Bwa ha ha!

It's funny, because they don't actually show or tell why any of the statements are false. It's the old, if-I-say-it-in-a funny-voice-it-must-be-false agrument, which is supported by the equal time tested agrument of the fart sound. (A side note, the fart sound agrument always works in real life. Next time you someone comes up to you trying to start an agrument, just say nothing and let one rip. You'll always win.)

Also which side of this debate usually sounds more like a recording than the other. (i.e. A system X is irreducibly complex because we said so hundred and one times.)

Although I must admit their flash animation sucks. At least they could have made the arms stay on the characters as they pulled the cord. Also there attempts at humor are sad. At least they could have called Judge Jones "a big poopoo head," or claimed that he had cooties. At least that would have elevated the discorse to sophomoric level.

P.S. Where the cord that one must pull on Behe or Dembski to get them to do science?

P.P.S. Which grade should we teach ID in, second or first?

I sit in awe of KeithS, what with Sal's elipses as well.

Bob

Eponymous Darwin phobic superhero Darkwing Quackski (he has 2 PhD s don't ya know) with the alter ego of William A. Dembski seems indeed to be giving up writing and moving into multimedia and flashy introductions at the St. Canard school of mallardly voice overs.

For his next trick, expect the paper cutouts of the Darwinian rogues gallery to take on South Park like personas with Quackski and longtime sidekicks Slavering Cadaver and Dave 'Il Duce' S. Springer valliantly dispatching them with their shining wit.

Obviously ID is going from post modern to post literate.

I agree with Bob. DI seems to think that repeating some of the best statements Jones made, using a funny voice and fart sounds, somehow helps their cause. It very well might, but it just shows conclusively what we have known all along: DI is operating at a grade-school potty humor level, not a mature, rational, scientific level.

Hehe! That voice scared my dog.

My dogs a pit bull.

Hes a good judge of character.

The whole UD site is little more than pissed off sarcasm. It's the final weapon of losers who just won't tap out.

PS Bob, it's "argument"

Well, at least Dembski admits on Overwhelming Evidence that the humor is directed at adolescents. After all, this is really the targeted audience that he and his IDiots are aiming at. Get 'em before they can think properly, thus assuring that they never will.

Dembski was chocking his chicken? What?

Now I'm wondering if the reason we've seen Dembski's writing output decline is because he is spending all his time designing anti-Judge Jones flash animations.

I wouldn't say it's declined. Producing a smaller volume of utter crap is an improvement!

When I saw the animation the other day and read Dembski's commentary: "'The Judge Jones School of Law' is the brainchild of brilliant professional flash animator (I think of him as the "Rembrandt" of flash animation; for now he will remain anonymous until he sees the fallout from his handiwork) as well as of me and my lovely wife Jana (who came up with the name)." my first thought was, "So you came up with this 'The Judge Jones School of Law' idea, and then you paid a professional webdesigner to create this flash animation for you?" Clearly, if Dembski's voice was used through the animation, he was involved from the very beginning. Based on the immaturity of the whole thing, it reflects badly on Dembski (but, you know, he's the "Isaac Newton of Information Theory", despite these adolescent-level games).

So, what was supposed to be funny about it? What I saw was a goofy-eyed guy with a goofy voice who shredded ID arguments.

Good heavens! Do they think those arguments have problems?

I might ask which should we teach in elementary school, Grimm's 'fairy tails' or 'evolution? Oh, that's right, we are already teaching the kids about homosexuality so we won't need evolution, after all.

While you spend your time analyzing the 'nuances' of senantics and yuking it up, the fact remains that your evolutionary 'science' violates the known laws of thermo, probability theory, physics, information theory, kinetics, and the laws of angular momentum.

Natural selection and its mutations cannot account for the complexity of higher order life forms, hell, it can't even account for the existence of the tiny machines that Behe has discovered in the human cell. Such mechanisms don't 'evolve' out of your slime pond else the law of entropy has no validity.

All you have is the 'fanciful' stories of fools like Steven Gould and
Carl Sagan to explain the origins of life. Imaginary scenarios invented to deny the existence of a god, taught as 'science' for no other reason than to justify social change.

