated systems, those that neither matter nor energy can enter or leave. The Earth is not an isolated system – for starters, the sun shines.
Easy: he’s desperate to find a modern-day application for every Bible verse.
Evolution has something to do with life, and life has something to do with animism… TSIB.
To win a debate all you need is a charismatic speaker (whether or not they are full of total shit) and a sympathetic audience. The host of the debate will be the “winner” of the debate. The topic doesn’t really matter.
Coran, DebInOz, I will be wearing my octopus shirt and carrying my new mascot, Thelma the squid. That should make things quite clear.
I do also have a Tim Minchin shirt, but then again, so do many non-Pharyngulites. It’s the MIT NICHNIM EVIL 9002 shirt, with pink writing. Yes, I will wear pink for Tim.
Recommend: http://www.quackwatch.com
Will supply plentiful quantities of sniny toaves and flaming goats to hurl at the believers in children’s fairy stories.
mythusmage #158
You’re absolutely right. A fucking idiot being told he’s a fucking idiot will continue to be a fucking idiot. I doubt anyone disagrees with this point. However, a fucking idiot who comes to Pharyngula to tell us you all believe in evilution because you hate gawd and besides 2nd law of thermos bottles and carbon-14 dating was invented by Satan and dinosaurs were on the ark because Kent Hovind said so in a video so fall on you’re knees or your going to hell and I’ll pray for you pond scum isn’t here for a reasoned debate. So calling this fucking idiot a fucking idiot is not going to make any difference.
But your concern is noted.
Out-fucking-standing Tis! There’s a christian T-shirt in there somewhere.
well said, Tis. nearly all creotards who visit this site are not looking to think or challenge ideas but to start a verbal donnybrook. When the challenges start, they fade into the mist. They are frequently drive by trolls, sorta like Wiley @148. Pointing out that they are dickwads does not hurt anything since there was never any possibility of change anyway.
The whole idea of a debate is not one of contesting ideas but of persuasion. PZ has had his ass handed to him a couple of times for forgetting that fact. Debate is a specific skill set and not always the same as intelligence or subject knowledge. Being constrained by reality is a real disadvantage in that setting.
Nah, the RCC is not responsible for that, they are responsible for setting science back by one millenium or so.
Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method
and here: http://www.bandoli.no/knowledge.htm
What, so I can’t wear my old catholic school uniform a la St Trinian’s?
Have a look at this one:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R119KALS7G2O9O/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1439228620&nodeID=#wasThisHelpful
for the all-time Poe!
Tis Himself, #168
But the real goal is not to convince the creotard you’re right, the real goal is to get the creotard to doubt. Doubt the truth of his beliefs, for when that is done is when you can replace his sureties with knowledge.
So long as somebody is convinced his beliefs cannot be wrong he will not relinquish them. Get him to doubt what he beliefs and you open the way for information to enter.
wiley’s use of that bit of Romans isn’t surprising. It’s the go-to for attacking atheists, pagans and skeptics. If a religious person like Paul were to write a description of their perception of modern skeptical society in Biblical language they might come up with something that looked remarkably like Romans 21-32. I assume the rather tenuous link with animism comes because modern Atheists have dissolved the barrier between humans and everybody else on the planet, so this is like either revoking the human soul or giving everything a soul. Since the latter is useful for wiley’s link to Romans, I can see that he would want to go with that.
That said, I’m not sure how Paul is “foretelling”. All the versions I can find are written in the past tense. It doesn’t say “in the future there will be” either. It sounds like a description of (perhaps) Greek paganism to me.
Wow, 175 comments in less than 24 hours, all saying pretty much the same thing. No, this ain’t an echo chamber. No siree!
No, the echo chamber is in your empty mind, since belief in your imaginary deity requires an empty head devoid of rational thought.
X-
Are you devoid of any reading ability? In 175 comments, stating with the expected surge of YEC folks, it has gone into the etymological roots of ‘snihy’, debates in general, trolls in general, discussions of animism and the origins of GOATS ON FIRE.
BTW fuckwit, what was your point anyway?
X-Lurker: Do they all say pretty much the same thing? What is the major theme that you derive here?
Oh, look! X-Lurker came back to troll!
