Behe's blinders: My rough 2 cents on Behe's paper

Oh, and it gets worse.....for the 10% or so that Behe lists in his as Gain-of-FCT*

".....no matter what causes gain-of-FCT events to sporadically arise in nature (and I of course think the more complex ones likely resulted from deliberate intelligent design)...."

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/mike-behe-replies-to-jerry-coyne/

God did it. Because Behe believes so, which is fine, but how is this science?

*P.S. This kinda kills the idea of information never increasing, etc., doesn't it? I mean, ID-expert verified cases where "'gain-of-FCT' adaptive mutation is a mutation that produces a specific, new, functional coded element while adapting an organism to its environment."

Yeah, in the paper, Behe basically concedes that all of the key creo/ID talking points are wrong.

He admits:

* beneficial mutations can happen
* increases in specificity can happen
* increases in information can happen

In "Edge of Evolution" and elsewhere, Behe even concedes that evolution can produce new genes = new information.

He still tries to argue that most of these are "degradative" -- never giving a rigorous definition of this -- but basically this doesn't matter anyway. We know selection sometimes preserves e.g. modified duplicates, because we see them persisting in microbial populations today, and we typically see them lost only when the microbes are transplanted to some simpler environment like a petri dish, chemostat, or nice warm nutrient-rich host organism body.

Stephen Meyer said: Gene duplication and divergence do not make new genes any more than a paper and a typewriter makes a new poem.

Polls are now the arbiters of truth?

Wonder why that might be a bad standard:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/7444/gallup-brain-strom-thurmond-1948-election.aspx

Not to mention the poll contains the poison phrase "through an unguided process" to which a Theistic evolutionist could not consent. The supernatural guiding or lack there of is beyond the scope of science!

As with the fake Michael Behe and fake William Dembski who have appeared here in the last few days, please don't feed this troll.

RBH said: As with the fake Michael Behe and fake William Dembski who have appeared here in the last few days, please don't feed this troll.

Well said. Meyer usually lets the other flaks at the DI do his talking for him.

RBH, according to your definition of troll, anyone who comes on here and challenges your thesis is a troll. So if you went to Uncommon Descent and challenged their thesis, you too would be a troll

RBH's definition of a troll is correct. Your definition of a troll is wrong. Anyone who challenges evolutionary biology by picking sentences out of their wazoo and thumping some pamphlet is either a troll or a knave or a fool. Anyone who walks over to uncommonlydense and challenges the nonsense spouted by the likes O'L, BarryA and the other bots is doing them a service.

If the poem is gibberish it takes just a little longer for it to be appreciated. The nonsense verse of Sukumar Ray (Auteur Satyajit Ray's father) were popular as ditties for children, and today are mined for their references to logical ideas and social commentary.
So you got two things wrong.

First, nonsense verse survives and even prospers
Second, to think nonsense verse = organism is foolish.

So uncommondense fans like you need a dose of sense from Pandasthumb posters like us.

ABJECT FAIL!

Stephen Meyer said:

What a terrible analogy. Absent humanity, poems do not descend with modification; organisms do. There is no selection process working on poems; there is on organisms

If the poem is gibberish then NS destroys it, or no one reads it. the analogy is apt.

so if you went to Uncommon Descent and challenged their thesis, you too would be a troll.

Stephen Meyer said:

why ID advocates are allowed to disdainfully ignore the massive evidence that gene duplication + divergence is the main source of new genes with new functions, and why they are allowed to claim that the origin of new functional sequence is a big problem, when in fact it’s basically a solved problem, with the answer – gene duplication + divergence – known across biology, tested and verified in numerous different ways, and written down for beginners in the textbooks).

Gene duplication and divergence do not make new genes any more than a paper and a typewriter makes a new poem. You have to sequence the amino acids correctly in order to get a new protein. You need intelligence to choose what keys to type on a typewriter in order to get a correct English sentence, randomness can't do it.

What part of don't feed the troll do you people not understand

Sorry RBH. I didn't see your post.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

rossum

Has anyone read this paper?

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1

Most of it is beyond my comprehension (as I'm not a scientist), but I think its author is arguing that protein folds are very unlikely to have evolved. Anyway, it's being touted by ID advocates as "peer-reviewed research" that provides evidence against evolution.

PS. What exactly does Behe mean when he says the beneficial mutations in Richard Lenski's experiment were all "degradative"? Surely the ability to utilize citrate is not degradative? Or am I missing something?

Alfie said: Anyway, it's being touted by ID advocates as "peer-reviewed research" that provides evidence against evolution.

Alfie said: Has anyone read this paper? http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1 Most of it is beyond my comprehension (as I'm not a scientist), but I think its author is arguing that protein folds are very unlikely to have evolved. Anyway, it's being touted by ID advocates as "peer-reviewed research" that provides evidence against evolution. PS. What exactly does Behe mean when he says the beneficial mutations in Richard Lenski's experiment were all "degradative"? Surely the ability to utilize citrate is not degradative? Or am I missing something?

This potential problem-the sampling problem-was largely ignored, in part because those who raised it had to rely on guesswork to fill some key gaps in their understanding of proteins.

Alfie said: PS. What exactly does Behe mean when he says the beneficial mutations in Richard Lenski's experiment were all "degradative"? Surely the ability to utilize citrate is not degradative? Or am I missing something?

back to the bible.org: Series: Keeping Your Teens from Walking Away Dr. Woodrow Kroll May 11, 2009 Woodrow Kroll: They're turning their backs, they're walking away, and we have to do something about it now! What am I talking about? I'm talking about our Christian teenagers. deleted material Let me quote several of these groups. First of all the Barna Group; you know them because they've been doing surveys for oh, 20 or something years now. The Barna Group found out that two out of three Christian teens will leave the church after they graduate from high school. Two out of three. deleted material Lifeway Research; Lifeway is a division of the Southern Baptist Convention (it's their research division). Lifeway Research shows that more than two-thirds of all kids who are in church regularly during high school are going to opt out of church after they graduate from high school. Two-thirds. Now let me think now. Barna says two out of three, Lifeway says two-thirds. Two out of three, two-thirds. We're talking about the same number of kids. Two different surveys done by two different groups telling us exactly the same thing.

As with the fake Michael Behe and fake William Dembski who have appeared here in the last few days, please don’t feed this troll.

Nick (Matzke) said: Yeah, in the paper, Behe basically concedes that all of the key creo/ID talking points are wrong. He admits: * beneficial mutations can happen * increases in specificity can happen * increases in information can happen In "Edge of Evolution" and elsewhere, Behe even concedes that evolution can produce new genes = new information.

Actually, random mutation and natural selection can produce a poem (even a haiku!) and I've done this.

Using a random word generator I spewed out 48 words, 8 lines of 6. Then, 5 of my friends selected by vote zero to two words in each line to keep. The next iteration was weighted so the voted words had a better chance of being retained.

In short order we had something like a poem, although it read like a 60's drug-induced, pseudo-literary poem. Still, it would probably get you a C in Freshman English class.

Stephen Meyer said:

This is a well documented phenomena which includes many good examples such as hemoglobin genes, ribosomal protein genes, histone genes, olfactory genes, hox genes and many others.

Let's see some of these well documented cases.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Nick (Matzke) said: Yeah, in the paper, Behe basically concedes that all of the key creo/ID talking points are wrong. He admits: * beneficial mutations can happen * increases in specificity can happen * increases in information can happen In "Edge of Evolution" and elsewhere, Behe even concedes that evolution can produce new genes = new information.

Irritable outburst: New information can (and does) arise completely without gene duplication. If I have a gene with variation at one of its sites, and natural selection chooses among those bases (say A, T, and G) one of them (say G) that brings about higher fitness, and fixes it in the population, that reduction of uncertainty is increase of information (increase of specified information, if we identify the specification with fitness, as seems appropriate). Everyone always goes running off to the case of gene duplication when they want to discusss new information, but the selection among alternative alleles at the existing genes is increase of information too!

gate.net: Xylitol is also not normally metabolized, but Mortlock and his colleagues were able to develop strains (generally through spontaneous mutations, but sometimes with u.v. ray or chemical induced mutations) that could use it because ribitol dehydrogenase (which is usually present in the cells to convert ribitol to D-ribulose) was able to slightly speed up the conversion of xylitol to D-xylulose, for which metabolic pathways already exist. The ability of the strains to utilize xylitol was increased as much as 20 fold when first production of ribitol dehydrogenase was deregulated (the enzyme was produced all the time, not just when ribitol was present), then duplication of the ribitol dehydrogenase genes occurred, then the structure of the enzyme was changed such that its efficiency at working with xylitol was improved, and finally, in at least one case, a line regained control of the modified ribitol dehydrogenase gene so that the enzyme was only produced in the presence of xylitol. Here we have a complete example of a new metabolic pathway being developed through duplication and modification of an existing pathway.

No one has ever shown how there is a direct line from one protein to another protein whose sequences are different in more than 20 locations, and this is to say nothing of some genes who are more than a 1000 amino acids long.

Raven wrote:

"The creationist troll will just move the goal posts."

Way to go Raven. Prediction confirmed in nine minutes.

troll fake: The duplication of an already built gene is not the same as building a new gene. That’s like saying xeroxing a copy of Moby Dick is writing a new book.

troll: No one has ever shown how there is a direct line from one protein to another protein whose sequences are different in more than 20 locations, and this is to say nothing of some genes who are more than a 1000 amino acids long.

Stephen Meyer said:

Joe Felsenstein said: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/9/1440.full

The duplication of an already built gene is not the same as building a new gene. ....

Stanton said:

Joe Felsenstein said: Irritable outburst: New information can (and does) arise completely without gene duplication. ... Everyone always goes running off to the case of gene duplication when they want to discusss new information, but the selection among alternative alleles at the existing genes is increase of information too!

You mean like how the icefish' antifreeze gene originated when a START codon got spliced into a region of non-coding DNA near the ancestral fish's bile production genes?

As for me being a troll: what, anyone who argues against Darwinism is a troll?

What kind of logic is that? This is textbook close-mindedness. You’re calling me a troll because you can’t refute ID.

Stephen Meyer said: I just asked you to demonstrate how you get from one protein to the other through a step by step process where each step is useful.

I just asked you to demonstrate how you get from one protein to the other through a step by step process where each step is useful. So even if you could demonstrate you would still have to account for the other millions of proteins.

Stephen Meyer said: As for moving the goal post, hello, the goal post is proving the Natural Selection and genetic drift can account for ALL of life's variety. That's the goal post. I just asked you to demonstrate how you get from one protein to the other through a step by step process where each step is useful. So even if you could demonstrate you would still have to account for the other millions of proteins. So your crying foul at me for moving the goal post is ridiculous.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Stanton said:

Joe Felsenstein said: Irritable outburst: New information can (and does) arise completely without gene duplication. ... Everyone always goes running off to the case of gene duplication when they want to discusss new information, but the selection among alternative alleles at the existing genes is increase of information too!

You mean like how the icefish' antifreeze gene originated when a START codon got spliced into a region of non-coding DNA near the ancestral fish's bile production genes?

That is origin of a new gene. My point was that much more boring processes like substitutions fine tuning a protein for better function are also perfectly good examples of new information.

For what it's worth, I appreciated the responses to Stephen Meyer (the troll), it was informative. I can understand why people would rather not waste time in arguing with Creationists/IDers - especially with goalpost-movers. And I imagine it's tiresome.

But I just wanted to mention that as someone who's genuinely excited in learning evolutionary biology, the back-and-forth arguments with pseudo-science folks can be quite educational.

DS said:

Stephen Meyer said: As for moving the goal post, hello, the goal post is proving the Natural Selection and genetic drift can account for ALL of life's variety. That's the goal post. I just asked you to demonstrate how you get from one protein to the other through a step by step process where each step is useful. So even if you could demonstrate you would still have to account for the other millions of proteins. So your crying foul at me for moving the goal post is ridiculous.

Well dude, there's your problem. Why do you assume that "each step is useful"? One of the best things about gene duplication is that the redundant copies are removed from selective constraints. So not only are you dishonestly misrepresenting yourself as someone you are not, not only are you moving the goalposts as the speed of light, but you are abysmally ignorant as well.

Stephen Meyer said: As for moving the goal post, hello, the goal post is proving the Natural Selection and genetic drift can account for ALL of life's variety. That's the goal post. I just asked you to demonstrate how you get from one protein to the other through a step by step process where each step is useful. So even if you could demonstrate you would still have to account for the other millions of proteins. So your crying foul at me for moving the goal post is ridiculous. As for me being a troll: what, anyone who argues against Darwinism is a troll? What kind of logic is that? This is textbook close-mindedness. You're calling me a troll because you can't refute ID.

Chris Lindsay said: But I just wanted to mention that as someone who's genuinely excited in learning evolutionary biology, the back-and-forth arguments with pseudo-science folks can be quite educational.

Sigh, I did do some thinking about this. We're getting the old "microevolution versus macroevolution" routine.

Now it's amusing to think in this context of "microinterest versus macrointerest." Suppose I
invest a dollar and make 1% interest on it in a century -- I think I'm safe to call that "microinterest", making a penny on it in a hundred years, and then reinvesting at the same rate.

In a million years that will yield:

1.01^10,000 == 1.64e43

There's not close to that much money in the world.
Now I imagine a lot of frumious handwaving can be generated in response, but there is a conclusion that cannot be successfully argued against: small cumulative changes over deep time add up.

Stephen Meyer said:

Joe Felsenstein said: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/9/1440.full

The duplication of an already built gene is not the same as building a new gene.

Nobody claims it is sunshine. However, that copy is acted by mutation and selection. And new genes are created.

That's like saying xeroxing a copy of Moby Dick is writing a new book. No one has ever shown how there is a direct line from one protein to another protein whose sequences are different in more than 20 locations, and this is to say nothing of some genes who are more than a 1000 amino acids long.

It's getting down to the end of a semester. The Dembski trolls have to get in their ten posts on a hostile "evolutionist" website before they head home for the holidays.

Stephen Meyer said: Stuart, I love the way you evaded my question about the eye spot in the Chlamydomonas reinhardtii

Stephen Meyer said: Stuart, I love the way you evaded my question about the eye spot in the Chlamydomonas reinhardtii

Stephen Meyer said: That article proves common ancestry not natural selection. I believe in common ancestry. I also believe that natural selection contributes maybe 1% to the variety of species. Intelligence does the rest.

How come you can’t explain how your deliberate refusal to accept or even comprehend what we tell you in response to your malicious and unreasonable skepticism is supposed to have any bearing on the validity of Evolutionary Biology or even Intelligent Design?

This statement commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. You're just assuming that I can't explain, you haven't proven that I can't explain.

Stephen Meyer said:

I l;ove the way you completely ignored the fact that you were proven to be totally and absolutely wrong about your ignorant claims. “I don’t believe it” is not an argument. Counting up genes and saying they couldn’t evolve is not an argument. All you got is a whole lot of nothin.

DS, I'm using Darwin's own means of falsifying his own theory. Darwin said: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Well, all those 202 genes don't have a function until they are all working together. Darwin's theory fails. You, on the other hand, are just using a Darwin of the gaps argument, you can't explain how the eye arose, so you just insert Darwin into the gap in your knowledge.

Stephen Meyer said:

I l;ove the way you completely ignored the fact that you were proven to be totally and absolutely wrong about your ignorant claims. “I don’t believe it” is not an argument. Counting up genes and saying they couldn’t evolve is not an argument. All you got is a whole lot of nothin.

DS, I'm using Darwin's own means of falsifying his own theory. Darwin said: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Well, all those 202 genes don't have a function until they are all working together. Darwin's theory fails. You, on the other hand, are just using a Darwin of the gaps argument, you can't explain how the eye arose, so you just insert Darwin into the gap in your knowledge.