Evolution is the only 'court' protected 'scientific' theory in the history of the United states. It is NOT observable, NOT testable and NOT rational.

Other than that what's holding it back?

So, what was supposed to be funny about it?

Good heavens! Do they think those arguments have problems?

asked and answered (even if the answer was phrased as another question).

Really, why act all surprised? Who hasn't seen this coming? What with Darwin dolls in a vise and his fantasies of putting his detractors on trial, it's been obvious that Dembski has been little more than your average paranoid crank.

Honestly though, I don't see much point wasting any more bandwidth on Dembski's pathetic last stabs at relevance. His time is past and he knows it. His atom-thin veneer of "scientific respectability" has been scratched beyond repair by the utter shreddings he's received, and what's under the surface turns out to be a garden-variety Usenet troll after all.

So just don't feed him! Focus on the DI's silly press releases, and public/political issues; issues where some ID types might actually have a chance of having some influence and effect. Dembski's a has-been; a never-was, even. What was the last major effort he spearheaded, being "science advisor" for Ann Coulter's latest masterwork? What a joke. He doesn't even seem to have much cachet even within the debased standards of the ID community.

hell, it can't even account for the existence of the tiny machines that Behe has discovered in the human cell.

— Allen Williams

While you spend your time analyzing the 'nuances' of senantics and yuking it up, the fact remains that your evolutionary 'science' violates the known laws of thermo, probability theory, physics, information theory, kinetics, and the laws of angular momentum.

evolutionary 'science' violates the known laws of thermo, probability theory, physics, information theory, kinetics, and the laws of angular momentum.

Well, that troll came out of left field. Clearly the Rip Van Winkle of trolls. Where has he been for 20 years?

evolutionary 'science' violates the known laws of thermo, probability theory, physics, information theory, kinetics, and the laws of angular momentum.
Sure, and an omnipotent designer sticking a home made flagellum on a bacterium's rear doesn't violate anything (except the bacterium maybe?).

Oh the irony. :-D

Nurse, nurse! Over here, nurse. Another inmate, er, resident, escaped...

No, "Thank you' for revealing the only thing you really have to offer, which is snide remarks. It's only 'nuttery' because you're ignorant of the topic.

It's the liberal way isn't it? When you lack anything of substance to say in an argument, you make wise cracks or attack the person presenting the argument. It's as if your 'social beliefs' carried the same weight as known facts.

If any of you had studied physics, you'd have learned that the earth rotates in exactly the opposite direction of other planets in this solar system. So, if evolution is true then none of the known and accepted laws of science can be true, particularly the law of angular momentum.

Your stupidity is not my problem.

Angular momentum? That's a new one to me. Anyone got the scoop on the origin of this particular bit of nuttery?

Kent Hovind. 'Nuff said.

Well 'jeannot'

You seem to accept the fact that people can and are born with a third kidney, double joints, and other physical anomalies.

Why would you have a problem with a 'whip tail' capable of over 100,000 RPM?

It's certainly better evidence of an Intelligent Designer at work than such a device emerging by random selection from your muck pond. Ever seen a 747 evolve out of junk?

All you have is the 'fanciful' stories of ... to explain the origins of life. Imaginary scenarios invented to deny the existence of a god Evolution is ... NOT observable, NOT testable and NOT rational.

If any of you had studied physics, you'd have learned that the earth rotates in exactly the opposite direction of other planets in this solar system. So, if evolution is true then none of the known and accepted laws of science can be true, particularly the law of angular momentum

— Allen K Williams

If any of you had studied physics, you'd have learned that the earth rotates in exactly the opposite direction of other planets in this solar system. So, if evolution is true then none of the known and accepted laws of science can be true, particularly the law of angular momentum.

It's the liberal way isn't it? When you lack anything of substance to say in an argument, you make wise cracks or attack the person presenting the argument.

... oh, almost forgot, Allen:

Bwa ha ha!

you did a great job helping us stick to the topic the thread title implies; laughing at idiots.

You seem to accept the fact that people can and are born with a third kidney, double joints, and other physical anomalies.

— Allen williams

It's certainly better evidence of an Intelligent Designer at work than such a device emerging by random selection from your muck pond.

Ever seen a 747 evolve out of junk?