Did you even read the comments?
IIRC, this particular fuckwit spent a considerable amount of time arguing that, because we think that the Universe and our existence don’t have a point, we don’t have the right to ask him if he has a point to make.
So, no, he doesn’t have a point.
X-Lurker thinks that since we don’t bow to his imaginary deity, that we are an echo chamber egging each other to atheism. He just can’t grasp that his lack of conclusive physical evidence for his deity is the reason we don’t believe in his deity. Of course, nothing was ever offered on a previous thread (starting about 150 posts down). Sophistry all the way down…
As I was saying…
X-Lurker is perhaps an unwanted troll, but the comment is valid. X isn’t the first to call these commentaries an echo chamber. I’ve observed that in pretty much every comment thread there is a certain amount of repetition that could be done well without. There also seems to be a good amount of self-serving patting on the back as it were. “we’re all good because…. (insert trite phrase here)”
To turn back to topic, perhaps the lack of YECs is a good sign, maybe there are less of them every day.
The only points that X-Lurker has are to be found in the first letter of his moniker.
Sorry, mythus, but you’re assuming they’re even paying attention to what you say. They’re not.
You’re assuming that they haven’t been forged in the fire of infinite holy stupid, over and over and over by their shaman(s). You’re assuming that they haven’t had thorough brain-washing in ways to “overcome” their doubt.
Anyway, one important lesson a site like this provides is in dragging the Overton Window back to the land of the sane. Being nice has not done it. Patiently explaining over and over and over again has not worked. If something isn’t working, why keep doing it? Why keep enabling their ignorance?
You have to think of society as junior high (which is what it is in America). If you can convince enough people that something isn’t cool, even if it was really cool before, or vice versa, then the majority will start thinking it, too, because everyone else does.
elnahaul asks “So…How do you explain the second law of thermodinamics to anyone?…”
That, sir, is a very deep and profound question. In terms of thermodynamics, one discusses the second law in terms of entropy, which, in an ISOLATED SYSTEM, must always increase or stay the same. Entropy basically deals with the tendency of energy to flow from more useful to less useful forms/states/distributions.
You can explain a lot with this formulation–from chemical reactions, to the processes of life to how a refrigerator works (note that the creationists would be stymied by the refrigerator given their limited understanding of the concept of entropy).
What it leaves unanswered is the question of why energy flow should have this asymmetry in time when almost all the laws of physics are asymmetric. The kinetic theory of gasses provides a mostly satisfactory answer–evolution to low-entropy states is POSSIBLE, but just extremely improbable. If we pump energy into the system, we can move it into a less probable, lower entropy state, but the energy has to come from somewhere, so the entropy of the Universe increases.
Physicists still argue about the nature of the second law. The only dynamics in physics that are asymmetric in time are the expansion of the Universe and the weak nuclear force–and yet asymmetry dominates our experience of the Universe.
#173 – The author’s responses were priceless. Absolutely hilarious.
Sandiseattle, the only thing that X-Lurker provided was a statement to confirm your bias about this site.
sandiseas:
Yeah, you’ve described the creationists and their arguements pretty well.
X-Lurker…
Not even wrong. But thank you for contributing to a little confirmation bias on your way to your daily flagellation.
I invite you to attend the next meeting of the John Birch Society in your neighborhood whilst wearing a Che Guevara tee shirt. Please remember to hold very still, as a moving target distracts the other.
The MadPanda, FCD
Sudo
I imaging the creationists probably are just as guilty of the echo chamber effect as the athiest are, but I was refering to this site in particular.
Sandiseattle, I am sure that sudomabinusri knew what you meant. Please show me where, grabbing two regulars, ‘Tis Himself and SC are always in agreement. Your idiocy is not covered up by the fact that you will not swear.
Whew! Thank goodness the controversy over Satan and the 2nd Law of Thermos bottles has been cleared up.
Patricia, I thought that the Thermos bottles kept the coffee hot because each bottle held a tiny bit of Satan flesh in the base.
Fuck, shit, cock, balls, dyke, ass.
Happy now Janine?
Its not that I won’t swear, just that I’m not in the habit of it and find it usually useless.
