Expelled!

Yes.

Sir, I think that you may owe me for the cost of drycleaning my jocks (read shorts for you northern cousins) and pants.

Here I was, calmly browsing on Firefox, read your post and laughed so hard that I think I wet myself. Put differently, bodily fluids may have involuntarily expelled from my body.

Thank goodness I wasn't eating, or else you would also be up for the cost of cleaning my keyboard and monitor.

Cheers

Just unreal. I'm in Austin and saw RD Wednesday night at his lecture here. He castigated Expelled in no uncertain terms for its sleazy dishonesty, but now that's he's actually seen it, I can't wait to hear his review of what it's really like.

(PS Shameless plug, but a detailed 2-part report on the Austin appearance is at the Atheist Experience blog, for those interested.)

Someone needs to go to the theater and give "Jared" an award for scoring an own goal.

Oh please some creationist read this. Page the producers that Dawkins is in the theatre right now watching it. Have them halt the movie, and go down aisle by aisle with flashlights until they find and expel him.

Sorry to say, PZ let a big chance slip away. Chance favors the prepared mind. You won't be buying PZ posters or action figures anytime soon. Oh well, there is always next time.

crosspost PZ blog:

You should have thought ahead. Get someone with a video camera to record you being evicted. Then on to YouTube.

Geesh, PZ, you missed your chance to be a movie star. I'm sure some of the frames would look good on T shirts, mouse pads, and coffee mugs. Think of the tie ins. PZ action figures, lunch boxes, and Holiday cards.

Academics are so clueless. I bet you don't even have an agent.

Posted by: raven | March 20, 2008 9:39 PM

"But enough about the film – the real highlight of the evening occurred after the showing, during the Q&A. Mathis led this discussion, and the second question was asked by a surprise member of the audience: Richard Dawkins, author of “The God Delusion,” and arguably the biggest name in the movie other than Mr. Ben Stein himself. As this screening was by invitation only, Dawkins appearance was quite a surprise to both the audience and Mathis. Dawkins asked a simple question: Why was one of his colleagues interviewed in the movie denied a chance to come see this movie and protest it and in fact was escorted out by security prior to admittance to the theatre? The irony apparently escaped Mr. Dawkins that he himself was a gatecrasher to the movie and was uninvited; nevertheless, he wanted to know why his colleague was turned away even though he himself was admitted as were his colleague’s family. I just happened to be standing directly in line behind Dawkins’ academic colleague. Management of the movie theatre saw a man apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in. Management then approached the man, asked him if he had a ticket, and when he confirmed that he didn’t, they then escorted him off the premises. Nowhere was one of the film’s producers to be found, and the man certainly didn’t identify himself. If a producer had been nearby, it’s possible that he would have been admitted, but the theatre’s management didn’t want to take any chances. So ultimately Dawkins’ first complaint was irrelevant. His second complaint was that any statement he made in the film was in fact under the assumption that he was being interviewed by Ben Stein (and by Mark Mathis) for a film that was to take an even-handed look at the Intelligent Design/Evolution controversy. Unfortunately, the entire audience, minus Dawkins’ posse, agreed that that the film’s main point was that Intelligent Design should be taught in conjunction with Evolution. (...) Ben Stein’s “Expelled” is one of the more evenhanded, clever, and well-produced documentaries currently on the market. While the Evolution/Intelligent Design debate can spark much emotion, anyone walking away from this film will be convinced that the merits of Intelligent Design should be on the same level playing field as Evolutionary Theory."

There were enough people with Myers to be able to counter that claim that he was "misbehaving" Simon. PZ said it was untrue, Kristine said it was untrue : http://amused-muse.blogspot.com/2008/03/expelled-from-expelled.html
And I'm willing to bet that PZ would not act disruptive with his wife and daughter in tow, along with Dawkins as a guest and others in their group.

Moreover, none of the "Expelled" crew mentioned any sort of disruption at all, they merely claimed PZ was expelled because he "had was not invited" despite no one being "invited" or "having tickets." Now, given that the producers of the film used lies and subterfuge to gain interviews...and may well have lied about when they claim to have changed the working title of the film...and since no one else has come forward with a corroboration to "Stuart Blessman's" story -- I feel pretty safe in believing that Stuart Blessman is more likely another lying pseudo-Christian.

No worries deadman, I did not for one moment believe that PZ Myers was causing a nuisance there. It's merely a striking example of a strange and mystical correlation between a certain view of Evolution Theory and ID and the manner in which reality is perceived... LOL.

PZ: This kind of springs to mind. Hope it makes you laugh after what I'm sure was an unpleasant experience:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mmge8nfsyg

What I would like to know is how did they recognise you and not Richard Dawkins ? Maybe they got you both confused ? It's a shame though. I was looking forward to an unbiassed review rather than the nonsense that's currently being put out by Ken Ham.

Still, I suppose you can still go to see it when it goes on general release. I'll look forward to a proper review then. Considering the subject of the film the whole thing is ironic.

I wonder if there is CCTV footage of the cinema foyer?

Presumably since the screening was in MN the thought they might need to be on the alter for PZ and had already warned management, but never thought Richard would have hopped into town.

PZed:

Snark fails me. My coworkers are looking at me funnny-wondering why I've suddenly erupted into uncrontrolled giggling.

"Yes, you registered online, but the initial invitation was by invite only. You registered who was coming in your invited group, not just “first come, first serve.” And since I was literally 3 feet away from Myers when he was “expelled,” I heard every word. It was obvious he was being kicked out by theatre management because he was not invited nor was he on the pre-submitted list. He didn’t cause a disruption per se; he was kindly escorted out. In fact, Dawkins himself acted as a perfect gentleman during the Q&A. He was respectful of everyone present, even though he was a little upset about Myers and his own role in the film. And, Peter, Mathis didn’t mention any details about a press release or finished cut. One final comment or reflection - Having Dawkins show up in the theatre felt like the equivalent of having President Bush show up after a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11. It was that odd and yet exciting."

"Management of the movie theatre saw a man apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in."

Someone might like to point out to the odious Overstreet on his blog that Stuart can be spelt "Stewart", or "Steuart" or indeed several other varieties. Thus, although the commonest English usage is "Stuart" as a result of the union of the crowns, the simple fact is that spelling it Stewart is entirely normal. Its how my surname is spelt, and how various people spell it as their first name.

Damian: The same person who sent that nonsense to the "Looking Closer" website began backtracking once he had been called on it:

"Yes, you registered online, but the initial invitation was by invite only. You registered who was coming in your invited group, not just “first come, first serve.” And since I was literally 3 feet away from Myers when he was “expelled,” I heard every word. It was obvious he was being kicked out by theatre management because he was not invited nor was he on the pre-submitted list. He didn’t cause a disruption per se; he was kindly escorted out. In fact, Dawkins himself acted as a perfect gentleman during the Q&A. He was respectful of everyone present, even though he was a little upset about Myers and his own role in the film. And, Peter, Mathis didn’t mention any details about a press release or finished cut. One final comment or reflection - Having Dawkins show up in the theatre felt like the equivalent of having President Bush show up after a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11. It was that odd and yet exciting."

And this is what he had said just a few hours earlier:

"Management of the movie theatre saw a man apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in."

Now, how can you be "literally 3 feet away from Myers when he was “expelled”", hearing "every word", and not be able to get your story straight about what happened? I think that I will go with the story that PZ and Kristine have relayed, personally. It does make me angry that someone would attempt to smear another human being like that, though. And the trouble is that it looks as though this is the version of events that is starting to spread across all of the Christian websites.