You seem to accept the fact that people can and are born with a third kidney, double joints, and other physical anomalies.

— Allen williams

It's certainly better evidence of an Intelligent Designer at work than such a device emerging by random selection from your muck pond.

Ever seen a 747 evolve out of junk?

Oups, double post.

sorry for the double post.

If any of you had studied physics, you'd have learned that the earth rotates in exactly the opposite direction of other planets in this solar system. So, if evolution is true then none of the known and accepted laws of science can be true, particularly the law of angular momentum.

— Allen Williams

Damn, that's weird. The board only displays my comments when I post two of them.

Time to go to sleep I guess. ;-)

jeannot --- That's ok. I am sure he needs to read it at least twice...

You seem to accept the fact that people can and are born with a third kidney, double joints, and other physical anomalies.

'Jeannot' and whomever:

Physical anomalies occur because of the bondage of 'decay', i.e. the third law of thermodynamics, i.e. the law of entropy which says everything is in a perennial state of decay. Nature occasionally makes mistakes because genetic 'information' is being lost in each succeeding generation.

I don't know what you learned in 'Pub-Ed' biology class but here's what has to happen:

In the 'muck pond' basic amino acids form randomly from the elements, you know carbon, oxygen, nitrogen etc. (The only alternative is there was pre-existing life or someone assembled the molecules and that conflicts with Carl Sagan.)

So, next the amino acids in the pond randomly combine into a favored structure because of 'natural selection' and form a cell which 'magically' learns to multiply and create a physical entity without a schematic, sounds pretty far fetched to me! Too bad the process can't be patented.

Then some static charge and/or a lightning bolt happens to strike the pond by accident and voila! We have a basic single cell organism. Sound like biology yet?

Unfortunately, evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin has noted in his book 'Algeny', that amino acids can't form in excess water or with oxygen present in the water. (Look him up on the web.)

Opps! That's exactly what a muck pond is! So we have a theory of 'science' that doesn't have a workable beginning. That's real science..yep..yep..yep..yep!

Physical anomalies occur because of the bondage of 'decay', i.e. the third law of thermodynamics, i.e. the law of entropy which says everything is in a perennial state of decay. Nature occasionally makes mistakes because genetic 'information' is being lost in each succeeding generation.

Physical anomalies occur because of the bondage of 'decay', i.e. the third law of thermodynamics, i.e. the law of entropy which says everything is in a perennial state of decay. Nature occasionally makes mistakes because genetic 'information' is being lost in each succeeding generation.

So, next the amino acids in the pond randomly combine into a favored structure because of 'natural selection' and form a cell which 'magically' learns to multiply and create a physical entity without a schematic, sounds pretty far fetched to me! Too bad the process can't be patented. ... Sound like biology yet?

Allen, don't you wonder why the people who oppose evolution are not chemists/physicists working on thermodynamics/angular moment, but mostly Christian fundies?

Go figure...

And btw, how old is the Earth? :-P

Physical anomalies occur because of the bondage of 'decay', i.e. the third law of thermodynamics, i.e. the law of entropy which says everything is in a perennial state of decay. Nature occasionally makes mistakes because genetic 'information' is being lost in each succeeding generation.

— Crazy Allen

Then some static charge and/or a lightning bolt happens to strike the pond by accident and voila! We have a basic single cell organism. Sound like biology yet?

— Crazy Allen

...that amino acids can't form in excess water or with oxygen present in the water.

— Crazy Allen

Unfortunately, evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin has noted in his book 'Algeny', that amino acids can't form in excess water or with oxygen present in the water

Physical anomalies occur because of the bondage of 'decay', i.e. the third law of thermodynamics, i.e. the law of entropy which says everything is in a perennial state of decay. Nature occasionally makes mistakes because genetic 'information' is being lost in each succeeding generation.

— allen

In the 'muck pond' basic amino acids form randomly from the elements, you know carbon, oxygen, nitrogen etc. (The only alternative is there was pre-existing life or someone assembled the molecules and that conflicts with Carl Sagan.)

— allen

So, next the amino acids in the pond randomly combine into a favored structure because of 'natural selection' and form a cell which 'magically' learns to multiply and create a physical entity without a schematic, sounds pretty far fetched to me! Too bad the process can't be patented.