/eyeroll/
Sooo…. if I post a comment that says “Hey, is 2+2 4 or 5 if you’re in the base 10 system?” and a whole lot of people say “4”, that’s an echo chamber?
There are repetitive answers on threads when there really is only one correct answer. Other topics are far from unanimous, and we all have the battle scars to prove it.
No, Sandiseattle, that does not make me happy. You are still an idiot.
Wait a minute Janine, are you accusing Thermos of being in league with the devil? That’s just shocking!
In the same league as Proctor & Gamble.
X-Lurker, you must be one of those faith filled christians that can’t be bothered to worship at your idol’s house. I grant though that your god idea has some universe sized balls as it has been coming for two thousand years!
Those are swear words?
HAW! HAW! My flock of virgins can do better than that, lack wit.
Damn, I just looked the the list of swear words that Sandiseattle used. HA! According to Sandiseattle, I am a swear word. I am a dyke. I have been an organizer and worker at the Dyke March. Thank you, Sandiseattle for that insight into your persona. I remain unchanged in my opinion of you.
Sniny. I like it.
Have a sniny day, fellow readers of Pharyngula!
a_ray_in_dilbert_space @186
I agree, but the problem is how to make a lay people grasp that life does not violate the second principle.
When i was a kid, the explanation by George Gamow, using the maxwell demon help me, although it was not until the university where i learned the full concept.
The explanation of the second law has to do a lot with statistisc, and the gas theory. But most of statistic concepts are not intuitive. Most people have wrong when dealing with statistis, so i try to avoid it whenever i can.
i also agree.. the working of a fridge is beyond the grasp of most creationist… i would be esay to say to them is pure “scientific” magic ;)
I think the “echo chamber” effect is an unavoidable byproduct of any extremely large collection of people brought together by common interests over the internet. The effect usually disappears with familiarity: the more you read, the more arguments and differences you see between individuals. Also, the less you notice the ‘noise.’ Pharyngula is no different than most forums — and better than a lot.
As for debating creationists, my guess is that people with the credentials and background to qualify as excellent spokespeople for biological science are the ones who shouldn’t debate — because it grants creationism an unearned credibility, and makes it look like there’s a genuine scientific issue here. That leaves the gifted amateur — or the professor/professional who has gone outside of his official area of expertise.
There’s no one best and proper way to argue against creationists. It’s all going to depend.
When I (informally) debate creationists, I usually try to get them off the science, and back into their theory of knowledge, their standards and values for truth-seeking, and how much they’re honestly willing to put on the line here. Except for actual science cranks, this is really where the problem starts, and where the action ought to be when dealing with ordinary people, and you’re an ordinary person, too. Find how much common ground you have, and stand on it when you try to move them. Their best qualities have the potential to be their own undoing.
Don’t make them fight you; don’t even make them fight the science; get them to where they’ve noticed the fight within themselves.
Sandiseattle,
The swear words you must use are: Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.
Sastra @ 205,
I agree with you almost entirely. But I think it’s important that we keep a distinction in mind. A formal debate involves moving those in the audience toward our thinking. A formal debate is a special kind of game/enterainment. If one is very, very good, one can be a total dick during a debate and prevail.
A formal debate is a very different critter than informally debating with someone that you want to move away from creationism. When chatting with a single creationist or a small group, one must be civil. Being a dick will simply close the creationists’ minds (I know, I know) to anything one has to say.
If I’m simply chatting with a creationist/religionist, I will be friendly and genuinely curious about his/her beliefs. (I really am genuinely interested in their beliefs. I simply cannot get my mind around the nonsense they believe and am always fascinated in how they convince themselves of it.) Once I start to understand just how much of a fundamentalist I’m speaking with, I will then largely take the track you describe.
I do not make any effort to convince a religious person that his/her beliefs are wrong. I attempt to plant seeds of doubt. I just want these people to step onto the slippery slope of doubt and critical thinking. The rest will take care of itself over time.
I’m not sure there’s any “right” thing to say to someone who imagines that their salvation depends on believing an unbelievable story.
Nevertheless, I sure do enjoy reading the responses to such people on Pharyngula.