Crossroads - The intersection of science and religion It's been the central question of humanity throughout the ages: How in the world did we get here? In 1859 Charles Darwin provided the answer in his landmark book, "The Origin of Species". In the Century and a half since, biologists, geologists, physicists, astronomers and philosophers have contributed a vast amount of data and research in support of Darwin's idea. And yet, millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other people of faith believe in a literal interpretation that humans were crafted by the hand of God. This conflict between science and religion has unleashed passions in school board meetings, courtrooms, and town halls across America and beyond"

Hello Mr. Myers, My name is Mark Mathis. I am a Producer for Rampant Films. We are currently in production of the documentary film, "Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion." At your convenience I would like to discuss our project with you and to see if we might be able to schedule an interview with you for the film. The interview would take no more than 90 minutes total, including set up and break down of our equipment. We are interested in asking you a number of questions about the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement. Please let me know what time would be convenient for me to reach you at your office. Also, could you please let me know if you charge a fee for interviews and if so, what that fee would be for 90 minutes of your time. I look forward to speaking with you soon. Sincerely, Mark Mathis Rampant Films www.rampantfilms.com

"Dear [I used my real name], This is a confirmation of your RSVP for the free "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" movie screening. Venue information is below. Theater: AMC Mall of America 14 4th Level, Center of South Ave. Bloomington, MN 55425 Date: March 20 Time: 7:00 PM Number of seats reserved: 2 YOUR NAME WILL BE ON A LIST AT THE DOOR. NO TICKET IS NEEDED. More information about "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" can be found at *link blah blah* Sincerely, Motive Entertainement If you need to cancel or make an important change to an existing RSVP, please email *snip.* Be sure to reference the screening city, date, and time in your email." I received a second e-mail reminder again stating that no ticket was required.

You're a special little guy, jacob.

Jacob, have you read Damians post above? It nicely summarises why you are completely and utterly wrong. Feel free to try and find some evidence that you are right.

jacob: He really should have slowed down and thought a bit about how this is going to make him look.

In the Century and a half since, biologists, geologists, physicists, astronomers and philosophers have contributed a vast amount of data and research in support of Darwin’s idea. And yet, millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other people of faith believe in a literal interpretation that humans were crafted by the hand of God.

What on earth are you on about Jacob? That post made no sense at all.

If the creationists are dumb rednecks why is it so easy for them to ‘dupe’ these ‘scientists’?

jacob: Think logically people! Walk it through!

jacob: It is pretty obvious that what happened was that he was not officially invited and then was indignant that the cop was just doing what he was told. Why would they let Dawkins ('leader of the rabid atheists') in and not PM? And he ran to the apple store in a fit of anger. He really should have slowed down and thought a bit about how this is going to make him look.

DNFTT! "This is a happy occasion!"

Jacob,

Since you defend the activists' tactics, I'm curious if you agree with any of them on the science. Specifically, do you agree with those who state that life on earth began 3-4 billion years ago, or do you agree with the ones who think that life is far younger (or older)? Do you agree with Michael Behe, who plainly states that humans are biologically related to other species, or do you favor the increasingly vague independent abiogenesis scenarios promoted by most other anti-evolutionists?

Jesus, they're wankers. And fools.

jacob:

guthrie: What on earth are you on about Jacob? That post made no sense at all.

guthrie: What on earth are you on about Jacob? That post made no sense at all.

What part couldnt you understand. I can try to make the point simpler

PZ is saying that a cop had been obviously given a picture of PZ and told to watch for him and when he was spotted to boot him out. Of course the cop was not instructed to do the same for Dawkins.

And it is so comical how Dawkins et al are constantly being duped by the ‘evil creationists’ Any body who has any media exposure if they have half a brain are leery of reporters and interviews. Esp when Dawkins has this conspiracy thing going. That youtube where Dawkins is stumped is hillarious.

And now PZ has fallen victim to the ‘nefarious’ creationists who plot these things out is some kind of bunker. This truly is a very, very funny example of the Moriarity complex in all its glory.

Actually PZ has again been duped. This is great press for the movie! Hope it makes national news: “Scientist expelled from the ‘Expelled’ movie. Nothing like controversy to make a movie a success. If the creationists are dumb rednecks why is it so easy for them to ‘dupe’ these ‘scientists’? Just too funny. Really!

jacob: Actually I think if I was in charge I would have .....

jacob: ... Dawkins et al are constantly being duped ..., ... PZ has again been duped ... Duped Again!!

jacob: This is great press for the movie! Hope it makes national news: “Scientist expelled from the ‘Expelled’ movie. Nothing like controversy to make a movie a success.

jacob: It is pretty obvious that what happened was that he was not officially invited and then was indignant that the cop was just doing what he was told. Why would they let Dawkins ('leader of the rabid atheists') in and not PM? And he ran to the apple store in a fit of anger. He really should have slowed down and thought a bit about how this is going to make him look.

Damian: Jacob, I can only hope that you are a parody.

jacob: Well I guess you are saying scientsts are dumb but honest and rednecks are smart and liars.

Again how does Dawkins and PZ fall for the traps the creationists set up for them over and over and over and over again.

Really this reminds me of the stories about city slickers going to a small town and underestimating the cleverness of the hicks. Does anyone remember the exact stories. There is one where Buddy Epsen acts like a dumb hick and goes on a riverboat and out manuveurs the slick gambler. Any seen that one or any of these.

So you consider Behe, Johnson, Dembski, Wells dumb rednecks?

People, Jacob is a troll. AKA known as George.

His only purpose posting is to destroy threads. He has zero interest in whatever he writes other than that it derails threads. Which he has done a lot lately

When you feed this troll, the thread dies. Later, this is a game not worth playing.

DNFTT!

— Stacy S.

Jacob, the only person calling Creationists rednecks is you.
Anyway, todays whack- a-troll
(I use a sledgehammer)
is yourself. What was not clear in your post was how PZ had been duped, and indeed, most of the other words didn't seem to be related to the topic at hand, which is the lying duplicity of ID'ers.

The producers of Expelled are no doubt thanking the PT-mafia for the free publicity. Next, we need to get Eugenie Scott and Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda sneaking into a theater's back door, incognito.

But considering Scott, Dawkins and PZ were interviewed for the film, there may be some other motives at play here.

William Wallace: But considering Scott, Dawkins and PZ were interviewed for the film, there may be some other motives at play here.

WW, you stupid twat, try reading comprehension. PZ and Dawkins signed up UNDER THEIR OWN names. There was NO "sneaking in the back door". The only underhanded crap going on was the asshat producer of this piece of dreck deciding he didn't want PZ seeing the movie and pulling him out of line via rent-a-cop. That you fail to see how hypocritical this is, given the title of this film, speaks volumes.

Well I guess you are saying scientsts are dumb but honest and rednecks are smart and liars.

Perhaps because scientists are honest, and expect everyone else to be also, while those dumb rednecks are not just dumb, but also duplicitous mendacious liars.

PZ: Thank you for being there, and thank you for posting this.

This must be one of the most epic ironies ever. I simply cannot fathom what motivates people to do such stupid things in the first place, and the total arrogance they so openly display is out of this world. It must be a result of their complete dishonesty, first of all towards themselves, that they are able to call themselves religious while oh so conveniently disregarding that First Commandment of which they speak.

Sadly, there seem to be an appalling number of self-delusional nitwits.
Witness: all these trolls.

PZ- You just made my day! I do wish that they had let you in though, so you could post on how you were represented in the film. I guess we'll just have to wait 'til April.

jacob: Dawki [actual blockquote snipped here] But if they are so smart why do they keep letting themselves get set up over and over and over again? Actually I think Dawkins and PZ attended for the press and PZ made a scene to get attention.

Fascinating! As far as I know, MOA is a public place and the cristo-fascists don't own it so how can they turn you out? Sounds like solid grounds for a profit sucking lawsuit to me. Go for it.

Additionally, what does this say about the state of intellectual curiosity in this country when the cristo-fascists go out of their way to deny entry to anyone considered an opponent of their propoganda. Seems to me,I'd want to expose as many people to my message as possible. Of course, I've got 2 brain cells to rub together so I could be wrong about that.