— allen

Then some static charge and/or a lightning bolt happens to strike the pond by accident and voila! We have a basic single cell organism. Sound like biology yet?

— allen

Unfortunately, evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin has noted in his book 'Algeny', that amino acids can't form in excess water or with oxygen present in the water. (Look him up on the web.)

— allen

...oh, and again, thanks for the laughs, Allen.

Bwa ha ha!

I KNOW I have a straightjacket here somewhere....

Allen, you really are a hopeless idiot. For starters, entropy is the central feature of the SECOND law of thermodynamic, not the third.

The rest of your blathering is the usual hoo-haa from the scientifically illiterate trolls who inhabit the nether regions of the world of ignorance.

I'll bet you mover your lips when you read your Wholly Babble.

What an ass.

To All:

The law of non-contradiction is the one that applies here. 'A' and 'NOT A'cannot both be true, so if 'A' is true then obviously 'not 'a' is false.

It's not a false creationist argument. I was speaking of the planets in this solar system. Your counter argument assumes that the moon was formed from a collision yet, amazingly there is no indication of collateral damage to the earth from such an impact. It's nearly round...guess all that friction of revolving through the vacuum of space across the millenia polished off the rough edges.. and didn't even slow the rotation either. And, what would happen to the atmosphere during such a collision? Don't bother telling me that it hadn't evolved yet. The force of such a collision would have broken off far more than the moon.

Also, the earth's rotation would have had to be much faster millions of years ago for evolution to be true because of entropy, not to mention the core having cooled to solid material, (Newton's law of cooling). Otherwise, you have a perpetual motion machine.

And, don't bother telling me that the collision transfered all the energy to the earth's rotation and none to the moon. That violates the law of angular momentum, catch the connection?

You don't need any equations friend, ask your buddy, 'the blackcat.' He's the one who claims a collision produced the moon which interesting enough doesn't rotate as the law of angular momentum requires when separated from a parent object.

No, I wouldn't believe you're a working engineer because if you were, you'd realize that Heat and Material Balance calculations don't depend on whether or not someone rejects the nutty assumptions required to believe in evolution.

The geological column has been developed on faulty logic. First, a rock strata is dated using flawed carbon 14 and Potassium-Argon dating methods. How do you get 'millions' of years from a C14 radioactive isotope with a half life of only 30,000 years? Don't they teach you scientists about the dangers of an infinite regression?

Known fossils of 150 years have dated out to millions of years with C14 and fresh lava from Mt. St Helens dated out in the millions to billions of years with K-Ar.

Your fossil is assigned to a geological period based on other fossils of like kind being found in the rock strata. So, what happens when a petrified tree is found upright in the column? Are it's roots millions of years older than its trunk? Meterorites are full of nickel, a rare element on earth, how come there isn't any in your geological column?

The point is when there are 50 or more reasons why a theory cannot be true, one anomaly one way or the other doesn't contradict the weight of all the negative evidence simply because you want it to. If you can't see that then you certainly have a poor grasp of science. All, it takes is a single failure to disprove a mathematical theorm, so why is evolution different?

Yes, 'toejam' as far as laughing at idiots, I might make the same claim about you. It takes far more blind faith to believe in your stupid evolutionary model than it does in a Creator God.

BYE!

I guess Allen crawled back under his rock to play with . . . .his precious . . . .

Gollum . . .Gollum . . .

PT denizens have had enough fun with Allen Williams whose head is full of misunderstood swatches drawn from various dubious sources. He is an obvious sample of abject ignorance. As a professor of physics with many years of experience, I can assure you that were he my student and opened his mouth to spew all his nonsense, from thermodynamics to the law of angular momentum conservation, a big fat F would materialze without a farther discussion. Hopefully he is gone from this thread. Please don't feed him any more, his comments are nauseating.

Oh, what fun! Now he's going to explain the problems in geology to us, too.

Lessee, crosses up relative and absolute dating, gets half-life numbers way off (Alster? Think decay constants, not half-lives. Don't know about those? Then STFU and learn first.) Oh, and not familiar with crystallization sequences, or polystrate trees, and, "where's the nickel in the geologic column?" Dude, that doesn't even PARSE in a human language!