Stephen Meyer said: "small cumulative changes over deep time add up" They do, but the problem with life is that you need a lot of genes in place before a new organ can function. Just look at the eye spot on the one celled Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, with that you need 202 genes. All those genes have to be in place before the eye spot will work.

You can't get an eye through small cumulative changes over deep time. http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/short/146/2/772

The real Stephen Meyer should step in before it is too late. This is like "3,000 Miles to Graceland" only that the fake S.Meyer is as stupid as the real one and the fake Behe a little smarter than the real one!

Stephen Meyer said: That article proves common ancestry not natural selection. I believe in common ancestry. I also believe that natural selection contributes maybe 1% to the variety of species. Intelligence does the rest.

how come you can’t explain how your deliberate refusal to accept or even comprehend what we tell you in response to your malicious and unreasonable skepticism is supposed to have any bearing on the validity of Evolutionary Biology or even Intelligent Design?

This statement commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. You're just assuming that I can't explain, you haven't proven that I can't explain.

Stephen Meyer said:

I l;ove the way you completely ignored the fact that you were proven to be totally and absolutely wrong about your ignorant claims. “I don’t believe it” is not an argument. Counting up genes and saying they couldn’t evolve is not an argument. All you got is a whole lot of nothin.

DS, I'm using Darwin's own means of falsifying his own theory. Darwin said: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Well, all those 202 genes don't have a function until they are all working together. Darwin's theory fails. You, on the other hand, are just using a Darwin of the gaps argument, you can't explain how the eye arose, so you just insert Darwin into the gap in your knowledge.

Stephen Meyer said: Stuart, I love the way you evaded my question about the eye spot in the Chlamydomonas reinhardtii

Stephen Meyer said: Stuart, I love the way you evaded my question about the eye spot in the Chlamydomonas reinhardtii

I'm still interested in the "each step has to be useful" claim.

I'd like a justification for this claim. Something that tells us that this would be Stephen Meyer isn't simply throwing unsupported assertions at the blog in hopes that something sticks.

Nomad said: I'm still interested in the "each step has to be useful" claim. I'd like a justification for this claim. Something that tells us that this would be Stephen Meyer isn't simply throwing unsupported assertions at the blog in hopes that something sticks.

Stanton said:

Joe Felsenstein said: That is origin of a new gene. My point was that much more boring processes like substitutions fine tuning a protein for better function are also perfectly good examples of new information.

Like how the antifreeze gene would later be duplicated and spliced near the genes for hemoglobin production during icefish evolution?

well, it’s the simplest eye ever found. It doesn’t take too much logic to conclude that 202 is the minimum threshold before an eye can function. To believe that an eye can function with less genes is to believe in something for which there is no evidence.

"Vision" in Single-Celled Algae Suneel Kateriya1, Georg Nagel2, Ernst Bamberg2 and Peter Hegemann1 1 Institut für Biochemie, Universität Regensburg, 93040 Regensburg; and 2 Max-Planck-Institut für Biophysik, 60439 Frankfurt am Main, Germany Abstract Photosynthetic unicellular algae have a unique visual system. In Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, the pigmented eye comprises the optical system and at least five different rhodopsin photoreceptors. Two of them, the channelrhodopsins, are rhodopsin-ion channel hybrids switched between closed and open states by photoisomerization of the attached retinal chromophore. They promise to become a useful tool for noninvasive control of membrane potential and intracellular ion concentrations.

Stephen Meyer said: well, it's the simplest eye ever found. It doesn't take too much logic to conclude that 202 is the minimum threshold before an eye can function. To believe that an eye can function with less genes is to believe in something for which there is no evidence.

I just asked you to demonstrate how you get from one protein to the other through a step by step process where each step is useful

Flint said:

As for me being a troll: what, anyone who argues against Darwinism is a troll?

Not if they do so honestly.

What kind of logic is that? This is textbook close-mindedness. You’re calling me a troll because you can’t refute ID.

This is doubly dishonest. First, because ID is too nebulous to pin down well enough to refute (ID simply says that someone unnamed, somehow we can't say, sometime we can't specify, did something we can't describe resulting in what we believe couldn't have happened in any testable way), and second because every approximation of ID close enough to actually TEST has proven resoundingly false. What I don't understand is, why do creationists NEED to play stupid?

What did the first insect evolve from?

What was the first insect?

What did the first flying insect evolve from?

What was the first flying insect?

Colin said: What did the first insect evolve from? What was the first insect? What did the first flying insect evolve from? What was the first flying insect?

Stuart Weinstein said:

Colin said: What did the first insect evolve from? What was the first insect? What did the first flying insect evolve from? What was the first flying insect?

Who was the first English speaker? And where did English come from? When you understand the above, you will be closer to understanding the answer to your own questions.

@Colin: please give the name of the first dog.

Stephen Wells said: @Colin: please give the name of the first dog.

Colin said:

Stuart Weinstein said:

Colin said: What did the first insect evolve from? What was the first insect? What did the first flying insect evolve from? What was the first flying insect?

Who was the first English speaker? And where did English come from? When you understand the above, you will be closer to understanding the answer to your own questions.

In other words you don't know. Does anyone else know? Please narrow it down to genus and species. Thanks.

Colin said:

Stephen Wells said: @Colin: please give the name of the first dog.

Why the rude responses?

Colin said:

Stephen Wells said: @Colin: please give the name of the first dog.

Why the rude responses?

Cubist said:

Colin said:

Stephen Wells said: @Colin: please give the name of the first dog.

Why the rude responses?

Thus far, Colin, I only see two responses to your posts, neither of which strike me as being rude. "Who was the first English speaker" is an attempt at Socratic inquiry/teaching, not an insult or put-down, and "when you understand the above" seems to me like a simple statement of fact, not an insult or put-down. As to "please give the name of the first dog", that, too , strikes me as an attempt at Socratic instruction rather than an insult or put-down.
Perhaps you might better serve yourself if, rather than look for offense where none was intended, you instead tried to grapple with the substance of the responses you've received. Who was the first English speaker? Is that even a sensible question with a well-defined answer -- and if it's not, why isn't it?

Colin said:

Cubist said:

Colin said:

Stephen Wells said: @Colin: please give the name of the first dog.

Why the rude responses?

Thus far, Colin, I only see two responses to your posts, neither of which strike me as being rude. "Who was the first English speaker" is an attempt at Socratic inquiry/teaching, not an insult or put-down, and "when you understand the above" seems to me like a simple statement of fact, not an insult or put-down. As to "please give the name of the first dog", that, too , strikes me as an attempt at Socratic instruction rather than an insult or put-down.
Perhaps you might better serve yourself if, rather than look for offense where none was intended, you instead tried to grapple with the substance of the responses you've received. Who was the first English speaker? Is that even a sensible question with a well-defined answer -- and if it's not, why isn't it?

The responses above are rude.

I asked legitimate questions and should receive polite answers.

“small cumulative changes over deep time add up” They do, but the problem with life is that you need a lot of genes in place before a new organ can function.

Great reply, Stuart. I'll have to remember that next time I hear a Creationist/IDer ask about where the first anything came from.

It does seem that Creationists/IDers get confused with scientific labels for species, genus. They don't understand that we give them labels to help us talk about them. It's not like animals all fit into compartmentalized classifications on purpose.

It's like they they think an organism changed into another at lightning speed, then just stopped changing for a long time, and then changed again - not seeing the millions of years of gradual, minute changing from generation to generation.

Colin said: If molecular data is so revealing it should be able to answer the question about the first dog too, but not the question about English. Comparing language to animals, in this context, is ridiculous.

Colin said: Comparing language to animals, in this context, is ridiculous.

Stuart Weinstein said: Who was the first English speaker?

Colin said: In other words you don't know. Does anyone else know? Please narrow it down to genus and species. Thanks.

Colin said: What was the first insect?

. . If Behe’s article is correct, then molecular evolution, in the world of real biology, faces a similar problem. Remember that Behe found that “the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that would arise from the diminishment or elimination of the activity of a protein is expected to be 100-1000 times the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that requires specific changes to a gene.” If loss/modification-of-FCT adaptations are 100-1000 times more likely than gain-of-FCT adaptations, then logic dictates that eventually an evolving type of organism will run out of FCTs to lose/modify.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Stanton said:

Joe Felsenstein said: That is origin of a new gene. My point was that much more boring processes like substitutions fine tuning a protein for better function are also perfectly good examples of new information.

Like how the antifreeze gene would later be duplicated and spliced near the genes for hemoglobin production during icefish evolution?

I don't understand what argument you think you're having. I had complained that when Nick Matzke talked of “new information” he went straight to gene duplication as the example. But it is equally possible to have new information arise in the genome by simple natural selection among alternative bases at sites within a gene. What are you refuting?

Wheels said: Wow. And I thought I could come here and get away from the kind of stupid that leads people to say Anthony Watts's climate analysis is "rigorous."

The first dog was Colin who alerted the village that Timmeus had fallen into the well.

Paul Burnett said:

Stuart Weinstein said: Who was the first English speaker?

And if they can't give us the name and pedigree and list of authored publications and complete genome of the first English speaker, then we're obviously not speaking English after all. Does that make sense to you, Colin?

The point, for the aggressively dense (Colin), is that there WAS no first speaker of English, just as there WAS no "first insect."

Yet there is no reason to doubt that both English and insects exist, and that they evolved gradually from earlier forms. At no discrete point in the history of English would it make sense to say that "this is the first English speaker," or even "this group is the first one that speaks English." In both cases the language of the individual or group would be indistinguishable from that of their immediate predecessors.

Likewise there was no "first insect" or even "first insect species" that was absolutely distinguishable from its immediate "pre-insect" ancestors. For all I know, there may be an earliest recognized species of fossil insects, just as there may be a text recognized by scholars as the first known example of what they choose to label "English." But in neither case is anyone claiming that that historical, point-in-time individual case is the absolute "first," and all before it are "not yet the thing."

It's how things come to be very gradually that is the point of the analogy--and it's a most apt analogy.

Very slow change, with lots of shades of gray and no single-point demarcations really bugs you folks, doesn't it?

Who was the first person ever named 'Colin'?

Colin said: It's well established that English was first spoken by Homo sapiens from the country called England. I imagine that's why it's called English. Some of the words in English can be traced back to other origins, but it's also well established that no other species of Homo had a language that could be called English. Therefore it's easy to say that Homo sapiens were the first to speak English.

Paul Burnett said:

Colin said: What was the first insect?

A Rhyniognatha hirsti, named "Fred," who hatched in 397,582,957 BC, at 10:23 AM, Eastern Daylight time. Prove I'm wrong. Does that make sense to you, Colin?

Why do all these creationist trolls sound alike?

Just recently we have:

"... to believe in something for which there is no evidence."

and:

"What did the first insect evolve from?"

"What was the first insect?"

"What did the first flying insect evolve from?"

"What was the first flying insect?"

From earlier this year:

“Let me ask everyone here, do you believe in the law of cause and effect?”

"Again I ask are there any absolutes?"

Did they all go to the same school? Or are they perhaps more intimately related?

Just Bob said: The point, for the aggressively dense (Colin), is that there WAS no first speaker of English, just as there WAS no "first insect." Yet there is no reason to doubt that both English and insects exist, and that they evolved gradually from earlier forms. At no discrete point in the history of English would it make sense to say that "this is the first English speaker," or even "this group is the first one that speaks English." In both cases the language of the individual or group would be indistinguishable from that of their immediate predecessors. Likewise there was no "first insect" or even "first insect species" that was absolutely distinguishable from its immediate "pre-insect" ancestors. For all I know, there may be an earliest recognized species of fossil insects, just as there may be a text recognized by scholars as the first known example of what they choose to label "English." But in neither case is anyone claiming that that historical, point-in-time individual case is the absolute "first," and all before it are "not yet the thing." It's how things come to be very gradually that is the point of the analogy--and it's a most apt analogy. Very slow change, with lots of shades of gray and no single-point demarcations really bugs you folks, doesn't it?

Colin said: That is the oldest known insect from the fossil record and is not considered to be the first insect by any reputable source.

Really, new troll,

Colin -

Insects share most recent common ancestry with other arthropods.

There is a meaningful biological definition of the term insect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect

In this sense, the meaning of the term "insect" is clearer than the meaning of the term "English language".

Hypothetically, there may have once been one species that was temporally the first to bear all the traits that characterize modern insects. Although that is not the only thing that could have happened. A highly plausible complication is that there may have been an interbreeding population, some members of which had all the defining traits of insects, and some which did not.

Such an early insect lineage would have diverged from an insect-like "transitional" arthropod ancestor population.

I do not know, and no-one is likely ever to know, exactly when, where, and how the first unequivocally insect species emerged.

Of course, converging data from the fields of molecular biology, anatomy, biochemistry, classical genetics, cell biology, paleontology, etc, allow me to understand the relationship of insects to the rest of the biosphere, and to know with good accuracy by when there were unequivocal early insects. My hard won knowledge of these fields, some of which I am more knowledgeable in than others, of course, allows me to make the above statements with confidence.

Now, I have two questions for you.

What, to you, is the significance of the fact that no-one here claims to know when "the first insect" emerged?

Do you think you know when the first insect emerged? If so, come right out and tell us what you what you think, and what evidence you base it on.

John Vanko said: Why do all these creationist trolls sound alike? Just recently we have: "... to believe in something for which there is no evidence." and: "What did the first insect evolve from?" "What was the first insect?" "What did the first flying insect evolve from?" "What was the first flying insect?" From earlier this year: “Let me ask everyone here, do you believe in the law of cause and effect?” "Again I ask are there any absolutes?" Did they all go to the same school? Or are they perhaps more intimately related?

Paul Burnett said:

Colin said: That is the oldest known insect from the fossil record and is not considered to be the first insect by any reputable source.

But how do you know that my answer is wrong? Please provide citations from reputable source, with which you are apparently familiar. If you consider my answer wrong, please provide the right answer. Or is is your response based solely on personal incredulity? Is your response based on faith or knowledge? Does that make sense to you, Colin?

raven said:

Really, new troll,

Colin isn't a new troll. He showed up a few seconds after Stephen Meyer flamed out. Other Fake Names include William Dembski, Michael Behe, and Kris. I expect William Paley, Charles Darwin, Stephen Hawkings, and Albert Einstein to show up next. This is just a multi-alias troll creating new IDs on an hourly basis, wasting his life and our time on PT.

Colin said: I know that your ridiculous answer cannot be proven and that mine can.

Colin,

There is no first insect. This is not a problem for evolution.

Is there an exactly correct verision of the Bible? Which one is it?

harold said: Colin - Insects share most recent common ancestry with other arthropods. There is a meaningful biological definition of the term insect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect In this sense, the meaning of the term "insect" is clearer than the meaning of the term "English language". Hypothetically, there may have once been one species that was temporally the first to bear all the traits that characterize modern insects. Although that is not the only thing that could have happened. A highly plausible complication is that there may have been an interbreeding population, some members of which had all the defining traits of insects, and some which did not. Such an early insect lineage would have diverged from an insect-like "transitional" arthropod ancestor population. I do not know, and no-one is likely ever to know, exactly when, where, and how the first unequivocally insect species emerged. Of course, converging data from the fields of molecular biology, anatomy, biochemistry, classical genetics, cell biology, paleontology, etc, allow me to understand the relationship of insects to the rest of the biosphere, and to know with good accuracy by when there were unequivocal early insects. My hard won knowledge of these fields, some of which I am more knowledgeable in than others, of course, allows me to make the above statements with confidence. Now, I have two questions for you. What, to you, is the significance of the fact that no-one here claims to know when "the first insect" emerged? Do you think you know when the first insect emerged? If so, come right out and tell us what you what you think, and what evidence you base it on.

Paul Burnett said:

Colin said: I know that your ridiculous answer cannot be proven and that mine can.

Ah, but you can't prove my answer is wrong, can you? If (as you claim) you can prove your answer, prove it. Show us your proof. If you can't or won't show your proof to us, you have proved something else...which we already suspected.