Wolfhound: WW, you stupid twat, try reading comprehension. PZ and Dawkins signed up UNDER THEIR OWN names. There was NO "sneaking in the back door". The only underhanded crap going on was the asshat producer of this piece of dreck deciding he didn't want PZ seeing the movie and pulling him out of line via rent-a-cop. That you fail to see how hypocritical this is, given the title of this film, speaks volumes.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that Jacob refuses, again and again, to understand and keeps crowing victory, Black Knight style. The only "duping" the crooks at "Expelled" managed was lying to Dawkins, PZ, and others to get interviews to edit to their liking. I simply cannot comprehend how tossing PZ out of line is some great triumph for the producers of this little piece of creotard pornography. Please explain to us, Oh Great Jacob, how this was a fabulous trick played on PZ that somehow makes "Expelled" look better to the general public. Unless, like the class clown and/or terrorist organizations, you consider ANY attention, even public humiliation and negative press, positive.

William Wallace has been Lying and Sniping for Jesus for so long that he has totally lost the ability to empathize or sympathize with those humans who do not share his specific mindset. If he did still have that ability, he would have realized that, yes, PZ Myers and Dawkins were invited to the screenings by email so many months ago.

jacob: Dawki

Vic: jacob verbally shat:

Well I guess you are saying scientsts are dumb but honest and rednecks are smart and liars.

Huh? Why not try READING:

Perhaps because scientists are honest, and expect everyone else to be also, while those dumb rednecks are not just dumb, but also duplicitous mendacious liars.

Your failure is almost as epic as the security thugs overlooking Richard Dawkins. Keep it up - laughter is always appreciated.

But if they are so smart why do they keep letting themselves get set up over and over and over again? Actually I think Dawkins and PZ attended for the press and PZ made a scene to get attention.

Thanks for the laugh PZ, irony indeed.

And leave it to Jacob to reference fictional TV shows in support of his claims. That's creationist thinking in a nutshell.

jacob:

numi, Jax FL: Fascinating! As far as I know, MOA is a public place and the cristo-fascists don't own it so how can they turn you out? Sounds like solid grounds for a profit sucking lawsuit to me. Go for it. Additionally, what does this say about the state of intellectual curiosity in this country when the cristo-fascists go out of their way to deny entry to anyone considered an opponent of their propoganda. Seems to me,I'd want to expose as many people to my message as possible. Of course, I've got 2 brain cells to rub together so I could be wrong about that.

PZ and Dawkins will be to see the movie without gate crashing when it comes out to the public. I think this was a private showing and PZ and Dawkins did not respect that.

William Wallace: The producers of Expelled are no doubt thanking the PT-mafia for the free publicity. Next, we need to get Eugenie Scott and Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda sneaking into a theater's back door, incognito. But considering Scott, Dawkins and PZ were interviewed for the film, there may be some other motives at play here.

Real Time With Bill Maher

Next Episode: Fri, Mar 21

Actor Jon Hamm; Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.); author P.J. O'Rourke; biologist Richard Dawkins.

jacob: PZ and Dawkins will be to see the movie without gate crashing when it comes out to the public. I think this was a private showing and PZ and Dawkins did not respect that.

jacob: OK let try to use some logic here. Why did Dawkins and PZ want to attend this? Now the manager at the last minute has a right to decide he does not want someone in. Do not Dawkins etc think these things out? They have been duped so many times before dont you think they would show a little caution. But on the other hand maybe they want the trouble. For publicity.

Jakie misses a lot of things, I fear. Chief among them are the implications of him blindly following a pack of creatures that he admits are liars.

He truly is a special little boy.

How do you know they were invited? The reports so far say they werent.

— Jacob

PZ and Dawkins will be to see the movie without gate crashing when it comes out to the public. I think this was a private showing and PZ and Dawkins did not respect that.

— Jacob

jacob, with what disgrace you made of yourself in the whale blowhole thread in mind, I suggest it is about time you tone down, sit back, apply some thinking about how come everyone but you are able to see what a bore you are, and don't come back before you are beginning to see the light.

It is obvious you have your own peculiar agenda and no attempts at putting on an air of innocence and civility can hide the fact that you come across as something rather unpleasant.

It is as simple as this: There is a controversy between dead serious science and the combined YEC, OEC, religious fundamentalist, and other deceptionist movements bent on throwing wrenches into the gears of the scientific process and deceiving the general public with outright lies.

No wonder that the scientists get upset with people who have only one thing in mind: To find room for their pet god in whatever holes they think they can find in the theory of evolution, to save their peace of mind. If you really think you have a valid argument, I sincerely suggest you take that business to the talk.origins newsgroup where you will be most welcome, and where you may keep your threads alive as long as you like with little risk of being banned or otherwise prevented from spilling your guts all over the place. You will find many new friends there too, and they desperately need someone to come to their aid with new arguments that finally may falsify the theory of evolution. I wish you the best of luck and may stop by there sometimes to see how you are doing.

Since I am not a scientist but only an old geezer from Norway, I feel I can make this attempt at defending science and hope that I do not make too much of a fool of myself or offend anyone. Except maybe you, but if so, it can't be helped.

jacob: google the news with 'richard dawkins' and up comes 'dawkins crashes expelled party' pretty clever that when you search for his name up comes the movie. good press!

PZ:

Jacob has still not answered my simple questions in Comment 147,392. WW has ignored the questions for weeks. Now Jacob is "Haekeling" in hopes that someone will take the bait. It's your thread, and there is a Bathroom Wall...

I think this was a private showing and PZ and Dawkins did not respect that.

I don't get any of this. If the movie is an HONEST depiction of ANYTHING, why do there need to be any restrictions on who sees it? Moreover, if ID is such a great theory, that rivals the theory of evolution and deserves to be taught alongside TOE in science classes, why not just make a movie that clearly states what the scientific theory of ID is and catalogs the scientific evidence for it as well as some of the predicitions made from the theory that have acutally been borne out? In other words, why not make a movie that actually SHOWS some of the research and evidence that allegedly has been suppressed in regard to ID? The way it stands, it appears to me that the IDists are bleating about having their theory and its supporting evidence suppressed, but at the same time are not taking advantage of an ideal opportunity (sympathetic filmmakers with $$$ to spend) to get a statement of their theory and a demonstration of the evidence that supports it out where we all can see it.

jacob:

Shrike:

jacob: google the news with 'richard dawkins' and up comes 'dawkins crashes expelled party' pretty clever that when you search for his name up comes the movie. good press!

Googling "Richard Dawkins Expelled" does indeed turn up that headline... on the blogs Christianity Today and Looking Closer, both of which credulously repeat the "Blessman" account mentioned in this thread. Could you point us in the direction of an actual news source with that headline?

I think you should read the article more carefully. It is based on a source.

Having demonstrated numerous times his complete lack of higher education, why does anyone even talk to this "jacob" character? I totally agree with raven, he can't stand that evolution is undeniably accurate and his only way to "fight" the truth is by spouting jibberish to no end. Anyone who has professed to be an expert on cinema, journalism, evolutionary biology, and theology in one thread clearly has little to no "edumacation."

At "Christianity Today - A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction"...

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/03/dawkins_crashes.html

...the headlines read; "Dawkins Crashes 'Expelled' Party."

How Dawkins "crashes" after registering under his correct name is not explained. Truly it is reporting reflective of "Evangelical Conviction."

jacob: follow this link and scroll down to comment #13.

http://lookingcloser.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/richard-dawkins-crashes-the-party-at-a-screening-of-expelled/

You should check your "sources" more carefully. Blessman's story has been changing by the minute.

Jacob said: OK let try to use some logic here. Why did Dawkins and PZ want to attend this?

But this was a PRIVATE showing. And there should be some respect for a person’s privacy rights.

I think we have PZ’s words and a few other peoples words. And many have concluded gate-crashing. If that is not the case Dawkins etc should immediatly make a press statement that those who are saying this are LIARS. They wont.

What question?