Umm, Al? Here's a hint: When you pull stuff out of your butt rather than look it up, it comes out all covered with Kent Hovind...

i have something to say... those Intelligent Design people are really really creepy!

I was speaking of the planets in this solar system.

— allen

Your counter argument assumes that the moon was formed from a collision yet, amazingly there is no indication of collateral damage to the earth from such an impact.

— allen

It's nearly round...guess all that friction of revolving through the vacuum of space across the millenia polished off the rough edges.

— allen

And, what would happen to the atmosphere during such a collision? Don't bother telling me that it hadn't evolved yet.

— allen

The force of such a collision would have broken off far more than the moon.

— allen

Allen, just for participating on today's gameshow:

Who's the Biggest Moron

You not only get the home version ( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html ), you did so well we figure you personally would enjoy participating in our "professional idiot" edition too!

go HERE:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4584b51a7795823f;act=ST;f=14;t=3131

... and feel free to join in any time, as there is an open invitation for you to educate everyone as to just how wrong they all are!

You can even tag-team with our longest running player, AFDave!

the game is: "Tag-Team Creobot Wrestling". However, you should come up with a fancy wrestler name before tagging in.

anybody got a good wrestling name for Allen?

Also, the earth's rotation would have had to be much faster millions of years ago for evolution to be true because of entropy, not to mention the core having cooled to solid material, (Newton's law of cooling). Otherwise, you have a perpetual motion machine.

And, don't bother telling me that the collision transfered all the energy to the earth's rotation and none to the moon. That violates the law of angular momentum, catch the connection?

You don't need any equations friend, ask your buddy, 'the blackcat.' He's the one who claims a collision produced the moon which interesting enough doesn't rotate as the law of angular momentum requires when separated from a parent object.

No, I wouldn't believe you're a working engineer because if you were, you'd realize that Heat and Material Balance calculations don't depend on whether or not someone rejects the nutty assumptions required to believe in evolution.

The geological column has been developed on faulty logic. First, a rock strata is dated using flawed carbon 14 and Potassium-Argon dating methods. How do you get 'millions' of years from a C14 radioactive isotope with a half life of only 30,000 years? Don't they teach you scientists about the dangers of an infinite regression?

Known fossils of 150 years have dated out to millions of years with C14 and fresh lava from Mt. St Helens dated out in the millions to billions of years with K-Ar.

The point is when there are 50 or more reasons why a theory cannot be true, one anomaly one way or the other doesn't contradict the weight of all the negative evidence simply because you want it to. If you can't see that then you certainly have a poor grasp of science.

All, it takes is a single failure to disprove a mathematical theorm, so why is evolution different?

Blackcat . . .you are confusing the words "too" and "two" . . . .
If you are gonna lecture a creationist, please use the correct English words.

Otherwise, your credibility is compromised.

Just when you think the ID guys can't get any sillier and more immature

ROFL!

did anybody bother to tell Dawkins that Dembski himself does the voice of Jones' caricature?

Stick a fork in him, he's done.

Seriosuly, it seems to me that this represent Dembski slipping just about as low as he can go without completely going over the edge. Stupid adolescent humor and harassing emails, activities devoid of any intellectual substance or even its pretention, are probably the step before he completely snaps. I'm expecting a nice slow slide into complete paranoia and all that entails.

I certainly have felt UD has been on a decline the last few months - which certainly says something.

Seriosuly, it seems to me that this represent Dembski slipping just about as low as he can go without completely going over the edge.

I may as well stick my fork into this troll as well.

Allen, here's a little experiment for you to try:
Take three bowls of water.
Add ice cubes to the first to make it nice and cold.
Add some heat to the third to make it nice and warm.
Let the second one remain at room temperature.

Place your left hand in the first bowl and your right hand in the third, and leave them there for a bit. Say, a minute or so.

Then put them both in the middle bowl. Voila! The middle bowl is both hot and cold! If hot is A, then the middle bowl is both A and NOT A!

What I mean to show here is that you're contriving a false dualism here. Real life is not binary, it uses real numbers (I'm not saying that binary numbers aren't real, but that real life can use rational and irrational numbers) At the core, proofs in biology are not different from proofs in mathematics. However, the logic you've tried using in math is obscenely insufficient to represent biology.