Rob said: Colin, There is no first insect. This is not a problem for evolution. Is there an exactly correct verision of the Bible? Which one is it?

Colin said: Do you always play such childish games?

Colin said:

Rob said: Colin, There is no first insect. This is not a problem for evolution. Is there an exactly correct verision of the Bible? Which one is it?

I see it as a problem for the theory of evolution and the worth of the molecular data that is used to support the theory of evolution. I can't answer your question about the Bible because I'm not that familiar with it or its various versions.

Colin wrote:

"The significance of my questions and the apparent fact that no one can answer them is that it shows that even with all the tools available there are some important questions that cannot be answered by those tools and the theory of evolution. Maybe some of those answers will come in the future but that remains to be seen."

Still don't see the point here. There are some questions that cannot be answered conclusively? So what? Maybe we will have better answers for these questions in the future. So what? That's the way science works. It gets better and better over time. Only someone who wants all the absolute right answers right now wouldn't be satisfied with that. Until then, science provides the best answers it can.

Now, on the off chance that you actually want to know the answers to your questions. Here they are. The first hexapods appeared in the Devonian. It is unlikely that a fossil of the very first thing that would be considered an insect was preserved, so we will probably never be able to identify the individual. So what? Why would we want to? If you count proturans and collembola as insects, then I suppose those would represent the first insects, at least they are the only remaining representatives of those groups. If you don't count them as insects, then I guess thqt the molecular evidence indicates that the first insect would be some type of crustacean or crustacean-like organism that had a mutation in the hox gene complex that repressed abominal appendage expression and reorganized the body into three tagmata. Since these events might not have occurred simultaneously, it might be a matter of convention which ancestral organism would be designated the first insect.

If those answers aren't good enough for you, I suggest that you get into field and find some more fossils, or get into the lab and sequences some more genes. Finding fault with science because it does not yet have all of the answers is foolish and counterproductive. Now that would indeed be playing a childish game.

No, I don’t know when the first insect “emerged”.

Why didn’t you say evolved?

The significance of my questions and the apparent fact that no one can answer them is that it shows that even with all the tools available there are some important questions that cannot be answered by those tools and the theory of evolution.

raven said: Colin isn't a new troll. He showed up a few seconds after Stephen Meyer flamed out. Other Fake Names include William Dembski, Michael Behe, and Kris.

I see it as a problem for the theory of evolution and the worth of the molecular data that is used to support the theory of evolution.

John Vanko -

I don't want to get into a useless discussion about the sincerity of creationists with other posters on whom I agree with on almost all other topics.

I will note that when I first learned about creationism, I approached it as if it was a sincere attempt by decent people to respond to scientific challenges to their spirituality.

I was raised in a Baptist environment, and although I am not religious, I was not traumatized by it, and respected many of the ethical lessons I was taught.

However, I soon learned that behaviors that are very, very different from those I saw in traditional sincere Christians characterize most creationists.

Instead of being humble, charitable, generous, honest, and ethical, I found active creationists to be arrogant, hostile, deeply dishonest about everything, and completely unconcerned with such things as the ten commandments or the "golden rule".

I quickly abandoned the "sincere, confused, decent Christian" model of active creationists - because for me, in my experience, it doesn't work. That model gives false predictions of their behavior.

harold said:

I see it as a problem for the theory of evolution and the worth of the molecular data that is used to support the theory of evolution.

This statement is really stupid and dishonest. It is an example of childish "impossible goal post setting" - the troll says that inability to identify the first individual insect is a problem for molecular biology and the theory of evolution ;)!!!!!!

Colin said: What did the first insect evolve from?

What was the first insect?

What did the first flying insect evolve from?

What was the first flying insect?

John Vanko said: Why do all these creationist trolls sound alike?

... and, in the same way that we only find a few examples of early insects, we only find a few examples of early English. Yet we can confidently state that early English, as it evolved from Old Frisian or possibly Old High German, was being spoken and written more widely than just the still-existing examples.

Colin said:

Paul Burnett said:

Stuart Weinstein said: Who was the first English speaker?

And if they can't give us the name and pedigree and list of authored publications and complete genome of the first English speaker, then we're obviously not speaking English after all. Does that make sense to you, Colin?

In other words, you and the other responders don't know the answers to these questions > What did the first insect evolve from? What was the first insect? What did the first flying insect evolve from? What was the first flying insect? It's well established that English was first spoken by Homo sapiens from the country called England. I imagine that's why it's called English. Some of the words in English can be traced back to other origins,

but it's also well established that no other species of Homo had a language that could be called English. Therefore it's easy to say that Homo sapiens were the first to speak English.

I wonder if Dembski's students still get credit for having their hat handed to them and getting their ass kicked? Man, it would be really hard to flunk that course!

Colin said: SNIP but it's also well established that no other species of Homo had a language that could be called English. Therefore it's easy to say that Homo sapiens were the first to speak English.

harold said: Instead of being humble, charitable, generous, honest, and ethical, I found active creationists to be arrogant, hostile, deeply dishonest about everything, and completely unconcerned with such things as the ten commandments or the "golden rule".

DS said: I wonder if Dembski's students still get credit for having their hat handed to them and getting their ass kicked? Man, it would be really hard to flunk that course!

"What songs the sirens sang, or what name Achilles took when he lived among the women, though these be difficult matters, yet they are not beyond all conjecture".

Stuart Weinstein said:

And no other Phyla had an animal that could be called "insecta". Hence it is easy to say that Arthropods were the first (and only phyla) to EVOLVE insects.

Fixed it

Stephen Wells said: "What songs the sirens sang, or what name Achilles took when he lived among the women, though these be difficult matters, yet they are not beyond all conjecture".

jackstraw said:

Stephen Wells said: "What songs the sirens sang, or what name Achilles took when he lived among the women, though these be difficult matters, yet they are not beyond all conjecture".

"Please don't dominate the rap Jack, if you got nothing new to say"

stevaroni said: How do I know he's got nothing? Because if he had something - anything - he'd lead with it.

John Vanko -

I agree with your assessment of the quality of the comments.

But this is what "real" creationists are like. They have nothing, repeat stale arguments that they have personally seen refuted many times, won't be logical, won't be honest, are evasive; they are insulting/hostile and yet whine and squeal that they are being persecuted at the slightest excuse (a near universal childish game is to use smarminess, insinuations, and misrepresentations to draw out a mild honest insult from a science supporter, and then proclaim the milder but more straightforward insult to be an "ad hominem"). Name any famous creationist and this is what they are like. Go to any creationist site, and this is what the comments are like. This is what "real" creationists are like.

Whether they derive delight from the consternation of the serious replies I can't say, but I would guess that they don't. They usually go into a hyperactive frenzy of cognitive dissonance. There is some cog dis on board to begin with, too, or they wouldn't be here.

Are there parody trolls here from time to time? Of course, but they nearly always have something that no creationist ever does - signs of a sense of humor. Was dogbarf a parody? Probably. He or she used a funny name, and although the quality of arguments was no worse than UD crapola, he or she wasn't hostile or resentful enough. Probable parody.

But the sanctimonious, humorless, resentful, evasive, hypocritical, dishonest repressed authoritarians - trust me, those are the real thing.

Oops. I forgot the one exception.

I don't exactly consider Todd Wood to be "honest" with himself or others, but he does seem to be the one reasonably polite creationist.

harold said: But the sanctimonious, humorless, resentful, evasive, hypocritical, dishonest repressed authoritarians - trust me, those are the real thing.

I am still mystified regarding what Colin thinks was 'rude' about the first pair of answers he received. If Colin's complaint regarding rudeness is (as I have chosen to assume) a sincerely-meant one, his consistent refusal to explain himself is peculiar; surely, someone who genuinely is offended by rudeness would not wish to, himself, offend by making groundless accusations of misbehavior? And thus far, it really does appear as if Colin's accusations of rudeness are groundless. So it really is odd that Colin would decline to explain the grounds on which he declared the first two answers he received, to be 'rude'.

One explanation for this oddity would be if Colin was, in fact, not concerned with rudeness at all, and had some unspoken ulterior motive for accusing his respondents of being rude. I wouldn't like to think that of Colin, but honestly, what else is one to think when somebody declares a pair of innocuous comments to be "rude", and then declines more than one polite request to explain theirself?

Cubist said: I am still mystified regarding what Colin thinks was 'rude' about the first pair of answers he received. If Colin's complaint regarding rudeness is (as I have chosen to assume) a sincerely-meant one, his consistent refusal to explain himself is peculiar; surely, someone who genuinely is offended by rudeness would not wish to, himself, offend by making groundless accusations of misbehavior?

Mike Elzinga said:

Cubist said: I am still mystified regarding what Colin thinks was 'rude' about the first pair of answers he received. If Colin's complaint regarding rudeness is (as I have chosen to assume) a sincerely-meant one, his consistent refusal to explain himself is peculiar; surely, someone who genuinely is offended by rudeness would not wish to, himself, offend by making groundless accusations of misbehavior?

From what I have seen of this phenomenon - for over 40 years now - of taking gratuitous offense, I believe it stems from the messages they hear from their church pulpits that the evil world is out to get them. In this particular venue of having to be accountable for false statements they make about science and scientists, they use this ploy to place blame on scientists for pointing out creationist errors and misconceptions. Anyone who dares to hold them accountable is declared to be rude; thereby shifting the attention of the audience onto that “bad old scientist” whose rudeness is asserted to be anger at “being exposed by a sweet lamb of god.” Creationists never ask innocent questions; they are always taunts. And they know they are doing it because we can find videos and instructions that tell them how to question “big daddy” and really piss him off. The tactic goes back to Morris and Gish in the 1970s who exquisitely honed it for the purpose of drawing scientists into debating them so that the creationists in the debate could leverage “respectability” from the scientists. It is a purely mean and political tactic; there is never any innocence involved in its use.

So, in other words, Kris, you were lying through your teeth when you claimed your purpose here isn't to troll and pick fights.

You keep coming back to insult us because we always return your hostility, as well as keep whining about how we're always so mean to you, or how we have to be nice to the other trolls who pick fights here.

I mean, honestly, Kris, if you really that stupidly thin-skinned to think we're all a bunch of evil, corrupt, stupid science-destroying meanies who need be locked up in an insane asylum... Just because we've been mean to you in response to your trolling...

Why don't you try your passive-aggressive schtick over at Pharyngula, and see how far you'd last there? We're a spa treatment and pedicure compared to the pro-science ogres who lurk on that blog.

harold said: But the sanctimonious, humorless, resentful, evasive, hypocritical, dishonest repressed authoritarians - trust me, those are the real thing.

Evangelical Christianity, as everyone knows, is founded upon hate, as the Christianity of Christ was founded upon love”. H.L. Mencken ...

Stephen Meyer said: RBH, according to your definition of troll, anyone who comes on here and challenges your thesis is a troll. So if you went to Uncommon Descent and challenged their thesis, you too would be a troll. The OP deliberately challenged ID proponents to answer a questions, here I am.

What a terrible analogy. Absent humanity, poems do not descend with modification; organisms do. There is no selection process working on poems; there is on organisms

If the poem is gibberish then NS destroys it, or no one reads it. the analogy is apt.

Kris said: You are a seriously MENTALLY ILL nutcase. You're a danger to yourself and others and you should seek immediate help. Since you're not likely to do that I can only hope that someone who knows you will intervene as soon as possible and have you committed to a proper mental health facility, for the sake of society. The same thing goes for the rest of you maggots. Wait a minute, that's an insult to maggots, so I'll change it to dog turds.

John Kwok said: I think, Kris, that yours is a most apt and accurate summary of yourself and your modus vivendi here (And I endorse completely what Mike Elzinga and Stanton have said regarding your weird pronouncements.):

Kris said: You are a seriously MENTALLY ILL nutcase. You're a danger to yourself and others and you should seek immediate help. Since you're not likely to do that I can only hope that someone who knows you will intervene as soon as possible and have you committed to a proper mental health facility, for the sake of society. The same thing goes for the rest of you maggots. Wait a minute, that's an insult to maggots, so I'll change it to dog turds.

mrg said:

Chris Lindsay said: But I just wanted to mention that as someone who's genuinely excited in learning evolutionary biology, the back-and-forth arguments with pseudo-science folks can be quite educational.

Not so much if you've heard them a hundred times before.

harold said: Oops. I forgot the one exception. I don't exactly consider Todd Wood to be "honest" with himself or others, but he does seem to be the one reasonably polite creationist.

raven said:

harold said: But the sanctimonious, humorless, resentful, evasive, hypocritical, dishonest repressed authoritarians - trust me, those are the real thing.

It's even simpler than that.

Evangelical Christianity, as everyone knows, is founded upon hate, as the Christianity of Christ was founded upon love”. H.L. Mencken ...

Fundie xianity, the real source of creationism, is based on pure hate. They use it for tribal ingroup outgroup identification and as a motivating principle. I came up with that on my own and then noticed that a lot of other people had figured it out a century ago. As a theory, it is simple and has high predictive and explanatory power. Hate works or they wouldn't use it. And fundie xians aren't the only groups that use hate. Some Islamic groups do the same. The result is predictable. Well over 100,000 Iraqis, for example, have been killed in a sectarian war over some obscure theological points that no one else cares about. The three fundie sacraments of the Church of Hate are lies, hate, and hypocrisy. And not all xians are into hate. As Mencken, an atheist also noted a century ago. The god of love, tolerance, and world peace sums up many or most mainline churches. These days that god isn't doing so well against the god of hate.

Well, you and most others here are clearly faithful members of your own church of hate, lies, and hypocrisy. Too bad you don’t see it, and won’t admit it.

Stanton said: So, in other words, Kris, you were lying through your teeth when you claimed your purpose here isn't to troll and pick fights. You keep coming back to insult us because we always return your hostility, as well as keep whining about how we're always so mean to you, or how we have to be nice to the other trolls who pick fights here.

John Kwok said: Oops, meant to say modus operandi:

John Kwok said: I think, Kris, that yours is a most apt and accurate summary of yourself and your modus vivendi here (And I endorse completely what Mike Elzinga and Stanton have said regarding your weird pronouncements.):

Kris said: You are a seriously MENTALLY ILL nutcase. You're a danger to yourself and others and you should seek immediate help. Since you're not likely to do that I can only hope that someone who knows you will intervene as soon as possible and have you committed to a proper mental health facility, for the sake of society. The same thing goes for the rest of you maggots. Wait a minute, that's an insult to maggots, so I'll change it to dog turds.

Kris is mentally ill if he thinks that calling people mentally ill is not trolling or picking a fight. If you are so keen on science Kris, why have you never read any of the papers that were the topics of the threads you have posted on? Why have you never read any of the papers that I provided in answer to your questions? Why have you never actually discussed any science whatsoever, but have consistently picked only personal attacks to respond to?

Could it be that you value your ego more than you value science? Could it be that you came here just looking for attention and don't like the kind you have found? Could it be that you are just an amateur butterfly collector with a badd case of science envy? Could it be that no one cares?

Look dude, I gave you a golden opportunity to learn about molecular clock and discuss them. The moderator was apparently willing to allow that discussion. Instead this is the crap you pull - again. Still time dude. Read the papers and discuss or go to hell.

The significance of my questions and the apparent fact that no one can answer them is that it shows that even with all the tools available there are some important questions that cannot be answered by those tools and the theory of evolution. Maybe some of those answers will come in the future but that remains to be seen

Here are the papers again:

Goodman (1987) Globins: A case study in molecular phylogeny. Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 52:875-890.

Ayala et. al. (1998) Origin of the Metazoan phyla: Molecular clocks confirm paleontological estimates. PNAS 95(2):606-611.

Lynch (1993) A method for calibrating molecular clocks and its application to animal mitochondrial DNA. Genetics 135:1197-1208.