— Jacob

The management has every right to choose who can come. The could rescind the invitaiton. Inconvenient but too bad. Now it was a publics showing then that might be different.

jacob:

Frank J: PZ: Jacob has still not answered my simple questions in Comment 147,392. WW has ignored the questions for weeks. Now Jacob is "Haekeling" in hopes that someone will take the bait. It's your thread, and there is a Bathroom Wall...

What question?

Frank J said: Jacob, Since you defend the activists’ tactics, I’m curious if you agree with any of them on the science. Specifically, do you agree with those who state that life on earth began 3-4 billion years ago, or do you agree with the ones who think that life is far younger (or older)? Do you agree with Michael Behe, who plainly states that humans are biologically related to other species, or do you favor the increasingly vague independent abiogenesis scenarios promoted by most other anti-evolutionists?

phantomreader42, from various comments: 1) Are you fully aware of the constant dishonesty of your fellow creationists? 2) Do you see any moral problem with said dishonesty? 3) Or do you actually CELEBRATE their endless lying, as suggested by your posts gloaitng over PZ and RD being "duped"? 4) Do you think lying is a GOOD thing? 5) Isn’t your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness? 6) Do you think it’s okay to make shit up as long as you’re Lying For Jesus™!? 7) Do you have the slightest shred of evidence that PZ made any sort of scene, for any reason? 8) Did you maybe miss the fact that they were interviewed for the movie under false pretenses? And that after the fraudulent interviews they were not allowed to see what use the footage was put to? Those aren't the only questions you've fled in terror from, but it's a start.

more crap from jacob: And sorry I forgot we are not allowed to talk about the Haekel deceptions. OK mums the word! SHHHHH!!! Lets pretend it never happened. OK done Haekel who??? never heard of the guy.

Hypothesis: "jacob" is easily the most talented troll I've ever seen on PT, and I've lurked here for years.

Some observations:

WW flails about with an angry hammer, taunting posters with idiocy and conspiracy mongering, always flirting at the edge of violent comment.
FL is a drive-by "nyah-nyah" playground taunter.
Pole Greaser is a Reverend Hipple-esque faux-creo.

Jacob, though...he scores dozens of provocations- the whale evo thread was over 200 posts!- while almost never actually committing to any particular point at all. He's never even identified with a side in any debate. More than Gish-Galloping, more than just goalpost relocation, he's all over the map, like a Dadaist J. Davidson, without the Day-Glo crazy.

Sublime perversity, really. I just had to tip my hat.

jacob: Dont understand why Dawkins would even go to a movie whose producer 'duped' him.

Jacob dodged: ...are you talking about the Haekel embryos?

jacob:

Frank J:

What question?

— Jacob

What part of "comment 147,392" did you not understand? And you are allowed to bring up long-refuted nonsense, as long as you don't mind if most lurkers - including probably many creationists - see it as an evasion tactic.

[paste in here]

Frank J said: Jacob, Since you defend the activists’ tactics, I’m curious if you agree with any of them on the science. Specifically, do you agree with those who state that life on earth began 3-4 billion years ago, or do you agree with the ones who think that life is far younger (or older)? Do you agree with Michael Behe, who plainly states that humans are biologically related to other species, or do you favor the increasingly vague independent abiogenesis scenarios promoted by most other anti-evolutionists?

Jacob is funny since when exposed to reality, he resorts to the typical denial of a recovering creationist. There is hope and I believe he realizes that he has been 'had' but the power of denial can be strong often leading to foolish claims.

Jacob said: What faith is that? I am an agnostic.

And while I’m at it, here are some questions of mine you have not even acknowledged:

— Phantomreader42

—- i am not a creationist. i am not even a theist

from testimonies

Jacob whined: Now comes the insults: typical!

obvious I really do not know what happened.

Hypothesis: “jacob” is easily the most talented troll I’ve ever seen on PT, and I’ve lurked here for years.

— DBC

jacob:

Alexandra:

obvious I really do not know what happened.

Now consider how that fact impacts on the validity of your arguments.

what arguments

Jacob, as usual unable to support his position responds to my question on details with 'google'. Google does return a lot of matches to PZ Myers story, so what specifics does Jacob have to offer?

None. I guess. But I will give him some time to google for some examples.

What arguments?

— Jacob

jacob:

Alexandra:

obvious I really do not know what happened.

Now consider how that fact impacts on the validity of your arguments.

what arguments

SA: State right here for all to see that you do NOT believe Jesus Christ was anything more than a man, same as you and me. Jacob: I really dont know. Jacob: i certainly do not think saying ‘Jesus is my personal saviour’ is going to make me go to heaven

SA: State that you do NOT believe the Bible is the word of God. Jacob: — a lot of it seems like BS to me. has some moral and historical value. but there are a lot of contraditions

You demand us to google when you can paste a link. Yet you demand that we paste a link when mere scrolling will get your information. I get it.

Now if only my fellow "evolanders" will too.

support YOUR position!

how do i talk like a duck?

Jacob parroted: Ok YOU ARE AN ASS AND A MORON! YOU DESERVE IT

Seems that Jacob, in addition to reality deprivation, is also suffering from irony deprivation..

What a quack...

The "jacob" creature reminds me of a classic moment in Usenet trollery many years ago when an anti-spam newsgroup was visited by a professional spammer who was sufficiently adept at trolling that his copious rivulets of inflammatory drivel evoked enough troll-feeding to swamp out much of the useful discussion. As is the case with the "jacob" entity, any thread he entered swiftly became a discussion of himself, and the original topic was largely abandoned.

He was finally undone when one of the regulars started following up all of his postings using a Markov-chain travesty generator robot. Apparently, seeing his own writings mangled and spit back to him was sufficiently engaging that he started arguing with the the robot.

After a brief discussion of "who is dumber: a travesty robot, or the troll that gets into an argument with it (and loses)?" the regular readers left the feeding of this troll to the robot, and that largely ended that particular problem.

i guess i should have said ‘which arguments’ but i am workging on other things in other screens so i cannot alway be accurate and i am debating single-handedly against what about 8 people. but it is easy cuz there arent many valid points. but i trip up my phrasing once in a while

Frank J: You demand us to google when you can paste a link. Yet you demand that we paste a link when mere scrolling will get your information. I get it. Now if only my fellow "evolanders" will too.

Frank J said: Jacob, Since you defend the activists’ tactics, I’m curious if you agree with any of them on the science. Specifically, do you agree with those who state that life on earth began 3-4 billion years ago, or do you agree with the ones who think that life is far younger (or older)? Do you agree with Michael Behe, who plainly states that humans are biologically related to other species, or do you favor the increasingly vague independent abiogenesis scenarios promoted by most other anti-evolutionists?

This is just stupid

OK I answered a lot of question. lets see how much integrity there is out there

jacob: I think we have PZ's words and a few other peoples words. And many have concluded gate-crashing. If that is not the case Dawkins etc should immediatly make a press statement that those who are saying this are LIARS. They wont.

Of the 129 comments thus far, 38 have been posted by Jacob. He is obviously very, very rattled.

It's quite obvious that the "Expelled" producers expulsion of Myers is a major gaffe, and poor Jacob has taken it upon himself to perform "damage control."

Pathetic, really. I haven't seen such a panicked reaction in a long time.

Dave

Let me clarify a few things. This was a private screening with no admission charge, and you had to reserve seats ahead of time; you also had to sign a promise that you wouldn't record the movie while you were there, and they were checking ID. Everyone in my family reserved seats under our own names, myself included. There was no attempt to "sneak in", although apparently the producer, Mark Mathis, accused me of doing so in the Q&A afterwards (Mathis, of course, is a contemptible liar). We followed the procedures they set up, every step of the way, and were completely above board in all our dealings. Mark Mathis was there at the screening, and apparently spotted me and gave instructions to the guard to throw me out. I asked the guard why I was being evicted, and he explained directly that the producer had given him that instruction.

Jacob: i guess i should have said ‘which arguments’ but i am workging on other things in other screens so i cannot alway be accurate and i am debating single-handedly against what about 8 people.

which question did i not honestly answer?

1. are you an atheist?