Better luck next time.

That e-mail is very odd, to say the least.

Reponse from Richard Dawkins: Anybody who resorts to tactics of desperation like this has to be a real loser. Dembski is a loser, and it now looks as though he KNOWS it. My guess is that he will try to take it down when he realizes how foolish it makes him look. Josh, can we can keep a copy, after he tries to remove it from his own website? UPDATE: Just in case he does take it down, I've saved a copy on our server. -Josh

What I don't understand is, why hasn't Dembski started the cult already? Why isn't he getting Salvador and Davetard and Joe G and Casey Luskin to all move to El Plano, wear PJs, and give up their money? He's already demonstrated that he can get a small number of idiots to say and do anything for him, so why isn't he strip-mining their bank accounts yet?

I think it is great to finally see the fruits of the $4 million in research that the Discovery Institute has spent on researching Flash animation. Money well spent!

How do you get 'millions' of years from a C14 radioactive isotope with a half life of only 30,000 years? Don't they teach you scientists about the dangers of an infinite regression?

— our new crackpot

This confirms a long-held belief of mine: that ID promoters have no real sense of humor.

I imagine Bill's band of followers are roaring with laughter over the fart sounds.

I wouldn't believe you're a working engineer because if you were, you'd realize that Heat and Material Balance calculations don't depend on whether or not someone rejects the nutty assumptions required to believe in evolution.

I am schocked shocked schlocked

How could Dimwitzchi have left out Nick????

It is an outrage!

Fart jokes are the hight of comedic brilliancy. Well, for fourth graders confident in their bowel control. When I give school presentations, the fourth graders love learning about frass and the rest of scientific scatology.

"It's not a false creationist argument. "

If it's not false then it can't be a creationist argument.

We don't need that. They do.

This has to be the most pathetic thing I've yet seen on the ID side. These guys must be crazy if they think doing this sort of thing is going to win them respect from anyone. And what's more the dweebs at Uncommon Descent have defended it!

On a side note: I cannot believe that Allen Williams is for real. If there's any evidence to the contrary please let me know - but surely nobody can be this ignorant. *Third* law of thermodynamics? He's having us on... isn't he... ?

"Blackcat ...you are confusing the words "too" and "two" ....
If you are gonna lecture a creationist, please use the correct English words.

Otherwise, your credibility is compromised."

Now just imagine how his credibility would be compromised if he posted an
audio example of his flatulents along with that reply and then claimed he was trying to
impress young adults.

I thought it was pretty funny to watch the South Park episode with Richard Dawkins (and I'm a major Dawkins admirer). But Dembski needs some lessons. The guy has no cred as a puppeteer or animator and his attempt is lackluster at best. He should have had Behe show up in a Carnac hat reading his own statements from the stand.
Sad.

"If any of you had studied physics, you'd have learned that the earth rotates in exactly the opposite direction of other planets in this solar system."

Where do people come up with this crazy stuff?!

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980225a.html

"4. All the planets revolve in the same general direction, with Pluto's orbit being the most inclined (17 degrees). Their axes of rotation are more diverse, Uranus and Pluto rotate 'on their sides' and Venus's axis points towards the South."

"If any of you had studied physics, you'd have learned that the earth rotates in exactly the opposite direction of other planets in this solar system."

All this silliness seems to have triggered an amusing email dumping war between Dembski and Dawkins. Dembski apparently thought he was quite poweful in 2004 (and not just in an olfactory sense):

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,428,Christmas-Present-to-Defenders-of-Darwinism,William-A-Dembski,page2#comments

Dawkins:
"Poor loser Demski, such delusions of grandeur, and now he has nothing better to do with his time than make farting noises over the Internet."

All, it takes is a single failure to disprove a mathematical theorm

so why is evolution different?

but surely nobody can be this ignorant

He's having us on... isn't he... ?

It seems that our Mr. Williams is an engineer for "Mid America Construction", living in Overland Park, Kansas. I wonder if he attended the same engineering school as Larry Fafarman.

That e-mail is very odd, to say the least.

I have closed this thread and deleted a bunch of comments from what are, apparently, spambots with clinical depression.