Come on Kris, prove us all wrong. Show us what a great scientist you are. When you are done with these, there are three interesting papers on developmental genetics posted on other threads that we can discuss. You have read them haven't you?

Cubist said:

John Kwok said: Oops, meant to say modus operandi:

John Kwok said: I think, Kris, that yours is a most apt and accurate summary of yourself and your modus vivendi here (And I endorse completely what Mike Elzinga and Stanton have said regarding your weird pronouncements.):

Kris said: You are a seriously MENTALLY ILL nutcase. You're a danger to yourself and others and you should seek immediate help. Since you're not likely to do that I can only hope that someone who knows you will intervene as soon as possible and have you committed to a proper mental health facility, for the sake of society. The same thing goes for the rest of you maggots. Wait a minute, that's an insult to maggots, so I'll change it to dog turds.

You may havew been right the first time, Mr. Kwok. The literal translation of 'modus vivendi' is "way of life', and I don't think we can prudently rule out the possibility that Kris' behavior in this forum is exactly and precisely how he deals with all aspects of his life...

Kris said: Look at what Mike Elzinga said about creationists and their alleged gratuitous offense and all the other crap he hypocritically spewed.

Kris said:

Stanton said: So, in other words, Kris, you were lying through your teeth when you claimed your purpose here isn't to troll and pick fights. You keep coming back to insult us because we always return your hostility, as well as keep whining about how we're always so mean to you, or how we have to be nice to the other trolls who pick fights here.

I didn't come here to troll or pick fights and if you look at my first posts you'll see (well, you probably won't) that nothing I said was trolling or trying to pick fights. You and others have attacked me constantly and I have only RESPONDED to those attacks. Do you really expect me to just take that shit?

Paul Burnett said:

Kris said: Look at what Mike Elzinga said about creationists and their alleged gratuitous offense and all the other crap he hypocritically spewed.

What Mike (and raven and others) said about creationists is observable fact - read the works of D. James Kennedy or Kent Hovind or other creationists, much less RJ Rushdoony or other Christofascist lunatics. Why should we sit politely and quietly by when there are creationists who want to overthrow the US Constitution and turn the US into more of a theocracy than it already is? Why is it "rude" to point out what the Christian Reconstructionists and Theocratic Dominionists are trying to do? "Kris" and his creationist fellow travelers are enemies of Western civilization, every bit as dangerous to America as the Taliban and al Qaeda. Pro-science / pro-Enlightenment folks need to wake up to this threat. See http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/06/dembskis-five-q.html - from 2004! - for a discussion on some of this.

Stuart Weinstein said:

Kris said:

Stanton said: So, in other words, Kris, you were lying through your teeth when you claimed your purpose here isn't to troll and pick fights. You keep coming back to insult us because we always return your hostility, as well as keep whining about how we're always so mean to you, or how we have to be nice to the other trolls who pick fights here.

I didn't come here to troll or pick fights and if you look at my first posts you'll see (well, you probably won't) that nothing I said was trolling or trying to pick fights. You and others have attacked me constantly and I have only RESPONDED to those attacks. Do you really expect me to just take that shit?

Is that what trolls call *criticism* now? Attacks?

Paul Burnett said:

Kris said: Look at what Mike Elzinga said about creationists and their alleged gratuitous offense and all the other crap he hypocritically spewed.

What Mike (and raven and others) said about creationists is observable fact - read the works of D. James Kennedy or Kent Hovind or other creationists, much less RJ Rushdoony or other Christofascist lunatics. Why should we sit politely and quietly by when there are creationists who want to overthrow the US Constitution and turn the US into more of a theocracy than it already is? Why is it "rude" to point out what the Christian Reconstructionists and Theocratic Dominionists are trying to do? "Kris" and his creationist fellow travelers are enemies of Western civilization, every bit as dangerous to America as the Taliban and al Qaeda. Pro-science / pro-Enlightenment folks need to wake up to this threat. See http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/06/dembskis-five-q.html - from 2004! - for a discussion on some of this.

So you're saying that scientists and science-supporters are just religious fanatics because we ridicule creationists for promoting their own religious dogma as science, and that scientists and science-supporters should be locked up in insane asylums because they respond to your trolling and ranting with hostility.

Stanton said: So you're saying that scientists and science-supporters are just religious fanatics because we ridicule creationists for promoting their own religious dogma as science, and that scientists and science-supporters should be locked up in insane asylums because they respond to your trolling and ranting with hostility.

Kris said:

Stanton said: So you're saying that scientists and science-supporters are just religious fanatics because we ridicule creationists for promoting their own religious dogma as science, and that scientists and science-supporters should be locked up in insane asylums because they respond to your trolling and ranting with hostility.

You're a fucking idiot. Use your scientific skills to find and get a clue. Nevermind, it would be a hopeless quest. You're way too stuck in your rut.

I'm stuck in a rut?

Then why do you get so angry when the regulars here point out that you're just a hypocritical troll who picks fights, and screams and screeches when we don't bow down and scrape our noses in worshiping your inane platitudes? If you really do hate and despise everyone and everything at the Panda's Thumb, why do you insist on returning here to comment again and again?

Quite frankly, your communication and social skills, however rudimentary they are, stink on ice.

But, I will keep an open mind about the concept of ID or creationism unless I see verifiable, incontrovertible proof that they are not true or possible.

Flint said:

But, I will keep an open mind about the concept of ID or creationism unless I see verifiable, incontrovertible proof that they are not true or possible.

The concept of ID is that somehow, sometime, someone we can't identify did something resulting in some of what we observe. And you want "incontrovertible proof" that this is NOT so? Nobody can even give you "incontrovertible proof" that reality didn't POOF into existence last Thursday. So long as evidence does not matter, there is no possible way an open mind can close around demonstrable notions. The wind can keep blowing through such a mind forever.

Stanton -

Seriously, all "Kris" comments are merely a meaningless repetition of some combination of these very limited elements -

1) Insults to everyone else, alternating with repulsive whining self-pity and unjustified claims that he is being unfairly insulted.
2) Vague claims that something is wrong with "science", minus any ability to explain specifically what it is.
3) Vague claims that he "could fix" science, but isn't being listened to.
4) Absurd distortions of something someone else said.
5) Occasional self-identification as a "creationist" alternating with claims to "not be religious"
6) Repetition of the straw man claim that "scientists" or "people here" claim to "know everything".
7) False analogy of science with religion.

That's it, there's nothing more. All of the factually and logically false elements have now been rebutted numerous times.

These elements can be repeated and recombined ad nauseum, and will be. I strongly recommend the Bathroom Wall. Bizarrely disturbed trolls of this nature are self-tormented to an extreme degree by wandering into an arena where cognitive dissonance is provoked. Once it has been provoked, their repetitions never quite make it go away permanently, so they just keep repeating.

There is an analogy to a junkie who uses only to ease the discomfort.

However, individuals with substance abuse disorders may have a better prognosis. They sometimes have moments of insight and detect the underlying source of their cycle of misery.

harold said: Stanton - Seriously, all "Kris" comments are merely a meaningless repetition of some combination of these very limited elements - 1) Insults to everyone else, alternating with repulsive whining self-pity and unjustified claims that he is being unfairly insulted. 2) Vague claims that something is wrong with "science", minus any ability to explain specifically what it is. 3) Vague claims that he "could fix" science, but isn't being listened to. 4) Absurd distortions of something someone else said. 5) Occasional self-identification as a "creationist" alternating with claims to "not be religious" 6) Repetition of the straw man claim that "scientists" or "people here" claim to "know everything". 7) False analogy of science with religion. That's it, there's nothing more. All of the factually and logically false elements have now been rebutted numerous times. These elements can be repeated and recombined ad nauseum, and will be. I strongly recommend the Bathroom Wall. Bizarrely disturbed trolls of this nature are self-tormented to an extreme degree by wandering into an arena where cognitive dissonance is provoked. Once it has been provoked, their repetitions never quite make it go away permanently, so they just keep repeating. There is an analogy to a junkie who uses only to ease the discomfort. However, individuals with substance abuse disorders may have a better prognosis. They sometimes have moments of insight and detect the underlying source of their cycle of misery.

Stanton said: I'm stuck in a rut? Then why do you get so angry when the regulars here point out that you're just a hypocritical troll who picks fights, and screams and screeches when we don't bow down and scrape our noses in worshiping your inane platitudes? If you really do hate and despise everyone and everything at the Panda's Thumb, why do you insist on returning here to comment again and again? Quite frankly, your communication and social skills, however rudimentary they are, stink on ice.

Flint said:

But, I will keep an open mind about the concept of ID or creationism unless I see verifiable, incontrovertible proof that they are not true or possible.

The concept of ID is that somehow, sometime, someone we can't identify did something resulting in some of what we observe. And you want "incontrovertible proof" that this is NOT so? Nobody can even give you "incontrovertible proof" that reality didn't POOF into existence last Thursday. So long as evidence does not matter, there is no possible way an open mind can close around demonstrable notions. The wind can keep blowing through such a mind forever.

Yeah, you’re in a rut.

Why do I come here? Hmm, good question. Well, when I first came here it was just to see what goes on here and at first I thought I might have found some intelligent, scientifically minded people, who also might have legitimate complaints about religious zealots and would use sound arguments against any bullshit any religious zealots might try to get away with. I have found some of that, and that’s one of the reasons I haven’t argued against everything said here by people who are against religious bullshitters. However, some of the crap spewed here is every bit as crazy, arrogant, wrong, and hypocritical as anything any wacky religious zealot spews.

It’s a tough job trying to clean up the world but somebody’s got to do it. LOL!

By the way, why do you and others return here again and again and again and again to comment about the same things? And why do any of you do the same thing on other sites, including sites in favor of religion or creationism or ID? If you think I’m beating a dead horse, then what are YOU doing?

Oops, I see I forgot one repetitive element.

8) Attempts to disown his own immediate prior statements, cycling with repetition of fundamentally the same statements.

That's the complete set, I believe.

Kris said:

Flint said:

But, I will keep an open mind about the concept of ID or creationism unless I see verifiable, incontrovertible proof that they are not true or possible.

The concept of ID is that somehow, sometime, someone we can't identify did something resulting in some of what we observe. And you want "incontrovertible proof" that this is NOT so? Nobody can even give you "incontrovertible proof" that reality didn't POOF into existence last Thursday. So long as evidence does not matter, there is no possible way an open mind can close around demonstrable notions. The wind can keep blowing through such a mind forever.

Excellent example of quote mining and distortion you did there. Isn't that supposed to be a no-no? I didn't say I "want" incontrovertible proof. I was very specific in what I actually said. Learn how to read and comprehend and then get back to me with a response that actually corresponds to what I actually said.

Nothing but personal attacks from Kris. Looks like he is stuck in a rut. Still not fooling anyone.

Here are the papers again:

Goodman (1987) Globins: A case study in molecular phylogeny. Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 52:875-890.

Ayala et. al. (1998) Origin of the Metazoan phyla: Molecular clocks confirm paleontological estimates. PNAS 95(2):606-611.

Lynch (1993) A method for calibrating molecular clocks and its application to animal mitochondrial DNA. Genetics 135:1197-1208.

Come on Kris, prove us all wrong. Show us what a great scientist you are. When you are done with these, there are three interesting papers on developmental genetics posted on other threads that we can discuss. You have read them haven't you? Scientific references are like kryptonite to creationists. Seems like a good acid test to me.

harold said: Stanton - Seriously, all "Kris" comments are merely a meaningless repetition of some combination of these very limited elements - 1) Insults to everyone else, alternating with repulsive whining self-pity and unjustified claims that he is being unfairly insulted. 2) Vague claims that something is wrong with "science", minus any ability to explain specifically what it is. 3) Vague claims that he "could fix" science, but isn't being listened to. 4) Absurd distortions of something someone else said. 5) Occasional self-identification as a "creationist" alternating with claims to "not be religious" 6) Repetition of the straw man claim that "scientists" or "people here" claim to "know everything". 7) False analogy of science with religion. That's it, there's nothing more. All of the factually and logically false elements have now been rebutted numerous times. These elements can be repeated and recombined ad nauseum, and will be. I strongly recommend the Bathroom Wall. Bizarrely disturbed trolls of this nature are self-tormented to an extreme degree by wandering into an arena where cognitive dissonance is provoked. Once it has been provoked, their repetitions never quite make it go away permanently, so they just keep repeating. There is an analogy to a junkie who uses only to ease the discomfort. However, individuals with substance abuse disorders may have a better prognosis. They sometimes have moments of insight and detect the underlying source of their cycle of misery.

harold said:

It’s a tough job trying to clean up the world but somebody’s got to do it. LOL!

3) Vague claims that he “could fix” science, but isn’t being listened to.

Kris said: Speaking of meaningless repetition of absurd distortions.

Colin said: The significance of my questions and the apparent fact that no one can answer them is that it shows that even with all the tools available there are some important questions that cannot be answered by those tools and the theory of evolution. Maybe some of those answers will come in the future but that remains to be seen.

harold said:

It’s a tough job trying to clean up the world but somebody’s got to do it. LOL!

3) Vague claims that he “could fix” science, but isn’t being listened to.

Kris said: You are a seriously MENTALLY ILL nutcase. You're a danger to yourself and others and you should seek immediate help.

Check out a few facts before shooting off your mouth.

Kris came here to lie.

that's.

it.

just toss this idiot.

Nick,

Clean up on aisle six.

Kris said: I didn't come here to troll or pick fights....

SWT said:

harold said:

It’s a tough job trying to clean up the world but somebody’s got to do it. LOL!

3) Vague claims that he “could fix” science, but isn’t being listened to.

... while ignoring or antagonizing those who actually try to engage him on this topic.

He apparently gets set off in an explosive rage whenever someone here actually describes ID/creationist tactics in some detail. If true, that would be evidence that he is a cloaked ID/creationist.

I have taken a vacation from this site, because to be honest I spent way too much time here. Many here arrogantly make claims that abiogenesis happened, evolution happened, the evidence is overwhelming that it happened, and that creation didn't happen, there is no intelligent design in nature according to those here. Creationists and IDers are wrong, because they can't present any evidence that is acceptable, by you or the mainstream scientific community.

So, tell me how life arose by natural causes, because life had to have a beginning, and if it didn't happen by creation or intelligent design, then it had to happen by abiogenesis, so please provide actual scientific evidence to demonstrate how life arose by natural causes, and please provide precise details that are backed up by facts. After you do that then be specific, and provide actual scientific evidence as to how life evolved from that first life. How was that first life able to reproduce and produce enough offspring without dying off first. Please don't provide speculation or conjecture, because if you don't provide irrefutable scientific evidence, then you really have nothing, and your position is no more scientifically correct then the creationists and IDers that you constantly attack and mock. The proof is in the pudding, so I will be all eyes waiting to read your responses.

I contend that what is passed off as supposed scientific evidence is nothing more then "conjecture". So, put up or shut up:)

IBelieveInGod said: I have taken a vacation from this site, because to be honest I spent way too much time here. Many here arrogantly make claims that abiogenesis happened, evolution happened, the evidence is overwhelming that it happened, and that creation didn't happen, there is no intelligent design in nature according to those here. Creationists and IDers are wrong, because they can't present any evidence that is acceptable, by you or the mainstream scientific community. So, tell me how life arose by natural causes, because life had to have a beginning, and if it didn't happen by creation or intelligent design, then it had to happen by abiogenesis, so please provide actual scientific evidence to demonstrate how life arose by natural causes, and please provide precise details that are backed up by facts. After you do that then be specific, and provide actual scientific evidence as to how life evolved from that first life. How was that first life able to reproduce and produce enough offspring without dying off first. Please don't provide speculation or conjecture, because if you don't provide irrefutable scientific evidence, then you really have nothing, and your position is no more scientifically correct then the creationists and IDers that you constantly attack and mock. The proof is in the pudding, so I will be all eyes waiting to read your responses. I contend that what is passed off as supposed scientific evidence is nothing more then "conjecture". So, put up or shut up:)

IBelieveInGod said: So, tell me ...