2. are you can agnostic?

3. do you hate fundamentalists?

Did something happen in your past that turned you off on religion?

Oh my. And you're in the bloody movie, too! I think if you're interviewed in a movie, even if they lie about it, you have a right to see it!

why do you think i am christian? that is illogical

PvM:

OK I answered a lot of question. lets see how much integrity there is out there

ROTFL, you are too funny my dear friend. By design or by accident, either way. Thanks my confused Christian friend.

jacob: 1) Are you fully aware of the constant dishonesty of your fellow creationists? ---- i am not a creationist. i am not even a theist

2) Do you see any moral problem with said dishonesty? ---- what dishonesty? be specific

4) Do you think lying is a GOOD thing? ---- sometimes

5) Isn’t your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness? --- i am an agnostic. if god exists i dont think he would like it 6) Do you think it’s okay to make shit up as long as you’re Lying For Jesus™!? --- it depends. since there probably is no hell or afterlife then lying to get ahead seems to be OK

7) Do you have the slightest shred of evidence that PZ made any sort of scene, for any reason? ---- from testimonies

8) Did you maybe miss the fact that they were interviewed for the movie under false pretenses? And that after the fraudulent interviews they were not allowed to see what use the footage was put to? --- they can see the movie when it comes out

Those aren’t the only questions you’ve fled in terror from, but it’s a start. give me more!

Frank J said: Jacob, Since you defend the activists’ tactics, I’m curious if you agree with any of them on the science. Specifically, do you agree with those who state that life on earth began 3-4 billion years ago, or do you agree with the ones who think that life is far younger (or older)? Do you agree with Michael Behe, who plainly states that humans are biologically related to other species, or do you favor the increasingly vague independent abiogenesis scenarios promoted by most other anti-evolutionists?

At the same time, Jacob is dragging down Christianity, Intelligent Design Creationism, and Expelled with him.

Not a bad deal I'd say

jacob: #147517 anyone?? why afraid?

Frank J said: Jacob, Since you defend the activists’ tactics, I’m curious if you agree with any of them on the science. Specifically, do you agree with those who state that life on earth began 3-4 billion years ago, or do you agree with the ones who think that life is far younger (or older)? Do you agree with Michael Behe, who plainly states that humans are biologically related to other species, or do you favor the increasingly vague independent abiogenesis scenarios promoted by most other anti-evolutionists?

phantomreader42: But while you're waiting, you could try answering these:

jacob: 1) Are you fully aware of the constant dishonesty of your fellow creationists? ---- i am not a creationist. i am not even a theist

2) Do you see any moral problem with said dishonesty? ---- what dishonesty? be specific

3) Or do you actually CELEBRATE their endless lying, as suggested by your posts gloaitng over PZ and RD being “duped”? ---- I think it is part of the press game. Politicians are duped a lot by reporters. You have to watch them and be smart. Its the price you pay for fame.

4) Do you think lying is a GOOD thing? ---- sometimes

5) Isn’t your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness? --- i am an agnostic. if god exists i dont think he would like it 6) Do you think it’s okay to make shit up as long as you’re Lying For Jesus™!? --- it depends. since there probably is no hell or afterlife then lying to get ahead seems to be OK

7) Do you have the slightest shred of evidence that PZ made any sort of scene, for any reason? ---- from testimonies

8) Did you maybe miss the fact that they were interviewed for the movie under false pretenses? And that after the fraudulent interviews they were not allowed to see what use the footage was put to? --- they can see the movie when it comes out

Those aren’t the only questions you’ve fled in terror from, but it’s a start. give me more!

Frank J said: Jacob, Since you defend the activists’ tactics, I’m curious if you agree with any of them on the science. Specifically, do you agree with those who state that life on earth began 3-4 billion years ago, or do you agree with the ones who think that life is far younger (or older)? Do you agree with Michael Behe, who plainly states that humans are biologically related to other species, or do you favor the increasingly vague independent abiogenesis scenarios promoted by most other anti-evolutionists?

Jacob,

Got any answers to my questions about SINE insertions in whales yet?

Boot the troll. He grows tiresome.

jacob: 1. are you an atheist? 2. are you can agnostic?

jacob: 3. do you hate fundamentalists?

jacob: 4. did something happen in your past that turned you off on religion?

David Stanton: Jacob, Got any answers to my questions about SINE insertions in whales yet?

jacob: NOW REALLY ATHIESTS ISNT IT TIME FOR ***YOU*** TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS. OR ARE YOU UNFAIR???

Hi PZ,

Have been in stitches since this morning. Absolutely a delight. It's funnier when I realize that Dawkins could see it and you couldn't. Can't believe how the "EXPELLED" IDiots kept you away from viewing their mendacious intellectual pornography, especially when the raison d'etre of that "film" is to note how mainstream science has gone on a "witch hunt" against poor, misunderstood IDiots and other creationists pretending to be real scientists.

Appreciatively yours,

John

Shebardigan:

phantomreader42: But while you're waiting, you could try answering these:

"jacob" will only "answer" a question if he can do it in a manner that generates more uproar. Examining his previous several hundred entries should make this abundantly clear. The objective is noise, more noise and, if possible, evoking not-too-well-thought-out behavior from the regulars.

jacob: Actually, no. PZ was already invited to a screening, followed all the rules, and got thrown out. And why should they have to wait to see THEIR OWN PARTS? he got duped. so what? jeez he should be used it by now

Looks like this thread has been "jacob'ed".
(A rapidly growing hijacked thread... not unlike like a metastasized cancer)

I'd just like to personally thank PZ, Richard Dawkins, Kristine, and Rev. Barky. My goodness...one just can't ask for better publicity for this documentary.

And, you bloggers? *BIG HUG* Thanks for doing your part to publicize the flick as well.

Bless you one and all!!!

FtK: Bless you one and all!!!

Jacob said: no i cant say that. this is how it works for me. some days i believe there is a god and some days i dont. and some days i just dont know. i really dont know if jesus was the son of god. see i am an agnostic not an atheist. atheists have lack of belief but agnostics are unsure. look it up on wiki is that too complicated for you to understand?

The Ballad of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins

FtK: I'd just like to personally thank PZ, Richard Dawkins, Kristine, and Rev. Barky. My goodness...one just can't ask for better publicity for this documentary. And, you bloggers? *BIG HUG* Thanks for doing your part to publicize the flick as well. Bless you one and all!!!

Science Avenger: There’s hope.

Jacob is a troll. AKA known as George.

reminds me most of "The Wagnerian Inquisition: - EVERYBODY expects the Wagnerian Inquisition! Our chief weapon is repetition... repetition and dullness... dullness and repetition... Our two weapons are dullness and repetition... and ruthless inefficiency... Our three weapons are dullness and repetition and ruthless inefficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Cause... Our four... no... Amongst our arguments... Amongst our argumentation... are such elements as dullness, repetition... - I'll come in again. (Exit)"

jacob: Yes Imagine now when you google Richard Dawkins its an ad for 'Expelled' TOO FUNNY! Rich, ya got duped again!!! TOO FUNNY!!

Jacob: But if they are so smart why do they keep letting themselves get set up over and over and over again?

Folks,
isn't it obvious that jacob is trying to raise the temper in this forum until somebody explodes or he gets banned from here? The ultimate victory for a small-minded parrot of lies and elevation to martyrdom: getting expelled by these bad, bad scientists.

jacob: OK time for my questions: (lets see how forthcoming all of YOU are) 1. are you an atheist?

2. are you can agnostic?

3. do you hate fundamentalists?

4. did something happen in your past that turned you off on religion?

jacob: --- If I found a bag of money with $100,000 that dropped out of a bank truck I would take it and if the cops asked me if I had it I would lie

They have been duped so many times before

jacob:

FtK: I'd just like to personally thank PZ, Richard Dawkins, Kristine, and Rev. Barky. My goodness...one just can't ask for better publicity for this documentary. And, you bloggers? *BIG HUG* Thanks for doing your part to publicize the flick as well. Bless you one and all!!!