@Sastra
I agree. Often when I discuss evolution with a creationist, it doesn’t get very far before I have to ask them what they consider an appropriate means to acquire knowledge. If that premise is wildly different from mine, it is almost impossible to continue on further. Often, however, it hasn’t actually occurred to the individual to even question how they gain knowledge. If that concept can be shaken at its core, it opens people up to actually seek truth.
In the past when I’ve spoken to my brother on this subject, I started out with the science. He quickly got lost. When I asked him what his standards for obtaining knowledge were, we were able to actually have a discussion.
Often it is that elementary. I am speaking, of course, of debating with the faithful and credulous, not of formal debates with professional bullshitters.
‘Tis,
Those are the ones that will curve your spine, grow hair on your hands and maybe, even
bring us, God help us, peace without honor um, and a bourbon
Damn I miss George Carlin.
Sandiseattle, those are mostly not swear words, anyway.
Fuck (mmm…sex)
shit…well, natural function but OK.
cock…what do you have against roosters? cock is in the buy-bull, fer cry-eye
balls…great big fuzzy balls? billiard balls? what?
dyke…People in Holland lurve dykes
ass…in the buy-bull yet again. Remember when what-his-face tied his ass to a tree and walked 40 miles into the desert?
Once again, I note the way that theism and the supernatural are embedded in language.
e.g.
swearing: to promise solemnly; take an oath (but implicitly by the name of God).
profanity: the violation of the sacred character of a place or language.
cursing: An appeal to some supernatural power to inflict evil on someone or some group.
“Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits” are none of the above — they’re merely vulgar language.
It’s about time I linked again to my favorite rant on the virtue of using such language:
Putting the “Fan” in “Profanity” by the 2% Company.
Mythusmage, I encourage you in particular to read it!
It’s pretty funny that X-Lurker returns with that pathetic one-note accusation, “echo chamber”.
It’s obvious that X is nothing more than a troll that longs for an echo chamber of its very own.
Poor diddums !!
Here, X, this is just for you:
Once again this gets down to similar arguments and refutations. There is one debate Prime Ministers, Presidents etc continue to steer clear of – the sexual abuse of women and children by clergy and the failure of religion to respond appropriately. All the arguments of ideology and ideals become pointless if this issue is pushed to the back-burner. The global scope of pedophilia and sexual abuse in the catholic church and the silence of other christian religions on this topic is simply pathetic.
I would like to offer Dr Carl Wieland of the CMI the same opportunity of public debate on this one issue – for it to be formally videotaped with each side freely able to distribute it, regardless of the outcome. Formally debate the issue—of whether the evidence best supports compliance with human rights and legal obligations — against choice of CMI.
But not Semprini, under any circumstances.
On the off chance that sandisea is still reading: if the creationist arguements weren’t so repetitive, maybe the answers would be less so as well. But it is, at times, helpful to have more than one person try to explain things, because a slightly different angle may make the explaination clearer.
As for the “esprit de corps” you remark on, many of the regulars here seem to honestly enjoy each other. Why does this bother you?
And lastly, about your your use of “dyke” as a swear word, I find it extremely sad that someone living in a city as progressive as Seattle would think that. Please consider joining us in the 21st century sometime before it’s over.
Blockquote fail. The last part is my response.
KOPD42, #216
Are you telling us something about computers?
mythusmage:
No, something about math. In “base sixteen,” sixteen is written as 10. In “base two,” two is written as 10. A system in named after the number that is written as 10 in that system, so really, every system is “base 10.” We read that as “base ten” because in our default system 10 is ten. Somewhere there is a cartoon that pokes fun at that, but I can’t find it right now. The comment was meant to be jokingly pedantic.
Mr Myers,
You are wrong and very misleading to say that creationists find science “bizarre”. As you well know, creationists do not object to factual, objective science. What they find bizarre is your biased interpretation of evidence, existing in the present, to “prove” your faith about what may or may not have happened in the past. Yours is a blind faith about the past… a blind faith in naturalism and uniformitarianism as the only plausible explanation for past events and for the origin of all living things from non-living matter. I say “blind”, because you refuse to allow for something outside of your preconceived naturalistic and atheistic framework of belief. Blind … because you cannot accept the irreducible complexity of all living creatures as evidence of an intelligent designer and maker of these things. Blind … because you ignore the many evolutionary scientists who lament the lack of any transitional life forms, which the religion of evolution says must exist. Blind… because you shut your eyes to the facts and the truth.