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Colin said: The significance of my questions and the apparent fact that no one can answer them is that it shows that even with all the tools available there are some important questions that cannot be answered by those tools and the theory of evolution. Maybe some of those answers will come in the future but that remains to be seen.

The answers you have been given aren't answers to your questions, to be sure. They are attempts to show you that your questions have no meaning. They're like Chomsky's sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously;" well-formed but without meaning.

Mike Elzinga said:

IBelieveInGod said: So, tell me ...

Go sort through those hundreds of pages on the Bathroom Wall where you were answered many, many times over and over.

IBelieveInNonsense said: I have taken a vacation from this site, because to be honest I spent way too much time here.

Nick,

For gods sake, clean up on aisle six.

Nick,

Clean up on aisle seven.

I don’t know. If it walks like a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.

Keelyn said:

IBelieveInNonsense said: I have taken a vacation from this site, because to be honest I spent way too much time here.

I agree 100%. I think most everyone would agree that you have earned a much longer "vacation" from this site. Take another five years. We'll see you bright and early on December 20, 2015. I believe that will be the 10th anniversary of Kitzmiller. See you then! Oh, and while you are enjoying your sabbatical, surprise us - learn a few fundamentals of science. See you in five years. Bye for now!

Flint said: The concept of ID is that somehow, sometime, someone we can't identify did something resulting in some of what we observe. So long as evidence does not matter, there is no possible way an open mind can close around demonstrable notions. The wind can keep blowing through such a mind forever.

I've been offline, I just banned "IBelieveInGod"/Kris. I dunno if it will stick, it depends on IP stuff.

In general, I don't always get a chance to read super-deep into threads, if someone has a banning request, (a) post the alias(s), (b) email me if it's really important.

Kris said: I'll settle for convincing material evidence of what the first insect was on planet Earth. Genus and species like Colin(?) asked for. Include some convincing material evidence of when it first appeared (evolved) within a thousand years, just to show me how smart you are. How about 100,000 years? One million years? Ten million years?

Nick (Matzke) said: I've been offline, I just banned "IBelieveInGod"/Kris. I dunno if it will stick, it depends on IP stuff.

Thanks Nick.

Nick (Matzke) said: I've been offline, I just banned "IBelieveInGod"/Kris. I dunno if it will stick, it depends on IP stuff. In general, I don't always get a chance to read super-deep into threads, if someone has a banning request, (a) post the alias(s), (b) email me if it's really important.

Actually it's not certain they were the same, I just banned both on grounds of general annoyingness.

I wouldn't think they were the same, IBIG was a stereotypical fundy, Kris had a bizarre whiny style all his own. When I saw him post I could hear the sound of a dental drill.

Thankfully Panda's Thumb is gradually becoming less tolerant of nuisance intruders. IBIG got off one post before NM pressed the EJECT button on the stick knob of the Aston-Martin.

Abiogenesis wouldn't hold up in a court of law, because it is just conjecture. The same for the theory of evolution from common descent! The same for the big bang theory!

con·jec·ture   
[kuhn-jek-cher]
noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing.
–noun
1.
the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2.
an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.

–verb (used with object)
to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.

Idiotic Bigot who's supposed to be banned babbled: Abiogenesis wouldn't hold up in a court of law, because it is just conjecture. The same for the theory of evolution from common descent! The same for the big bang theory!

Idiotic Bigot who’s supposed to be banned babbled: con·jec·ture    [kuhn-jek-cher] noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing. –noun 1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. 2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation. –verb (used with object) to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.

IBelieveInGod said: con·jec·ture    [kuhn-jek-cher] noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing. –noun 1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. 2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation. –verb (used with object) to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.

mrg said: I wouldn't think they were the same, ...

John Vanko said:

mrg said: I wouldn't think they were the same, ...

No, you wouldn't think so, but the sig intel suggests they are. Along with, almost certainly, Colin, 'Stephen Myer', 'William Dembski', and maybe faith4flipper and megan_foxx too. Now IBIG must be switching computers, with different IPs, and return e-mail addresses to make a mockery of Nick's ban. Not sure what Nick can do about it.

IBelieveInGod said: Abiogenesis wouldn't hold up in a court of law, because it is just conjecture. The same for the theory of evolution from common descent! The same for the big bang theory!

DS said: Well I know what we can do about it. Everyone can completely ignore the asshole until Nick can purge the thread. Talk about mentally ill.

Not sure what Nick can do about it.

nothing.

Reed Cartwtight, OTOH, could certainly make managing commenters much more comprehensive.

IBelieveInGod said: I have taken a vacation from this site, because to be honest I spent way too much time here. Many here arrogantly make claims that abiogenesis happened, evolution happened, the evidence is overwhelming that it happened, and that creation didn't happen, there is no intelligent design in nature according to those here. Creationists and IDers are wrong, because they can't present any evidence that is acceptable, by you or the mainstream scientific community. So, tell me how life arose by natural causes, because life had to have a beginning, and if it didn't happen by creation or intelligent design, then it had to happen by abiogenesis, so please provide actual scientific evidence to demonstrate how life arose by natural causes, and please provide precise details that are backed up by facts. After you do that then be specific, and provide actual scientific evidence as to how life evolved from that first life. How was that first life able to reproduce and produce enough offspring without dying off first. Please don't provide speculation or conjecture, because if you don't provide irrefutable scientific evidence, then you really have nothing, and your position is no more scientifically correct then the creationists and IDers that you constantly attack and mock. The proof is in the pudding, so I will be all eyes waiting to read your responses. I contend that what is passed off as supposed scientific evidence is nothing more then "conjecture". So, put up or shut up:)

John Vanko said:

mrg said: I wouldn't think they were the same, ...

No, you wouldn't think so, but the sig intel suggests they are. Along with, almost certainly, Colin, 'Stephen Myer', 'William Dembski', and maybe faith4flipper and megan_foxx too. Now IBIG must be switching computers, with different IPs, and return e-mail addresses to make a mockery of Nick's ban. Not sure what Nick can do about it.

DS said: Well I know what we can do about it. Everyone can completely ignore the asshole until Nick can purge the thread. Talk about mentally ill.

Colin said: Yes there was a first speaker of English and it was Homo sapiens. I asked for genus and species and I stated a correct genus and species that answers the question about English.

Kris said:

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Colin said: The significance of my questions and the apparent fact that no one can answer them is that it shows that even with all the tools available there are some important questions that cannot be answered by those tools and the theory of evolution. Maybe some of those answers will come in the future but that remains to be seen.

The answers you have been given aren't answers to your questions, to be sure. They are attempts to show you that your questions have no meaning. They're like Chomsky's sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously;" well-formed but without meaning.

If the questions he asked are meaningless, then why have so many people, scientists or otherwise, been trying to find the answers for a very long time, and why are so many people, scientists or otherwise, still trying to find the answers?

One of the ironies here is that creationists always seem to expect origin-of-life questions to be answered with "It was definitely this way" - because that's the sort of answer creationists need and love. The scientific answer is "We don't know for certain; here are some leading hypotheses; we're working on it". And to provide evidence that:

-we don't know for certain
-there are some hypotheses
-we're working on it

is trivial! Google Scholar search for "abiogenesis": 7890
articles.

Stephen Wells said: One of the ironies here is that creationists always seem to expect origin-of-life questions to be answered with "It was definitely this way" - because that's the sort of answer creationists need and love. The scientific answer is "We don't know for certain; here are some leading hypotheses; we're working on it". And to provide evidence that: -we don't know for certain -there are some hypotheses -we're working on it is trivial! Google Scholar search for "abiogenesis": 7890 articles.

IBelieveInGod said:It might help to not just check the IP but check the location of the IP, because it isn't me.

On a somewhat different note let's all give our thanks to Nick Matzke for performing well above and beyond the call of duty both before and during the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial. It was Nick who found how "Of Pandas and People" had "evolved" and had given the evidence to Barbara Forrest which she so skillfully exploited during her testimony. To Nick, Barbara and the others who were involved on behalf of the plaintiffs, I want to wish you all a most happy and Merry Kitzmas!

Stephen Wells said: One of the ironies here is that creationists always seem to expect origin-of-life questions to be answered with "It was definitely this way" - because that's the sort of answer creationists need and love. The scientific answer is "We don't know for certain; here are some leading hypotheses; we're working on it". And to provide evidence that: -we don't know for certain -there are some hypotheses -we're working on it is trivial! Google Scholar search for "abiogenesis": 7890 articles.

W. H. Heydt said:

IBelieveInGod said:It might help to not just check the IP but check the location of the IP, because it isn't me.

Unless (unlikely) you're paying for a static IP, this just goes to show that you don't know anything more about TCP/IP networking than you do about biology. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

I don't _know_ where my library card went, but I'm sure it wasn't stolen by gnomes. IBIG is keeping an open mind with respect to the Gnome Question. What a maroon.

IBelieveInGod said: That's right you don't know! That's just it, yet many here somehow know that life wasn't created by a Creator. The truth is that you will never know for certain scientifically how life came to be, so stop the mockery of those who hold a different view.

Stephen Wells said: I don't _know_ where my library card went, but I'm sure it wasn't stolen by gnomes. IBIG is keeping an open mind with respect to the Gnome Question. What a maroon.

I bet these phony Discovery Institute allstars are all really sockpuppets of that insufferably inane blowhardly, Sal Cordova.

Gary Hurd said:

I bet these phony Discovery Institute allstars are all really sockpuppets of that insufferably inane blowhardly, Sal Cordova.

Another suggestion is that they are Bill Dembski's biblebot students doing their end of trem extra credit trolling.

IBelieveInGod said:

W. H. Heydt said:

IBelieveInGod said:It might help to not just check the IP but check the location of the IP, because it isn't me.

Unless (unlikely) you're paying for a static IP, this just goes to show that you don't know anything more about TCP/IP networking than you do about biology. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Are you saying that you can't determine a posters general location by IP address? I have several websites and can track the general locations, i.e. state, and country of most that visit my website. There are exceptions i.e. AOL and a few other internet providers, but I can view the locations of most who visit my sites.

IBIG has a thread all to himself here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4d0fb74844ef9822;act=ST;f=14;t=7060

I would suggest that the only response to an IBIG post that is not directly related to the subject of the OP be to remind him that he has a personal thread and any commentary can be handled there.

Myself, DS, MadPanda, and several others will happily eviscerate the poor child there, but I will not encourage any continuation of his flooding PT. He (IBIG) has almost single-handedly made the bathroom wall unviewable for IE users.

Thanks

[Plus, we all know he won't show up there because all he wants to do is complain and remain ignorant.]

W. H. Heydt said:

IBelieveInGod said:

W. H. Heydt said:

IBelieveInGod said:It might help to not just check the IP but check the location of the IP, because it isn't me.

Unless (unlikely) you're paying for a static IP, this just goes to show that you don't know anything more about TCP/IP networking than you do about biology. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Are you saying that you can't determine a posters general location by IP address? I have several websites and can track the general locations, i.e. state, and country of most that visit my website. There are exceptions i.e. AOL and a few other internet providers, but I can view the locations of most who visit my sites.

A*n*d IBIG admits that there are a number of exceptions to his initial claim. Yeah... You may have heard of "dynamic IPs". From one connection to the next, the IP address changes. Depending on how your connection works, it can change a *lot*. Just as an example, AT&T provides dial-up connections for everyone who has their broadband. Where you dial to can be anywhere in the country, so you could "appear" to be just about anywhere from one connection to another. Cross-checking IP addesses is a very ineffective way to accurately determine location. Glad we cleared up that IBIG is talking though his hat on yet another technical topic. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

IBelieveInGod said: "I find it amusing that you think that I would go to the efforts to appear like several different posters."

"Why should we believe anything you say, when you demonstrate that you hate the truth more than you hate Catholics and atheists?" "Why won't you show us any evidence that God magically poofed the world into existence 10,000 years ago?" "Why won't you explain to us why and how saying that God magically poofed the world into existence 10,000 years ago is supposed to be more scientific than actual science?" "Why do you expect to overturn science with nothing but lies, and stupid word games?"

Stanton said: So why don't you just go away? After all, you lack neither the intentions or ability to answer our questions like:

"Why should we believe anything you say, when you demonstrate that you hate the truth more than you hate Catholics and atheists?" "Why won't you show us any evidence that God magically poofed the world into existence 10,000 years ago?" "Why won't you explain to us why and how saying that God magically poofed the world into existence 10,000 years ago is supposed to be more scientific than actual science?" "Why do you expect to overturn science with nothing but lies, and stupid word games?"

The MadPanda, FCD said: Oh, Stanton, you're just so unfair, holding Biggy to actual standards and stuff. We already know he can't handle heavy reading, the poor boy. And Jade Emperor knows it isn't fair to expect him to learn actual logic and critical thinking skills. Why, next you'll expect him to learn how to play chess or something! :) The MadPanda, FCD

Stanton said: Several legends concern the August Imperial Personage of Jade routinely ordering the executions and or assassinations of lesser deities and other beings He deemed incompetent. Often through a large and unpleasant dragon-god called Jurong The Fire Spirit.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Stanton said: Several legends concern the August Imperial Personage of Jade routinely ordering the executions and or assassinations of lesser deities and other beings He deemed incompetent. Often through a large and unpleasant dragon-god called Jurong The Fire Spirit.

Yep! All except for one particularly cheeky Monkey, and they pinned him under a mountain to await this pain-in-the-neck monk on a long walk in search of some scrolls... The MadPanda, FCD

Stanton said: Oh, with the Monkey King, His Jade Personage had everything and the kitchen sink thrown at the Monkey King: armies, insults, Lao Tzu's magic crucible of unmaking things. Then He asked Buddha to smack the Monkey (king).

The MadPanda, FCD said: That's the Monkey!

John Vanko said:

IBelieveInGod said: "I find it amusing that you think that I would go to the efforts to appear like several different posters."

So you're not Kris, or Colin, or 'Stephen Myer', or 'William Dembski', or faith4flipper, or megan_foxx, or dogbarf()? Well, why don't you engage Kris, say, in discourse? He has acknowledged you - "I can’t help but wonder if IBIG is getting as big a laugh out of your mistaken conflation as I am", he said to DS. Since you don't seem to want to engage the regulars over on antievolution.org, let's see you argue with Kris. (If you're not Kris, that is.)

Abiogenesis is nothing more then a made up story to explain the beginning of life.

mrg said: I have only the faintest notions of how JOURNEY TO THE WEST actually goes, but I still liked the riotous school skit made of it from the LOVE HINA manga.

IBelieveInGod said: I'm not going to address this individual because it would be a waste of my time.

As everyone is well aware, the troll that is IBIG (and his many aliases) has been banished permanently. Hell, even the bathroom wall was too good for this guy. There is still a thread open at After the Bar Closes for Ibigot. If anyone wants to respond to the troll, that is the place to do it. For some reason he doesn't seem to like it there. In fact, it seems as if he will go to any lengths to avoid going there. Seems like good enough reason to banish him there again to me.

I'm none of the above! Why engage Kris? I have my concerns about whether He/She really has any of my views. I find it amazing from what posts of I've read that anyone would actually think that He/She was me.

I sense a great set up for a cage match...

Ichthyic said:

Lying Nitwit Bigot whined: I'm none of the above! Why engage Kris? I have my concerns about whether He/She really has any of my views. I find it amazing from what posts of I've read that anyone would actually think that He/She was me.

I sense a great set up for a cage match...

The MadPanda, FCD said:

IBelieveInGod said: I'm not going to address this individual because it would be a waste of my time.

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. And cowardice. The MadPanda, FCD

That’s hilarious coming from someone who bans people who disagree with you, or moves their comments to the BW or deletes them altogether.

here's me wishing the following, in order:

-every post you've ever made moved to the BW.
-every post of yours moved to the BW, deleted.
-your IP permanently banned from posting here.

you've contributed absolutely nothing to the discussions here but nonsense and distractions.