Yes Imagine now when you google Richard Dawkins its an ad for 'Expelled' TOO FUNNY! Rich, ya got duped again!!! TOO FUNNY!!

I lost a good 90 minutes yesterday to jacob and his psychotic loop de loops. I suggest he be moved to the bathroom wall the next time he surfaces. He reminds me of a coastal sand gnat swarm. Harmless but very distracting. A screen would be nice. (DEET as well)

...when you google Richard Dawkins its an ad for ‘Expelled’ TOO FUNNY!

You don't get a whole lot of batting practice with a strawman troll like the 2 you have on this thread. Just saying. A real tribute to fundie home-schooling, they are.

I almost pissed myself when I read this. Thanks PZ!

I shall share it with everyone I know who is interested. Wow, what a line: "Evolutionary biologist expelled from 'Expelled'."

The irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

And he ran to the apple store in a fit of anger.

...For some reason, I find this particular unusual interpretation of PZ's story absolutely hilarious.

"Why, I'm so livid right now I... I... I'm going to go check out the new iPod Touch!!!"

I have to admit, I'm still amused.

Con artists uses lies and subterfuge...including lying about the working title of a film to dupe people...and "Christians" defend it.

PZ gets a valid invite to the film, using his own name, and is excluded while Dawkins gets in. The irony of being expelled from a movie purporting to be about exclusion is just delicious.

The icing on the cake is:

1. A lying "Christian" named "Stuart Blessman" claims that PZ was "hustling" and being disruptive, then changes that story. No one...and I mean NO ONE has come forward to corroborate the faked version of events and instead, multiple accounts directly contradicting "Stuart Blessman" are posted.

2. The trolls emerge in frantic damage control to try to spin it to something..ANYTHING favorable, rather than accept it as a symptom of the disease that begat "expelled" in the first place -- the willingness of morally bereft theists to engage in low behavior while hiding behind the pretense of honest faith. And none of the trolls ever says "shame" to THAT behavior by the creators of "Expelled" because...well, all is fair and Jesus would surely approve of lying and trickery and false claims. Fuckin' hypocrites.

To anyone who hasn't been following this fiasco on this and other threads:

Jacob's favorite tactic is to copy and repost very long comments and then to completely ignore their content. He even copied and reposted the comment I made that ridiculed him for doing this without responding at all! He demands answers to questions and then refuses to accept those answers or to provide any reason why. He absolutely refuses to look at any scientific evidence and then accuses others of ignoring the evidence. He pretends to get really insulted if anyone says anything mean to him but then he is very rude to everyone else. He claims that God cannot be a scientific explanation and also claims that modern evolutionary theory is completely wrong. He steadfastly refuses to present any alternative hypothesis, so I've got to conclude that he thinks that the answer is aliens and he is just too shy to say so.

I have asked him repeatedly to explain the shared SINE insertions in whales and terrestrial artiodactyls, he refuses to respond. I will not read or respond to anything he writes unless he answers my questions, I suggest that everyone else do the same. This troll has completely derailed three threads already, why let him continue?

So mention SINEs and he goes off on a tangent? Huh.

Look, we all can see that people like jacob, William Wallace and FtK are pathological liars. Why have them prove their dishonesty over and over again when once or twice should be enough?

Jacob is just yanking people's chains. I suggest that this is
the only accurate and useful response to his postings.

Incidentally, PzM, though I tend to find the Darwin Wars
tiresome ... this really *was* funny.

I am sure the cop (rentacop?) and theatre manager were
not Darwin bashers themselves and were "just following orders",
but still ... a lot of folks can recognize Richard Dawkins.

Ever notice he kind of resembles Thomas Huxley? Give him
mutton-chop whiskers and a frock coat ...

David Stanton: Jacob's favorite tactic is to copy and repost very long comments and then to completely ignore their content.

I will not read or respond to anything he writes unless he answers my questions, I suggest that everyone else do the same.

So mention SINEs and he goes off on a tangent? Huh.

— Henry

Mark Mathis was a fool. He should have personally made sure you were taken care of with good seats and food, then offered to introduce you after the film. This would have bee the honorable thing to do and would have demonstrated that he had nothing to hide. After doing the above, *IF* PZ or Dawkins would have acted improperly, he would have had the upper hand.

Too bad Mark Mathis is playing the chump.

This troll has completely derailed three threads already, why let him continue?

David Stanton: In fact a 1% selection advantage would be quite adequate [to move the whale's blowhole]. Jacob: How do you know that 1% would be quite adequate? Shebardigan: If you put $10.00 in a bank at 1% compound interest, for a hundred thousand years, what do you end up with? Jacob:Well with an inflation rate of just 3% you would have nothing.

Mark Mathis was a fool. He should have personally made sure you were taken care of with good seats and food, then offered to introduce you after the film. This would have bee the honorable thing to do and would have demonstrated that he had nothing to hide.

This seems to assume he actually DOES have nothing to hide.

I was not disturbing anyone, was not trying to make a scene, and was only standing quietly in line. When I was taken aside by the guard, it was a complete surprise.

PZ Myers: Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?

Hi all,

I’ve had the temerity to tell my “buddy” Bill Dembski that there’s more proof on behalf of Klingon Cosmology than there is for ID (He told me that I was childish for believing in Klingons; that’s funny, it’s exactly how I feel about him and his fellow Discovery Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers - oops, I mean Fellows and Senior Fellows - who espouse the mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design.

Cheers,

John

P. S. Am still dumbfounded as to how the “EXPELLED” IDIots got to PZ but missed Dawkins. Shows you how “clever” these Discovery Institute IDiot Borg drones really are.

P. P. S. I know that it's a shameless plug, but at Amazon.com, I have sarcastically referred to IDiots as members of the "Discovery Institute IDiot Borg Collective". Judging by what transpired at the Mall of America last night, I think my sarcasm was absolutely on target.

PZ Myers wrote: One, I will go see this movie, and I will cheer loudly at my 30 seconds or whatever on the screen, and I will certainly disembowel its arguments here and in any print venue that wants me. That's going to be fun.[bold not in the original]

Cheering loudly at the screen is certainly disruptive. Dawkins is a more staid individual, which is probably why he was allowed to attend. Furthermore, the fact that Glen Davidson was able to deduce the URLs for registration forms and disseminate this information among evolution activist sites doesn’t mean this wasn’t a private screening.

PvM,

Sigh. Couldn't play the quote mining card, but instead jumped right to name calling. Way to address my points.

Anyway, the New York Times has a fairly objective version of what happend: No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film by Cornelia Dean The New York Times.

I bet the producers of Expelled are thankful for the PT-mafia's publicity stunts.

Henry J: So mention SINEs and he goes off on a tangent? Huh.

William Wallace: PvM, Sigh. Couldn't play the quote mining card, but instead jumped right to name calling. Way to address my points. Anyway, the New York Times has a fairly objective version of what happend: No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film by Cornelia Dean The New York Times. I bet the producers of Expelled are thankful for the PT-mafia's publicity stunts.

EXPOSED: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html

Heh, oh well, you guys are damn quick.

(wad of id: EXPOSED: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html)

Mark Mathis, a producer of the film who attended the screening, said that “of course” he had recognized Dr. Dawkins, but allowed him to attend because “he has handled himself fairly honorably, he is a guest in our country and I had to presume he had flown a long way to see the film.”

PHHPHPHPHPTTTTT!!! There goes another keyboard.....

The simple fact that William Wallace is comfortable with the Gestapo tactics of those who were managing the screening (banning someone from the theater BEFORE he could have committed a wrongdoing) tells us all we need to know about his character....or lack thereof.

That bigot would never tolerate a Christan being banned from seeing a movie promoting atheism, espcially if the Christian appeared in the movie and felt he was being misresprented.