Please have the guts to confront your opponents in a live public debate. Or admit that your evolutionary ideas cannot stand up in the face of reasoning and debate.
Regards,
Kenneth Higgs
BCom DipIT
PS: (TO ALL THE NAME-CALLERS) Personal insults and name-calling are no substitute for rational, open, accountable public debate. Ask yourself: “What are PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins afraid of? Why don’t they take this opportunity, in front of the whole world, to defend their particular view of origins and the past?”
Kenneth:
A perfect counter-factual.
Why don’t you take this opportunity, in front of the whole world, to defend your particular view of origins and the past?
You can start by stating where evolutionary biology is incorrect, as a starting point — … “or admit that your evolutionary ideas cannot stand up in the face of reasoning and debate”.
Dipshit, you’d do better if you didn’t fucking lie to us. Creationists object to evolution, which is science. There are few things in science which are better supported than evolution. We have a better understanding of evolution than of gravity.
Neither is lying, but since you started your “debate” with a lie then I’m justified in calling you a dipshit. If you don’t want to be called a dipshit, then stop lying. Is this concept too difficult for a dipshit like you to understand?
o_O
Diploma in Information Technology, and I’m going to guess Bachelor of Commerce.
I didn’t really notice that. Kenneth Higgs has a genuwhine bachelor’s degree? In Com? I guess that’s computers, since he also has a Diploma in IT.
Kenneth, I know a place where those credentials and $1.50 can get you a cup of coffee.
I know a place where they would let him set his own hours, but his coworkers would still make fun of him for signing his name like that.
‘Tis and Strange Gods, please be careful. We do have sane IT professionals who are regulars here.
‘snicker’
I noticed that creationist throws their degrees around as if it adds weight to their (failed) debate against science. It’s like they are aware that they are committing a fallacy, but don’t care.
Thanks. Yeah, I googled before posting (I had originally guessed Communications). I was curious as to the relevance. And pityingly amused.
pfft, I have a genuine one of those. Took me 4 years to get it too.
Damn straight, I have a bachelor of Computer Science. Though in no way would I find it pretentious enough to sign every post “Kel, B.CSc”
Oh, indeed, Janine. But it’s so laughably typical of the creationist to show off fancy letters that relate not at all to the topic of discussion. Save that shit for job applications.
“DipIT” is hilarious, by the way.
A diploma?!
Diploma in Information Technology? That translates to:
I passed Bullshit Class
in hillbilly.
There’s the further point that the majority of people here have bachelors degrees of one sort or another. Many of us have graduate degrees as well.
‘Tis Himself BA (Econ) MA (Econ)
Connoisseur of Fine Scotch Whiskys
Pffft! That’s funny Sven.
DipIT good.
WowbaggerOM BPsych BA(Comm)
Which is, of course, precisely why I don’t tend to append them…
If that were true, no creationist would have any problem with the factual, objective science of evolution.
In fact, there’s at least one creationist who does not.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html
Explain how factual, objective science can reject naturalism and still work, O Doctor of Thinkology.
Then why are there theistic evolutionary biologists, O Doctor of Thinkology?
Except that theistic evolutionary biologists agree that there is no such thing as “irreducible complexity” that is evidence of an intelligent designer, O Doctor of Thinkology.
Except that theistic palaeontologists agree that there are indeed transitional life forms, O Doctor of Thinkology.
Why do you not know that evolution is a fact and a truthful scientific theory that is also accepted by God-believing biologists, O Doctor of Thinkology?
Are you eyes closed and your fingers in your ears?
Please have the guts to acknowledge that truth is not decided by public debate, but by empirical evidence, or admit that evolution is a theory and a fact, O Doctor of Thinkology.
DipshIT
I guess I should start signing my posts with “BSc IS, AAS IT.” I know lots of people with bachelors and masters, and the only ones I know who give credentials after their names are the ones in medical fields. And even then, only at work where the thing they’re signing requires said credentials.