If it were my blog, I not only would have tossed your ass on the first day you started posting, and banned your IP, but looked into who your ISP was to prevent you working around my IP ban of you.

yes, that's how worthless you are to this blog.

I do hope someone is paying you to waste everyone's time, cause otherwise, *daaaamn* you must have no life at all.

Ichthyic said: That’s hilarious coming from someone who bans people who disagree with you, or moves their comments to the BW or deletes them altogether. here's me wishing the following, in order: -every post you've ever made moved to the BW. -every post of yours moved to the BW, deleted. -your IP permanently banned from posting here. you've contributed absolutely nothing to the discussions here but nonsense and distractions. If it were my blog, I not only would have tossed your ass on the first day you started posting, and banned your IP, but looked into who your ISP was to prevent you working around my IP ban of you. yes, that's how worthless you are to this blog. I do hope someone is paying you to waste everyone's time, cause otherwise, *daaaamn* you must have no life at all.

Flint said:

Abiogenesis is nothing more then a made up story to explain the beginning of life.

Creation meets this description as well. The distinction is, abiogenesis can be (and is being) TESTED, while there is no empirical test for Creation, even in principle. Even in the total absence of evidence (a condition far from what we now enjoy), would you not still prefer a TESTABLE conjecture to one that suggests pure magic, so keep your mind shut off?

Kris the whiny punk said: That's hilarious coming from someone who bans people who disagree with you, or moves their comments to the BW or deletes them altogether. And even if you don't have the authority to do all that you and many others here sure do want and push for it to be done by those who do have the authority. I'm not afraid of you. Are you afraid of me, and anyone else who challenges you or disagrees with you? If it walks like a chicken and clucks like a chicken, it's a chicken. This place sure has a lot of chickens. Maybe the name of this site should be changed to "The Chicken coop". Look who's talking about having no life. Many of you obviously spend most of your time here bitching and whining about creationists and have been doing so for years, and will continue to do so for years to come. Hey, that's a nice egg you just laid.

Dale Husband said:

Kris the whiny punk said: That's hilarious coming from someone who bans people who disagree with you, or moves their comments to the BW or deletes them altogether. And even if you don't have the authority to do all that you and many others here sure do want and push for it to be done by those who do have the authority. I'm not afraid of you. Are you afraid of me, and anyone else who challenges you or disagrees with you? If it walks like a chicken and clucks like a chicken, it's a chicken. This place sure has a lot of chickens. Maybe the name of this site should be changed to "The Chicken coop". Look who's talking about having no life. Many of you obviously spend most of your time here bitching and whining about creationists and have been doing so for years, and will continue to do so for years to come. Hey, that's a nice egg you just laid.

Wrong season. Egg laying is for Easter, not Christmas, you idiot! Hey, if you can be an abusive @$$hole, so can I. How old are you again? Twelve?

Robin said:

Kris said:

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Colin said: The significance of my questions and the apparent fact that no one can answer them is that it shows that even with all the tools available there are some important questions that cannot be answered by those tools and the theory of evolution. Maybe some of those answers will come in the future but that remains to be seen.

The answers you have been given aren't answers to your questions, to be sure. They are attempts to show you that your questions have no meaning. They're like Chomsky's sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously;" well-formed but without meaning.

If the questions he asked are meaningless, then why have so many people, scientists or otherwise, been trying to find the answers for a very long time, and why are so many people, scientists or otherwise, still trying to find the answers?

Just curious, Kris, but what actual scientists have been spending any time trying to find the answers to the questions that "Colin" asked? Can you reference the work performed in pursuit of the answers?

Robin said:

Colin said: Yes there was a first speaker of English and it was Homo sapiens. I asked for genus and species and I stated a correct genus and species that answers the question about English.

"Colin", this response is absurdly infantile. It's no different than saying that the first insects were animals. Of course the first English speakers were Homo Sapiens - the first speakers of ALL languages on Earth were Homo sapiens. Ditto, the first types of animals on Earth were all...wait for it...animals. Thus, you've not provided any information here. In what village was English first spoken? What were the villagers called as a group? When you can answer this, I'll tell you exactly what the first insects were and when they showed up.

Kris said:

Robin said:

Kris said:

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Colin said: The significance of my questions and the apparent fact that no one can answer them is that it shows that even with all the tools available there are some important questions that cannot be answered by those tools and the theory of evolution. Maybe some of those answers will come in the future but that remains to be seen.

The answers you have been given aren't answers to your questions, to be sure. They are attempts to show you that your questions have no meaning. They're like Chomsky's sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously;" well-formed but without meaning.

If the questions he asked are meaningless, then why have so many people, scientists or otherwise, been trying to find the answers for a very long time, and why are so many people, scientists or otherwise, still trying to find the answers?

Just curious, Kris, but what actual scientists have been spending any time trying to find the answers to the questions that "Colin" asked? Can you reference the work performed in pursuit of the answers?

You MUST be joking. If you really aren't aware of the fact that many scientists are pursuing or have pursued the origin of insects (and most or all other things), then I suggest that you bone up on the history of scientific pursuits.

Stanton said:

Stephen Wells said: One of the ironies here is that creationists always seem to expect origin-of-life questions to be answered with "It was definitely this way" - because that's the sort of answer creationists need and love. The scientific answer is "We don't know for certain; here are some leading hypotheses; we're working on it". And to provide evidence that: -we don't know for certain -there are some hypotheses -we're working on it is trivial! Google Scholar search for "abiogenesis": 7890 articles.

More irony is that the Theory of Evolution is understandable even without a stable theory for Abiogenesis, while, Creationists make absolutely no effort to find evidence to support any of their inane claims that doesn't involve lying, repeatedly refuted logical fallacies, or, constant threats of eternal damnation if one doesn't mindlessly and slavishly agree. Apparently, IBelieve intends to repeat his schtick of lying, stupid gotcha games, bigotry, and unsubtle threats of eternal damnation.

John Vanko said:

IBelieveInGod said: "I find it amusing that you think that I would go to the efforts to appear like several different posters."

So you're not Kris, or Colin, or 'Stephen Myer', or 'William Dembski', or faith4flipper, or megan_foxx, or dogbarf()? Well, why don't you engage Kris, say, in discourse? He has acknowledged you - "I can’t help but wonder if IBIG is getting as big a laugh out of your mistaken conflation as I am", he said to DS. Since you don't seem to want to engage the regulars over on antievolution.org, let's see you argue with Kris. (If you're not Kris, that is.)

I vote that the asshat be flushed not so much for being a troll, but for the sin of being a fucking BORING troll. I think he's Joe G's slightly-less-retarded brother, TBH.

Stephen Wells said: I don't _know_ where my library card went, but I'm sure it wasn't stolen by gnomes. IBIG is keeping an open mind with respect to the Gnome Question. What a maroon.

Kris, you are off topic as well. Here http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4d10b9bb072439e0;act=ST;f=14;t=7060 is a good place to continue any discussions NOT RELATED TO THE ORIGINAL POST.

If you want to argue about how mean we are, or a discussion on the evolution of insects or whatever, THAT is the place.

THIS THREAD is for discussion of Behe's paper. Not for whatever takes your fancy.

I will repsond to both you and IBIG there. I welcome the opportunity to discuss things with you.

BTW: I am not 'ordering' you there. I am telling you that you (and IBIG) are OFF TOPIC and it is polite to move off topic discussions to the proper place. If you don't want to be polite, then the forum mods are well within their rights to ban you.

Kris said: Why should IBIG "engage" me? Just because you think he should?

Actually, has anyone noticed that IBIG and Kris never post anything at the same time? They always post at different times. And no one has ever seen them in the same room together. You know, kind of like Batman and Bruce Wayne, or maybe more like King Tut and the librarian. Of course, they both use the same arguments, which is kind of a give away, especially since one claims to be a creationist and one claims to believe in evolution.

If they really are the same guy, I would love to see him fight himself. Talk about cognitive dissonance. Either way, the bathroom wall is the right place for Kris and After the Bar Closes is the right place for IBIGOT. He can fight with himself at either place. Until then, I guess we'll have to come to the tentative conclusion that they are the same guy, at least until more data is available. Either that or they are just both too chicken shit to argue with each other. Go figure.

Kris said:

Robin said:

Kris said:

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Colin said: The significance of my questions and the apparent fact that no one can answer them is that it shows that even with all the tools available there are some important questions that cannot be answered by those tools and the theory of evolution. Maybe some of those answers will come in the future but that remains to be seen.

The answers you have been given aren't answers to your questions, to be sure. They are attempts to show you that your questions have no meaning. They're like Chomsky's sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously;" well-formed but without meaning.

If the questions he asked are meaningless, then why have so many people, scientists or otherwise, been trying to find the answers for a very long time, and why are so many people, scientists or otherwise, still trying to find the answers?

Just curious, Kris, but what actual scientists have been spending any time trying to find the answers to the questions that "Colin" asked? Can you reference the work performed in pursuit of the answers?

You MUST be joking. If you really aren't aware of the fact that many scientists are pursuing or have pursued the origin of insects (and most or all other things), then I suggest that you bone up on the history of scientific pursuits.

What did the first insect evolve from? What was the first insect? What did the first flying insect evolve from? What was the first flying insect?

Kris said:

Robin said:

Colin said: Yes there was a first speaker of English and it was Homo sapiens. I asked for genus and species and I stated a correct genus and species that answers the question about English.

"Colin", this response is absurdly infantile. It's no different than saying that the first insects were animals. Of course the first English speakers were Homo Sapiens - the first speakers of ALL languages on Earth were Homo sapiens. Ditto, the first types of animals on Earth were all...wait for it...animals. Thus, you've not provided any information here. In what village was English first spoken? What were the villagers called as a group? When you can answer this, I'll tell you exactly what the first insects were and when they showed up.

It's only absurd to people who think they know everything but can't answer the questions.

And Colin didn't bring up the comparison to speaking English. He also didn't ask what sounds or language the first insects made or spoke.

You guys use every trick in the book to side-step answering legitimate questions, just like you accuse the creationists of doing. You think you're really different from them but you're not.

Even though science has some strong evidence or proof of some things, that doesn't mean it (or you) have all the answers or even any evidence in many cases.

There are lots of things beyond what you or anyone else on Earth can figure out right now, and maybe forever. When you (or anyone else) come across as knowing everything about everything you just look like an arrogant, pompous fool. Yeah, you guys accuse the creationists of that too, and it certainly fits them in some cases, but it also fits most of you too.

phantomreader42 said:

Kris said: Why should IBIG "engage" me? Just because you think he should?

I don't for an instant suspect you actually want an honest answer to this question, but I'll give you one anyway. ...

Kris said: I can 'understand' astrology, or christianity, or probably any other religion or any fairy tale, but that doesn't mean I automatically believe or believe in those religions or fairy tales. I have been a strong believer for a long time that evolution has and does occur, but I also know that there are some pretty big holes in evolutionary theory. There's almost as much 'faith' in it as there is in religious beliefs. In the future there may be more evidence or proof that the theory of evolution is solid but for now at least you guys ought to be a little more open minded about the possibilities, at least when it comes to the unproven and questionable aspects of the theory. There's a LOT left to learn.

Kris said: That's hilarious coming from someone who bans people who disagree with you, or moves their comments to the BW or deletes them altogether. And even if you don't have the authority to do all that you and many others here sure do want and push for it to be done by those who do have the authority. I'm not afraid of you. Are you afraid of me, and anyone else who challenges you or disagrees with you? If it walks like a chicken and clucks like a chicken, it's a chicken. This place sure has a lot of chickens. Maybe the name of this site should be changed to "The Chicken coop".

Robin said: What I find particularly galling about your[Kris]response, however, is that you didn't bother to nail "Colin" on his lack of consistency in the same manner that you jumped on the Stanton's shark comment concerning fresh water.

It appears that the issues with Kris started here on page 8 of the “But it’s all about the science thread and thereafter.

Both RBH and I were the first to respond to Kris’s apparent attempts to equate scientists and their behaviors with those of ID/creationists. A number of people were confused about his point, but I see no evidence of anyone starting a fight. The responses were entirely reasonable; yet the discussion went downhill from there as Kris started taking more and more offense.

Reading back over that thread, I get the impression that Kris started becoming offended when people were contrasting the differences in behaviors of scientists following ethos of science and the behaviors of ID/creationists over their nearly 50 year history of attempting to mimic science.

Kris especially went ballistic after Harold elaborated some familiar ID/creationist tactics that all of us have witnessed over the years and when several of us not only agreed with Harold, but actually provided links to websites instructing ID/creationists on just these tactics. I don’t believe Kris even bothered to look at those links.

On the other hand, we see the same bellicose attitudes (unprovoked as near as I can tell) on the part of Kris on numerous other threads.

It almost leaves the impression of an ambush that was prematurely triggered by people’s succinct descriptions of ID/creationist socio/political tactics over the years.

I would suggest that he is one of these closet ID/creationists (maybe even Steve P.) whose amateur dabbling in “popular science” has given him a false sense of expertise.

He has no idea of how lame his claim of being a scientist appears. It’s almost as ludicrous as someone dressing up in a Bozo the Clown suit, crashing the Nobel ceremonies, and demanding he be given a prize.

Robin really nailed him on the Kris’s Lepidoptera claim.

Kris claimed to be a scientist. Kris is obviously not a scientist. If he knows he is not a scientist, he is a liar. If he doesn't know he is not a scientist, he is insane. I suppose he could be both, but who really cares.

The point is, why waste PT space on pointless arguments with a liar and/or lunatic?

Eh, these trolls just come here to bark. That's about as much of a motive and substance as there is to it.

After I figure out where they're coming from, it doesn't parse any more, it's just annoying noise that I glance at and pass over.

mrg said: Eh, these trolls just come here to bark. That's about as much of a motive and substance as there is to it.

ben said: Kris claimed to be a scientist. Kris is obviously not a scientist. If he knows he is not a scientist, he is a liar. If he doesn't know he is not a scientist, he is insane. I suppose he could be both, but who really cares. The point is, why waste PT space on pointless arguments with a liar and/or lunatic?

Kris said: That love, compassion, and justice from the six sources are just pouring out of you, Mr. agnostic unitarian universalist hypocrite. LMAO!! Oh well, what can one expect from someone who modifies their morals and belief system to fit whatever they want to get away with? Ya know, you sound a lot like a catholic pedophile or a politician.

Unitarian Universalism (UU) draws from many sources: 1. Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life; 2. Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love; 3. Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life; 4. Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves; 5. Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit. 6. Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature. These principles and sources of faith are the backbone of our religious community.

Wow, he's a YEC too. Kris, please come to ATBC. Please. I refuse to discuss anything, but on topic comments here.

Yeah, creationists tend to use a form of synecdoche. When a pattern with a zillion examples refutes their doctrine, what they do is pick some individual instance that doesn't quite fit the pattern and imply that this negates the entire pattern. So if you wish to deny that the town is flooding, pick a raindrop that did NOT make it into the flood, as "proof" that raindrops aren't causing it!

And Dale is right, we see this a lot. It doesn't seem to matter to the creationist that the rationalizations for rejecting individual data are themselves mutually inconsistent or incoherent. It's not a coincidence that specific verses of scripture are always cited, rather than whole chapters or the flow or intent of narrative. When context refutes you, you have little alternative but to eliminate that context whatever it takes.

(And so we seen science viewed as a disparate collection of unrelated factoids rather than as a process of gaining knowledge, and so science can be rejected by decreeing individual factoids to be suspect.)