Another keyboard! (and monitor, too)

Mr. Mathis said in an interview that he had confronted Dr. Dawkins in the question and answer period after the screening and that Dr. Dawkins withered. “These people who own the academic establishment and who have great friends in the media — they are not accustomed to having a level, open playing field,” Mr. Mathis said. “I watched a man who has been a large figure, an imposing figure, I watched this man shrink in front of my eyes.”

S**t -- lurking at the Panda's Thumb is getting expensive...

It gets better. The IDiots have decided to put in their spin too: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/richard_dawkins_worlds_most_fa.html

Sigh. Couldn’t play the quote mining card, but instead jumped right to name calling. Way to address my points. Anyway, the New York Times has a fairly objective version of what happend: No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film by Cornelia Dean The New York Times. I bet the producers of Expelled are thankful for the PT-mafia’s publicity stunts.

williamwallacect I am curious about this: As this screening was by invitation only, Dawkins appearance was quite a surprise to both the audience and Mathis.

Evolution News & Views------The Creationist version of Pravda!

Frank J:

Hypothesis: “jacob” is easily the most talented troll I’ve ever seen on PT, and I’ve lurked here for years.

— DBC

How about Keith Eaton, who liked to call us "Evolanders?"

So much for the Christian ideal of turning the other cheek. Bruce Chapman pretty much admits that the underhanded tactics in this movie was revenge for his perceived wrongs against the IDiots by the media in the past. Such a shame to see Christian hypocrisy at its worst.

Case in point, ftk: "But, as a Christian I probably shouldn't be enjoying the fact that Dawkins made a fool of himself...though no doubt, if I had been in that theatre I'd have succumb to laughter as well.

Shoot, even Christ might have had a hard time suppressing a giggle when it comes to Dawkins."

Now, you may ask, just who in God's worlds is ftk to speak for Christ in such a pretentious manner?

wad of id: Case in point, ftk: "But, as a Christian I probably shouldn't be enjoying the fact that Dawkins made a fool of himself...though no doubt, if I had been in that theatre I'd have succumb to laughter as well. Shoot, even Christ might have had a hard time suppressing a giggle when it comes to Dawkins." Now, you may ask, just who in God's worlds is ftk to speak for Christ in such a pretentious manner?

jacob: Actually many people miss this about the relation between the inflation rate and a bank's interest rate. This of course happened in Germany during the late 20s and they had to come out with new currency.

Sometimes the truth is hidden in the subtleties of a concept. Banned for mentioning the eroding power of inflation? Interesting. Just as being banned for exposing the weaknesses of the prevailing evolutionary theory. How Nazi of you!

Jacob,

I see you are back again. How about answering my questions about SINES now? You have had several days to read the articles. Any response? Thought not.

How to Make Enemies and Irritate People As much as I enjoy debates in the internet, I have noticed that certain people tend to engage in tactics that cause the debates to degenerate into slugfests instead of allowing them to end on a civil note. Here are some examples of what they do: Lie constantly. It does not matter if what you say has no basis in fact whatsoever. As long as you can make a counter to any statement of fact or logical argument that someone makes, you will appear to be on an equal level with your opponent. Never bother to provide a basis for your assertions by linking to a credible source of information or providing a reference regarding a matter that is not common knowledge. Of course, if you are already doing No. 1, then No. 2 comes naturally. Engage in the practice of what I call “parroting and nitpicking” constantly: Making an exact copy of your opponent’s arguments and answering them point by point exactly instead of stating a new point of your own to move the debate forward. This has two effects: It makes you appear equal to your opponent, no matter how dumb your statements turn out to be, and it encourages your opponent to respond to you in the same way, taking the debate into an endless circle. When you are accused of lying, just call your opponent a liar as well. Engage in frequent sarcastic insults to annoy your opponent. When your opponent complains that your tactics are unfair or dishonorable, accuse him of not really wanting a debate. If you know your opponent has a short temper, wait until his patience has run out and he has gotten angry and then take advantage of the situation to torture your opponent still more! Never admit you are wrong about anything. Always accuse your opponents of not thinking or of being stupid, brainwashed, ignorant, mindless, etc. Use religion as a excuse to justify your extreme position. If your opponent is not of the same religion, use that fact against him. Keep the debate going as long as possible until your opponent gives up in frustration, allowing you to claim “victory” later. Last, but not least, CREATE NEW PROFILES TO INFILTRATE AND THEN DISRUPT GROUPS YOU WERE PREVIOUSLY BLOCKED FROM, THUS VIOLATING THE GROUP OWNER’S PROPERTY RIGHTS! If you use these tactics repeatedly, you may appear very successful in debates. But you will also gain the contempt of most people who have a sense of honor and ethics. And that contempt for you personally may also lead to a rejection of your position as well, even if the position has some truth in it.

jacob: I have answered many, many questions. I do not think it is fair that I must answer every question while other posters do not have that obligation. I will from now on answer one of your questions after you have answered one of mine. You believe in fairness correct?

Many of our Bre'r Rabbits just can't resist that tar baby...

Jacob,

You didn't answer my questions. It's been three days now. Are you ever going to answer?

jacob: I have answered many many questions. Just look at the threads , liar.

jacob: Here is a list of some of the intermediates between Cetaceans and their terrestrial ancestors and their time of appearance in the fossil record: 1. Pakicetus 50 M 2. Ambulocetus 48 M 3. Procetus 45 M 4. Rodhocetus 46 M 5. Kutchicetus 43 M 6. Basilosaurus 36 M 7. Dorudon 37 M 8. Aetiocetus 26 M National Geographic 200(5):64-76 Now, what is yur [sic] explanation for this evidence? How do you explain the fact that this evidence corresponds precisely with the embrylogical evidence? What is your alternative explanation? Once you are done with that, please explain all of the genetic evidence. And then you can answer mine: Do you or do you not reject the dishonest methods used by the producers of the film Expelled with regards to how they went about petitioning scientists for interviews? Do you or do you not reject the hypocrisy said producers are engaged in by expelling a scientist who appeared in their film from seeing the screening after he'd followed all the proper procedures to see the film? A simple pair of yes or no questions, and one that's actually on-topic. If you refuse to answer them, don't worry: I'll post them again and again until you do. And I've got others waiting for you when you get to these, some which other creationists / cdesign proponentists / intelligent design proponents / teach the controversy-ists / assorted flavors of anti-science folks have been fairly unwilling to answer.

jacob: I have answered many many questions. Just look at the threads , liar.

David Stanton: Here is a list of some of the intermediates between Cetaceans and their terrestrial ancestors and their time of appearance in the fossil record: 1. Pakicetus 50 M 2. Ambulocetus 48 M 3. Procetus 45 M 4. Rodhocetus 46 M 5. Kutchicetus 43 M 6. Basilosaurus 36 M 7. Dorudon 37 M 8. Aetiocetus 26 M National Geographic 200(5):64-76 Now, what is yur [sic] explanation for this evidence? How do you explain the fact that this evidence corresponds precisely with the embrylogical evidence? What is your alternative explanation? Once you are done with that, please explain all of the genetic evidence.

jacob: I have answered many, many questions. I do not think it is fair that I must answer every question while other posters do not have that obligation.

I will from now on answer one of your questions after you have answered one of mine. You believe in fairness correct?

I have answered many many questions. Just look at the threads , liar.

jacob: My question: How do you define a transitional fossil?

Wikipedia says: "ransitional fossils are the fossilized remains of transitional forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition. They can be identified by their retention of certain primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in comparison with their more derived relatives, as they are defined in the study of cladistics. "Missing link" is a popular term for transitional forms. Numerous examples exist, including those of primates and early humans. According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight. Contemporary "transitional" forms may be called "living fossils", but on a cladogram representing the historical divergences of life-forms, a "transitional fossil" will represent an organism at the point where indivual lineages (clades) diverge."