Robin said:

Kris said: I can 'understand' astrology, or christianity, or probably any other religion or any fairy tale, but that doesn't mean I automatically believe or believe in those religions or fairy tales. I have been a strong believer for a long time that evolution has and does occur, but I also know that there are some pretty big holes in evolutionary theory. There's almost as much 'faith' in it as there is in religious beliefs. In the future there may be more evidence or proof that the theory of evolution is solid but for now at least you guys ought to be a little more open minded about the possibilities, at least when it comes to the unproven and questionable aspects of the theory. There's a LOT left to learn.

This explains a lot. It appears that you never actually studied evolution or any aspect of biology given your claim of "belief" in it. People who understand naturalistic processes do not depend on believing in them - they know them and can act on and explain how they operate. It is no different than understanding that the Earth orbits the Sun. I don't believe in orbital mechanics - I understand the process and can act on that knowledge. Does this mean that I know everything there is to know about Newtonian and Einsteinium Mechanics? No, but I don't have to know all there is to still know with 100% confidence that the Earth orbits the Sun and thus dispense with belief in that area altogether. A pity then that you've never actually understood evolution, but then that explains a great deal about your posts.

Dave Lovell said:

Kris said:

Robin said:

Kris said:

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Colin said: The significance of my questions and the apparent fact that no one can answer them is that it shows that even with all the tools available there are some important questions that cannot be answered by those tools and the theory of evolution. Maybe some of those answers will come in the future but that remains to be seen.

The answers you have been given aren't answers to your questions, to be sure. They are attempts to show you that your questions have no meaning. They're like Chomsky's sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously;" well-formed but without meaning.

If the questions he asked are meaningless, then why have so many people, scientists or otherwise, been trying to find the answers for a very long time, and why are so many people, scientists or otherwise, still trying to find the answers?

Just curious, Kris, but what actual scientists have been spending any time trying to find the answers to the questions that "Colin" asked? Can you reference the work performed in pursuit of the answers?

You MUST be joking. If you really aren't aware of the fact that many scientists are pursuing or have pursued the origin of insects (and most or all other things), then I suggest that you bone up on the history of scientific pursuits.

Can you honestly not see the difference between investigating the development path that resulted in modern insects, and debating where on that path you draw a line with insects after it and no insects before it?

OgreMkV said: Kris, you are off topic as well. Here http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4d10b9bb072439e0;act=ST;f=14;t=7060 is a good place to continue any discussions NOT RELATED TO THE ORIGINAL POST. If you want to argue about how mean we are, or a discussion on the evolution of insects or whatever, THAT is the place. THIS THREAD is for discussion of Behe's paper. Not for whatever takes your fancy. I will repsond to both you and IBIG there. I welcome the opportunity to discuss things with you. BTW: I am not 'ordering' you there. I am telling you that you (and IBIG) are OFF TOPIC and it is polite to move off topic discussions to the proper place. If you don't want to be polite, then the forum mods are well within their rights to ban you.

phantomreader42 said:

Kris said: Why should IBIG "engage" me? Just because you think he should?

I don't for an instant suspect you actually want an honest answer to this question, but I'll give you one anyway. You claim to believe that evolution happens, but that evolutionary theory is full of unspecified "holes", which you will not describe or make the slightest attempt to fix. You keep whining and screaming at everyone, demanding that people listen to you, but you never discuss anything of substance. You keep claiming that people here are being too mean to creationists, and claiming to have a better way, which you have not ever even attempted to explain to anyone. IBelieveInBearingFalseWitness claims to beleive that evolution does not happen, cannot happen, never has happened, and that evolutionary theory is a vast satanic conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. He has spent months whining, demanding that people join his sick death cult and bow down and worship his own willful ignorance, dodging questions and twisting himself in knots to hide from reality at all costs. If IBelieveInBearingFalseWitness is sincere in his beliefs, then he would believe you are as hellbound as anyone else here, a dupe of the Lord Of All Evil, and he should be as eager to berate you for daring to accept the reality of evolution as he is to berate anyone else here. If he truly believes what he claims to believe, he should be motivated to save your soul. And yet he is not. He has not tried, not at all, not even once, not the slightest bit. He has explicitly REFUSED to even make an attempt. Why is that, do you think? If you, Kris, were sincere in your beliefs, then you would recognize IBelieveInBearingFalseWitness as a creationist, and realize that you now have a golden opportunity to actually SHOW us how you want us to deal with creationists. And yet you have not done so, you have not even tried, not at all, not even once, not the slightest bit. If you truly believed what you claim to believe, you would be motivated to drag this delusional, bigoted, sociopathic troll out of his exile and into the light of reality, and show us all up like you've been bragging you could do all along. And yet, you do not. Why is that, do you think? As far as I can see, the reasons are simple. Neither of you actually believe what you are saying. Neither of you has the slightest speck of sincerity or honesty or integrity. You're not here to actually promote the beliefs you claim to believe, because you don't really believe them. You're just here to whine and throw around baseless attacks against evolution. The fact that you use mutually exclusive baseless attacks against evolution is obvious to everyone here. If either of you were actually interested in promoting a viable alternative, you'd care about the fact that each of your "alternatives" is as incompatible with the other as it is with evolution itself. But you don't care. Because the "alternatives" you offer are merely smokescreens. Neither of you cares about the color of the smoke, as long as it's getting spread around, mucking things up, obscuring reality. The reason you should engage each other is that, if you were sincere about your mutually-exclusive methods of attacking science, you'd each consider the other's method wrong, and make some effort to correct it. But you don't. And we know you won't. Because you don't really believe any of the bullshit you spew. It's common here to see biblical literalists, YECs, OECs, cdesign proponentsists, and people babbling about "holes" in evolutionary theory. It's common for them to appear in the same thread. But, despite the fact that they each believe incompatible things about the world, despite the fact that they each believe the others are grievously wrong and possibly doomed to eternal hellfire for it, you never, ever see them actually address the incompatibilities in their own beliefs. No, they just merrily band together to attack science, because that's the only reason they're here. They don't give a damn about the truth, as long as they get to spread their own brand of lies.

DS said: Actually, has anyone noticed that IBIG and Kris never post anything at the same time? They always post at different times. And no one has ever seen them in the same room together. You know, kind of like Batman and Bruce Wayne, or maybe more like King Tut and the librarian. Of course, they both use the same arguments, which is kind of a give away, especially since one claims to be a creationist and one claims to believe in evolution. If they really are the same guy, I would love to see him fight himself. Talk about cognitive dissonance. Either way, the bathroom wall is the right place for Kris and After the Bar Closes is the right place for IBIGOT. He can fight with himself at either place. Until then, I guess we'll have to come to the tentative conclusion that they are the same guy, at least until more data is available. Either that or they are just both too chicken shit to argue with each other. Go figure.

Robin said:

Kris said:

Robin said:

Kris said:

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Colin said: The significance of my questions and the apparent fact that no one can answer them is that it shows that even with all the tools available there are some important questions that cannot be answered by those tools and the theory of evolution. Maybe some of those answers will come in the future but that remains to be seen.

The answers you have been given aren't answers to your questions, to be sure. They are attempts to show you that your questions have no meaning. They're like Chomsky's sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously;" well-formed but without meaning.

If the questions he asked are meaningless, then why have so many people, scientists or otherwise, been trying to find the answers for a very long time, and why are so many people, scientists or otherwise, still trying to find the answers?

Just curious, Kris, but what actual scientists have been spending any time trying to find the answers to the questions that "Colin" asked? Can you reference the work performed in pursuit of the answers?

You MUST be joking. If you really aren't aware of the fact that many scientists are pursuing or have pursued the origin of insects (and most or all other things), then I suggest that you bone up on the history of scientific pursuits.

Don't try to patronize me; it isn't becoming. It demonstrates your claim is questionable at best and that you really don't know anything about science. My questions were quite specific - I've referenced them above - to "Colin's" specific questions. Here are "Colin's" questions:

What did the first insect evolve from? What was the first insect? What did the first flying insect evolve from? What was the first flying insect?

So your question to me is erroneous - "Colin" didn't ask about the "origins of insects", he asked about the "first insect" and what it evolved from. So I'll ask again - what actual scientists have been spending any time trying to find the answers to "Colin's" questions and can you reference such work?

Kris said: Do you actually believe that no one should, and that no more than one person ever would, challenge, question, or disagree with you? Are you really that self-righteous?"

Daddy? why won't the scary Kris-thing go away?

seriously, isn't it time for Reed to put IP banning into place?

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Kris said: That's hilarious coming from someone who bans people who disagree with you, or moves their comments to the BW or deletes them altogether. And even if you don't have the authority to do all that you and many others here sure do want and push for it to be done by those who do have the authority. I'm not afraid of you. Are you afraid of me, and anyone else who challenges you or disagrees with you? If it walks like a chicken and clucks like a chicken, it's a chicken. This place sure has a lot of chickens. Maybe the name of this site should be changed to "The Chicken coop".

Fuck, you're stupid. You can't even target the right people. This, sirrah, is not a response to the post you quoted, which (unless you are also Biggy) was not even addressed to you. Alright, Internet Tough Guy, you've been given another thread to go to to discuss this off-topic crap. Let's see if you have the intestinal fortitude and common courtesy to do so. The MadPanda, FCD

Mike Elzinga said:

Kris said: Do you actually believe that no one should, and that no more than one person ever would, challenge, question, or disagree with you? Are you really that self-righteous?"

Actually it is YOU who is out of control. And everyone here, including the monitors of these threads, agrees with this assessment and has said so. You lied about being a scientist, about knowing anything about science; and you have the audacity to self-righteously lecture working scientists about the issues and processes that take place in the scientific community. We know these things far more deeply than you can imagine; and all you are doing is spouting platitudes, stalking, and looking for people you can piss off. You are a FAKE in the most complete sense of the word FAKE.

Ichthyic said: Daddy? why won't the scary Kris-thing go away? seriously, isn't it time for Reed to put IP banning into place?

Kris said:

Ichthyic said: Daddy? why won't the scary Kris-thing go away? seriously, isn't it time for Reed to put IP banning into place?

Yep, silence anyone who doesn't blindly agree with you guys/gals. That's the 'religious' way.

Actually, I haven’t lied about anything

The trolls must be very proud of themselves; congratulations of a job well done! Shining examples that Dembski should be very proud of.

WRT the first insect; may we use the evolution of the dog as an example? Domestication of the dog seems to have begun about 14000 years ago. Now the question is, when was the first Chihuaua,the first Bichon Frisé or the first Greyhound born?

Kris said:

Dave Lovell said: Can you honestly not see the difference between investigating the development path that resulted in modern insects, and debating where on that path you draw a line with insects after it and no insects before it?

So, you're saying that no scientists have ever tried to find and establish a line between insects and their ancestor(s) and a line between each genus and species of extinct and extant insects?

Can you honestly not see that investigating the "path" includes and depends on finding and establishing the points where the path takes a turn or has an obstacle or goes up or down or has other features that indicate a change? And doesn't every "path" have a beginning?

It's been said here that scientists are testing Abiogenesis, which I stated that was not the case, because what they were attempting to do was create life, which would constitute creation, but no responses. So, let me throw this out there.

Let's define what life is first, and then see what is necessary for Abiogenesis to have been successful.

First and foremost I think most would agree that all life is cellular. It is either a single cell creature, or is composed of many cells. I think most would also agree that every cell is contained within it own outer membrane, and contains all necessary instructions for reproduction and other necessary functions, ie metabolism. DNA makes RNA which makes protein. DNA is an extremely complex molecule, and contains the cells instructions necessary for all the functions within the cell. I'm not going to get into the process of DNA and RNA at this time. This is meant as a simple explanation of life.

Life reproduces itself, and would cease to exist if it weren't able to do so. Therefore all life must be able to reproduce, replicate, whatever you want to call it. They do this individually or in sexual pairs, they have both the encoded instructions within the cell, and the machinery necessary for reproduction. Now I know that some creatures can't reproduce, but every creature came from some from of reproduction.

Life also requires the collective processes of metabolism to convert materials and energy for its needs. Metabolism also creates waste from used materials and energy, which must be eliminated. When metabolism stops and isn't able to continue, we call it death.

Life must be able to change and adapt to continue to live in various environments.

This is a very simple explanation of life, but when you consider what is necessary for life, then it is clear that Abiogenesis would have been impossible without an intelligent designer.

... but when you consider what is necessary for life, then it is clear that Abiogenesis would have been impossible without an intelligent designer.

Kris, IBIG, all of you objections have been responded to at ATBC.

This thread is specifically about some commentary on Behe's paper. If it's not about that, please return to ATBC.

I really, really want to comment, but I'm not because of my personal stricture to move trolls and related comments to ATBC.

Besides, we can't put LOLcats* in these threads.

*Which is the only proper response to liars and cowards like IBIG.

Kris said:

Robin said:

Kris said: I can 'understand' astrology, or christianity, or probably any other religion or any fairy tale, but that doesn't mean I automatically believe or believe in those religions or fairy tales. I have been a strong believer for a long time that evolution has and does occur, but I also know that there are some pretty big holes in evolutionary theory. There's almost as much 'faith' in it as there is in religious beliefs. In the future there may be more evidence or proof that the theory of evolution is solid but for now at least you guys ought to be a little more open minded about the possibilities, at least when it comes to the unproven and questionable aspects of the theory. There's a LOT left to learn.

This explains a lot. It appears that you never actually studied evolution or any aspect of biology given your claim of "belief" in it. People who understand naturalistic processes do not depend on believing in them - they know them and can act on and explain how they operate. It is no different than understanding that the Earth orbits the Sun. I don't believe in orbital mechanics - I understand the process and can act on that knowledge. Does this mean that I know everything there is to know about Newtonian and Einsteinium Mechanics? No, but I don't have to know all there is to still know with 100% confidence that the Earth orbits the Sun and thus dispense with belief in that area altogether. A pity then that you've never actually understood evolution, but then that explains a great deal about your posts.

Let's see you show where I have ever said that I believe "in" evolution or evolutionary theory. Well?

I have been a strong believer for a long time that evolution has and does occur, but I also know that there are some pretty big holes in evolutionary theory. There's almost as much 'faith' in it as there is in religious beliefs.

In FACT, I have made a very obvious distinction between believing something and believing "in" something.

When I said "I have been a strong believer for a long time that evolution has and does occur.." I was simply saying that I believe that evolution has and does occur. It DOES NOT mean that I believe "in" evolution, especially in the same sense as a person believes "in" religious beliefs.

Is there anyone here who can read and comprehend English? Anyone??

Kris said:

Robin said:

Kris said:

Robin said:

Kris said:

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Colin said: The significance of my questions and the apparent fact that no one can answer them is that it shows that even with all the tools available there are some important questions that cannot be answered by those tools and the theory of evolution. Maybe some of those answers will come in the future but that remains to be seen.

The answers you have been given aren't answers to your questions, to be sure. They are attempts to show you that your questions have no meaning. They're like Chomsky's sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously;" well-formed but without meaning.

If the questions he asked are meaningless, then why have so many people, scientists or otherwise, been trying to find the answers for a very long time, and why are so many people, scientists or otherwise, still trying to find the answers?

Just curious, Kris, but what actual scientists have been spending any time trying to find the answers to the questions that "Colin" asked? Can you reference the work performed in pursuit of the answers?

You MUST be joking. If you really aren't aware of the fact that many scientists are pursuing or have pursued the origin of insects (and most or all other things), then I suggest that you bone up on the history of scientific pursuits.

Don't try to patronize me; it isn't becoming. It demonstrates your claim is questionable at best and that you really don't know anything about science. My questions were quite specific - I've referenced them above - to "Colin's" specific questions. Here are "Colin's" questions:

What did the first insect evolve from? What was the first insect? What did the first flying insect evolve from? What was the first flying insect?

So your question to me is erroneous - "Colin" didn't ask about the "origins of insects", he asked about the "first insect" and what it evolved from. So I'll ask again - what actual scientists have been spending any time trying to find the answers to "Colin's" questions and can you reference such work?

So, asking what the first insects were and what they evolved from isn't asking about the origin of insects. Yeah, whatever. You can't be that clueless. Well maybe you can.