David Stanton: Here is a list of some of the intermediates between Cetaceans and their terrestrial ancestors and their time of appearance in the fossil record: 1. Pakicetus 50 M 2. Ambulocetus 48 M 3. Procetus 45 M 4. Rodhocetus 46 M 5. Kutchicetus 43 M 6. Basilosaurus 36 M 7. Dorudon 37 M 8. Aetiocetus 26 M National Geographic 200(5):64-76 Now, what is yur [sic] explanation for this evidence? How do you explain the fact that this evidence corresponds precisely with the embrylogical evidence? What is your alternative explanation? Once you are done with that, please explain all of the genetic evidence.

Jackelope King: Do you or do you not reject the dishonest methods used by the producers of the film Expelled with regards to how they went about petitioning scientists for interviews? Do you or do you not reject the hypocrisy said producers are engaged in by expelling a scientist who appeared in their film from seeing the screening after he'd followed all the proper procedures to see the film? A simple pair of yes or no questions, and ones that are actually on-topic. If you refuse to answer them, don't worry: I'll post them again and again until you do. And I've got others waiting for you when you get to these, some which other creationists / cdesign proponentists / intelligent design proponents / teach the controversy-ists / assorted flavors of anti-science folks have been fairly unwilling to answer. However, if you don't answer them, you'll only be making a case for people who believe you're nothing but a troll. So I urge you to answer mine and David's questions directly.

You can't hope to educate someone like jacob... it's a noble thought, but it is simply not possible. People like jacob were the losers in school that everyone's grown up with. You remember: they were the ones that fought the teachers, annoyed the kid sitting next to them. They didn't give a fuck about knowledge back then, and there's no reason they will now. They perceive anyone with more knowledge subconciously as a threat. It's as bad as having a loser daddy or mommy beating him up constantly. It's not physical trauma, but it's still traumatic. Call it mental rape, when in fact all people are trying to do is enlighten. So when faced with knowledge, they lash out in anger. Their minds are closed, firmly shut. What can you do? Like all people with mental pathologies you separate them from functional people in society. You marginalize them as they deserve to be, before their pathologies infect other innocent people around them.

Jacob,

I asked my questions three days ago. I told you I would not respond to anything you write until you respond to my questions. I'm still waiting.

David Stanton: Here is a list of some of the intermediates between Cetaceans and their terrestrial ancestors and their time of appearance in the fossil record: 1. Pakicetus 50 M 2. Ambulocetus 48 M 3. Procetus 45 M 4. Rodhocetus 46 M 5. Kutchicetus 43 M 6. Basilosaurus 36 M 7. Dorudon 37 M 8. Aetiocetus 26 M National Geographic 200(5):64-76 Now, what is yur [sic] explanation for this evidence? How do you explain the fact that this evidence corresponds precisely with the embrylogical evidence? What is your alternative explanation? Once you are done with that, please explain all of the genetic evidence.

Jackelope King: Do you or do you not reject the dishonest methods used by the producers of the film Expelled with regards to how they went about petitioning scientists for interviews? Do you or do you not reject the hypocrisy said producers are engaged in by expelling a scientist who appeared in their film from seeing the screening after he'd followed all the proper procedures to see the film? A simple pair of yes or no questions, and ones that are actually on-topic. If you refuse to answer them, don't worry: I'll post them again and again until you do. And I've got others waiting for you when you get to these, some which other creationists / cdesign proponentists / intelligent design proponents / teach the controversy-ists / assorted flavors of anti-science folks have been fairly unwilling to answer. However, if you don't answer them, you'll only be making a case for people who believe you're nothing but a troll. So I urge you to answer mine and David's questions directly.

Case in point, the above post illustrates nicely where jacob's education stopped: multiplication and fractions. Junior high stuff that he probably struggled for years to master. And he's mighty proud of it too, but alas the rest of the world moved on.

Stanton,

Don't respond to the troll throwing out math bait. I presented an equation that he asked for and he completely ignored it. He did not display one bit of comprehension of what the equation represented and he did not present one shred of evidence that it was not appropriate. I don't think that he had the slightest clue how to solve the equation or even what the solution would mean if he could solve it.

He seems to think that we must earn the right to be privy to his mathemathematical musings. Well he hasn't earned the right to expect anyone else to earn anything. He still refuses to answer my questions about SINE insertions and then complains that others won't answer his questions. He still copies long posts and then whines about others cutting and pasting. He is an example of the classic "I know you are but what am I" mirror argument. Anything you say about him he will accuse you of, just because it sounds good, even though it is obviously wrong.

If this guy ever does present any equations of his own, apparently the correct response is to simply call it "comical".

I certainly don't intend to respond to dice games rigged by trolls, anyhow, David.

Should somebody point out that the inflation rate thing applies only to bank accounts, and not to the evolution for which bank accounts were being used as an analogy? (Granted, that's probably obvious to most people.)

Henry

Henry J: Should somebody point out that the inflation rate thing applies only to bank accounts, and not to the evolution for which bank accounts were being used as an analogy? (Granted, that's probably obvious to most people.) Henry

wad of id: You can't hope to educate someone like jacob... it's a noble thought, but it is simply not possible.

The other day, Jacob reporter Panda's Thumb as a porn site.

"OK I reported this as a porn site."

Why is he still here? I wonder if his parents know he has this problem.

Please move this comment and all of Jacob's to the bathroom wall.

Jacob,

How was my equation in error? Your only response was that it was "comical". That does not prove that it is in error. Your response was comical.

Now are you going to answer my questions about SINEs or not. Why do artiodactyls share exactly the same SINE insertions that are found in modern cetaceans? I find it comical that you refuse to respond.

Nice copy and paste by the way. My comments were not directed at you. Why did you copy and paste them and still not respond to my questions? And why are you still visiting a "porn site"?

David Stanton: Here is a list of some of the intermediates between Cetaceans and their terrestrial ancestors and their time of appearance in the fossil record: 1. Pakicetus 50 M 2. Ambulocetus 48 M 3. Procetus 45 M 4. Rodhocetus 46 M 5. Kutchicetus 43 M 6. Basilosaurus 36 M 7. Dorudon 37 M 8. Aetiocetus 26 M National Geographic 200(5):64-76 Now, what is yur [sic] explanation for this evidence? How do you explain the fact that this evidence corresponds precisely with the embrylogical evidence? What is your alternative explanation? Once you are done with that, please explain all of the genetic evidence.

Jackelope King: Do you or do you not reject the dishonest methods used by the producers of the film Expelled with regards to how they went about petitioning scientists for interviews? Do you or do you not reject the hypocrisy said producers are engaged in by expelling a scientist who appeared in their film from seeing the screening after he'd followed all the proper procedures to see the film? A simple pair of yes or no questions, and ones that are actually on-topic. If you refuse to answer them, don't worry: I'll post them again and again until you do. And I've got others waiting for you when you get to these, some which other creationists / cdesign proponentists / intelligent design proponents / teach the controversy-ists / assorted flavors of anti-science folks have been fairly unwilling to answer. However, if you don't answer them, you'll only be making a case for people who believe you're nothing but a troll. So I urge you to answer mine and David's questions directly.

Would you people PLEASE STOP ENGAGING THIS "JACOB" ASS? I'm moving his comments to the bathroom wall, even though I think they'd be better off flushed.

Why should they let a known evolutionist into a movie when there are children present; this is a legitimate safety issue! Watch this video for details on how the theory of evolution is practiced!

They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn't notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn't recognize him. My guest was … Richard Dawkins. He's in the theater right now, watching their movie. Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?

I've been reading about the Scientology cult for a while and the tactics used by them are a mirror image of the creationists. Anything is legal if it's for the 'cause'.

PZ Myers: Would you people PLEASE STOP ENGAGING THIS "JACOB" ASS? I'm moving his comments to the bathroom wall, even though I think they'd be better off flushed.

JW: I've been reading about the Scientology cult for a while and the tactics used by them are a mirror image of the creationists. Anything is legal if it's for the 'cause'.

Dale Husband: Seriously, I never cease to be amazed at all these idiots who come here and make lame pot shots at evolution and those who support its teaching and think they’re all that. It only hardens my resolve not to give them any respect.