Your question "what actual scientists have been spending any time trying to find the answers to "Colin's" questions" is way too stupid to even bother answering. Look for it yourself.

Kris said:

phantomreader42 said:

Kris said: Why should IBIG "engage" me? Just because you think he should?

I don't for an instant suspect you actually want an honest answer to this question, but I'll give you one anyway. You claim to believe that evolution happens, but that evolutionary theory is full of unspecified "holes", which you will not describe or make the slightest attempt to fix. You keep whining and screaming at everyone, demanding that people listen to you, but you never discuss anything of substance. You keep claiming that people here are being too mean to creationists, and claiming to have a better way, which you have not ever even attempted to explain to anyone. IBelieveInBearingFalseWitness claims to beleive that evolution does not happen, cannot happen, never has happened, and that evolutionary theory is a vast satanic conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. He has spent months whining, demanding that people join his sick death cult and bow down and worship his own willful ignorance, dodging questions and twisting himself in knots to hide from reality at all costs. If IBelieveInBearingFalseWitness is sincere in his beliefs, then he would believe you are as hellbound as anyone else here, a dupe of the Lord Of All Evil, and he should be as eager to berate you for daring to accept the reality of evolution as he is to berate anyone else here. If he truly believes what he claims to believe, he should be motivated to save your soul. And yet he is not. He has not tried, not at all, not even once, not the slightest bit. He has explicitly REFUSED to even make an attempt. Why is that, do you think? If you, Kris, were sincere in your beliefs, then you would recognize IBelieveInBearingFalseWitness as a creationist, and realize that you now have a golden opportunity to actually SHOW us how you want us to deal with creationists. And yet you have not done so, you have not even tried, not at all, not even once, not the slightest bit. If you truly believed what you claim to believe, you would be motivated to drag this delusional, bigoted, sociopathic troll out of his exile and into the light of reality, and show us all up like you've been bragging you could do all along. And yet, you do not. Why is that, do you think? As far as I can see, the reasons are simple. Neither of you actually believe what you are saying. Neither of you has the slightest speck of sincerity or honesty or integrity. You're not here to actually promote the beliefs you claim to believe, because you don't really believe them. You're just here to whine and throw around baseless attacks against evolution. The fact that you use mutually exclusive baseless attacks against evolution is obvious to everyone here. If either of you were actually interested in promoting a viable alternative, you'd care about the fact that each of your "alternatives" is as incompatible with the other as it is with evolution itself. But you don't care. Because the "alternatives" you offer are merely smokescreens. Neither of you cares about the color of the smoke, as long as it's getting spread around, mucking things up, obscuring reality. The reason you should engage each other is that, if you were sincere about your mutually-exclusive methods of attacking science, you'd each consider the other's method wrong, and make some effort to correct it. But you don't. And we know you won't. Because you don't really believe any of the bullshit you spew. It's common here to see biblical literalists, YECs, OECs, cdesign proponentsists, and people babbling about "holes" in evolutionary theory. It's common for them to appear in the same thread. But, despite the fact that they each believe incompatible things about the world, despite the fact that they each believe the others are grievously wrong and possibly doomed to eternal hellfire for it, you never, ever see them actually address the incompatibilities in their own beliefs. No, they just merrily band together to attack science, because that's the only reason they're here. They don't give a damn about the truth, as long as they get to spread their own brand of lies.

Wow, you may have obsessive/compulsive creationist-hating disorder worse than Mike Elzinga, although that would have to be determined in clinical tests at a proper facility to be certain. Have you personally engaged every creationist on Earth? If not, why not? After all, you wouldn't want to let any of them be unaware of, or escape from, your valuable pearls of wisdom and correction, would you?

Rolf Aalberg said: Why? Why is it clear?

Kris said: I was responding to your remarks about hypocrisy and cowardice, regardless of who you directed them to. You talk big but when things don't go your way you pussy out and it's either ban time, delete time, or off to the BW. What are you and so many others here really afraid of? Are you afraid that comments here, rather than on the BW, are more likely to be seen by visitors to this site and that you might look stupid to those visitors if you allow and leave all challenging or questioning comments here? I've been "given" another thread? Wow, how magnanimous of you.

OgreMkV said: Kris, IBIG, all of you objections have been responded to at ATBC. This thread is specifically about some commentary on Behe's paper. If it's not about that, please return to ATBC. I really, really want to comment, but I'm not because of my personal stricture to move trolls and related comments to ATBC. Besides, we can't put LOLcats* in these threads. *Which is the only proper response to liars and cowards like IBIG.

Kris said:

OgreMkV said: Kris, IBIG, all of you objections have been responded to at ATBC. This thread is specifically about some commentary on Behe's paper. If it's not about that, please return to ATBC. I really, really want to comment, but I'm not because of my personal stricture to move trolls and related comments to ATBC. Besides, we can't put LOLcats* in these threads. *Which is the only proper response to liars and cowards like IBIG.

What is ATBC?

Kris said: What is ATBC?

Rolf Aalberg said in response to "IBIG":

... but when you consider what is necessary for life, then it is clear that Abiogenesis would have been impossible without an intelligent designer.

Why? Why is it clear? To you, of course, but why do you expect us to believe that because you say so? Some relevant facts please, not just "I can't believe it because it is impossible; besides I believe in God of the Gaps."

Sorry OgreMkV, Robin, MadPanda, SWT, Mike, harold, DS, phantonreader42.

I should have added that all direct responses to "IBIG" should go to his own special thread at http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4d12380e470c7ef7;act=ST;f=14;t=7060;st=180
where he is now responding!

Where's Phhhht?

John Vanko said: As a new year approaches I welcome you and any other Pandas to pick up the baton and refute every one of "IBIG's" old, tired, repetitive posts. It's an excellent exercise in critical thinking. But don't assume "IBIG" is real.

Sorry JV, didn't catch your addendum there.

Robin said:

Kris said:

Robin said:

Kris said: I can 'understand' astrology, or christianity, or probably any other religion or any fairy tale, but that doesn't mean I automatically believe or believe in those religions or fairy tales. I have been a strong believer for a long time that evolution has and does occur, but I also know that there are some pretty big holes in evolutionary theory. There's almost as much 'faith' in it as there is in religious beliefs. In the future there may be more evidence or proof that the theory of evolution is solid but for now at least you guys ought to be a little more open minded about the possibilities, at least when it comes to the unproven and questionable aspects of the theory. There's a LOT left to learn.

This explains a lot. It appears that you never actually studied evolution or any aspect of biology given your claim of "belief" in it. People who understand naturalistic processes do not depend on believing in them - they know them and can act on and explain how they operate. It is no different than understanding that the Earth orbits the Sun. I don't believe in orbital mechanics - I understand the process and can act on that knowledge. Does this mean that I know everything there is to know about Newtonian and Einsteinium Mechanics? No, but I don't have to know all there is to still know with 100% confidence that the Earth orbits the Sun and thus dispense with belief in that area altogether. A pity then that you've never actually understood evolution, but then that explains a great deal about your posts.

Let's see you show where I have ever said that I believe "in" evolution or evolutionary theory. Well?

Here:

I have been a strong believer for a long time that evolution has and does occur, but I also know that there are some pretty big holes in evolutionary theory. There's almost as much 'faith' in it as there is in religious beliefs.

You have been a "strong believer for a long time" that evolution has and does occur? Really? Why? What's there to "believe" in? Have you also been a "strong believer for a long time" that gravitation has and does occur? Are you aware that there are more big holes in gravitational theory than in evolutionary theory? Is there almost as much 'faith' in the theory of gravitation then as there is in religious beliefs? Unless you answer yes to all of the above - and admit complete ignorance of a basic concept in physics - your being disingenuous. The fact that you rely on belief with regard to evolution means you don't understand it, Kris. Plain and simple. The fact that you think that it requires almost as much 'faith' as religion means you don't know much about either science or religion.

In FACT, I have made a very obvious distinction between believing something and believing "in" something.

Makes no difference here - your claim that evolutionary theory requires 'faith' means you don't know a thing about science.

When I said "I have been a strong believer for a long time that evolution has and does occur.." I was simply saying that I believe that evolution has and does occur. It DOES NOT mean that I believe "in" evolution, especially in the same sense as a person believes "in" religious beliefs.

Actually, it means the same thing in terms of the words you chose. I'll be happy to diagram the two sentences for you if you don't understand why. However even granting that you don't understand why those phrases are identical in meaning and that you actually intended a subtle difference, the fact is the use of the term 'belief' in association with ANY process indicates you don't understand that process, even in colloquial terms. Ahhh...but then the fact that you feel that a theory as concrete as evolution requires "almost as much 'faith'" along the lines of religion completely destroys the validity of your claim. It makes you look quite uneducated.

Is there anyone here who can read and comprehend English? Anyone??

LOL!

Robin said:

Kris said:

Robin said:

Kris said:

Robin said:

Kris said:

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Colin said: The significance of my questions and the apparent fact that no one can answer them is that it shows that even with all the tools available there are some important questions that cannot be answered by those tools and the theory of evolution. Maybe some of those answers will come in the future but that remains to be seen.

The answers you have been given aren't answers to your questions, to be sure. They are attempts to show you that your questions have no meaning. They're like Chomsky's sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously;" well-formed but without meaning.

If the questions he asked are meaningless, then why have so many people, scientists or otherwise, been trying to find the answers for a very long time, and why are so many people, scientists or otherwise, still trying to find the answers?

Just curious, Kris, but what actual scientists have been spending any time trying to find the answers to the questions that "Colin" asked? Can you reference the work performed in pursuit of the answers?

You MUST be joking. If you really aren't aware of the fact that many scientists are pursuing or have pursued the origin of insects (and most or all other things), then I suggest that you bone up on the history of scientific pursuits.

Don't try to patronize me; it isn't becoming. It demonstrates your claim is questionable at best and that you really don't know anything about science. My questions were quite specific - I've referenced them above - to "Colin's" specific questions. Here are "Colin's" questions:

What did the first insect evolve from? What was the first insect? What did the first flying insect evolve from? What was the first flying insect?

So your question to me is erroneous - "Colin" didn't ask about the "origins of insects", he asked about the "first insect" and what it evolved from. So I'll ask again - what actual scientists have been spending any time trying to find the answers to "Colin's" questions and can you reference such work?

So, asking what the first insects were and what they evolved from isn't asking about the origin of insects. Yeah, whatever. You can't be that clueless. Well maybe you can.

Now you're either lying or being an idiot, take your pick. And you were asking if anyone around here can actually read English? Might want to bone up on your reading comprehension there, Kris... My goodness you don't look very bright, do you Kris? Once again for the reading impaired, "Colin's" questions dealt with singular nouns - "first insect" (singular entity), "first flying insect" (singular entity). Don't try to twist his/her/its question into a general one about "first insects" (plural group) - that isn't what the disingenuous idiot asked. So I'm going to ask my questions to you here again - now for the fourth time - just to highlight your own idiocy and hypocrisy: Just curious, Kris, but what actual scientists have been spending any time trying to find the answers to the questions that "Colin" asked? Can you reference the work performed in pursuit of the answers? Got anything yet? Yeah...I didn't think so.

Your question "what actual scientists have been spending any time trying to find the answers to "Colin's" questions" is way too stupid to even bother answering. Look for it yourself.

Sorry wingnut, but you're the one who can't read and who clearly doesn't know of what you speak. BTW, are you familiar with the first rule of holes? LOL!

Kris said: Colin asked to narrow it down to genus and species. You really like to play games and distort things and move goalposts and put words in people's mouths and just argue for the sake of arguing, don't you?

Dave Lovell said:

Kris said:

Dave Lovell said: Can you honestly not see the difference between investigating the development path that resulted in modern insects, and debating where on that path you draw a line with insects after it and no insects before it?

So, you're saying that no scientists have ever tried to find and establish a line between insects and their ancestor(s) and a line between each genus and species of extinct and extant insects?

Absolutely not. That is exactly the sort of thing I would expect evolutionary biologists to spend their careers doing.

Can you honestly not see that investigating the "path" includes and depends on finding and establishing the points where the path takes a turn or has an obstacle or goes up or down or has other features that indicate a change? And doesn't every "path" have a beginning?

Absolutely. But deciding which was the first "insect" is entirely dependent on the definition of the word "insect", not on evolutionary history. If we were to find a fossil of a creature which had the beginnings of all the features of all surviving insect species, was that the first "insect"?. Or was one of its parents the first "insect"? If we find a common ancestor for all Great Apes, is it the first Great Ape? If we subsequently manage to drive Orangutans to extinction, would it still the first Great Ape?

Stanton said:

Kris said: Colin asked to narrow it down to genus and species. You really like to play games and distort things and move goalposts and put words in people's mouths and just argue for the sake of arguing, don't you?

When someone did narrow it down to genus and species, Colin said that that was somehow incorrect and irrelevant.

Robin said:

Kris said: What is ATBC?

Here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SC;c=5 It's the linky at the top called Forum. You can rant there to your heart's content.

Kris said: Actually, I haven't lied about anything.

Kris said:

Stanton said:

Kris said: Colin asked to narrow it down to genus and species. You really like to play games and distort things and move goalposts and put words in people's mouths and just argue for the sake of arguing, don't you?

When someone did narrow it down to genus and species, Colin said that that was somehow incorrect and irrelevant.

No, someone brought up the oldest known fossil insect. It was not the first insect (genus and species), or at least no one has claimed that it was the first insect (genus and species).

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Kris said: I was responding to your remarks about hypocrisy and cowardice, regardless of who you directed them to. You talk big but when things don't go your way you pussy out and it's either ban time, delete time, or off to the BW. What are you and so many others here really afraid of? Are you afraid that comments here, rather than on the BW, are more likely to be seen by visitors to this site and that you might look stupid to those visitors if you allow and leave all challenging or questioning comments here? I've been "given" another thread? Wow, how magnanimous of you.

Fuck, you're stupid. Not to mention rude, self-centered, and perhaps a little tone deaf. Your projection is obvious. So are your issues. You apparently have nothing positive to contribute to this discussion. Now piss off, little toad, and let the adults talk. The MadPanda, FCD

Kris said:

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Kris said: I was responding to your remarks about hypocrisy and cowardice, regardless of who you directed them to. You talk big but when things don't go your way you pussy out and it's either ban time, delete time, or off to the BW. What are you and so many others here really afraid of? Are you afraid that comments here, rather than on the BW, are more likely to be seen by visitors to this site and that you might look stupid to those visitors if you allow and leave all challenging or questioning comments here? I've been "given" another thread? Wow, how magnanimous of you.

Fuck, you're stupid. Not to mention rude, self-centered, and perhaps a little tone deaf. Your projection is obvious. So are your issues. You apparently have nothing positive to contribute to this discussion. Now piss off, little toad, and let the adults talk. The MadPanda, FCD

I've noticed that some of you really like to use the word "projection" when condemning others, but you are blind and deaf to the fact that it applies to you. Interesting, and revealing.

Mike Elzinga said:

Kris said: Actually, I haven't lied about anything.

That statement is itself yet another lie. You have never learned what it means to build a profile have you. And you have built one very quickly because you don’t know when to shut up. But feel free to keep going until you are banished to the Bathroom Wall; every egotistical blast you make simply adds to the profile. We’ve seen it all many times before; and much of it right here on PT. You are not as unique as you think you are. But you wouldn’t know that, being as self-absorbed as you are.

Kris said: I get it, the only thing you and most people want here is ranting about creationists. Anything else just can't be allowed here because it isn't inline with your obsessive compulsive creationist-hating disorder and the expressions of it here.

Dale Husband said:

Kris said:

Stanton said:

Kris said: Colin asked to narrow it down to genus and species. You really like to play games and distort things and move goalposts and put words in people's mouths and just argue for the sake of arguing, don't you?

When someone did narrow it down to genus and species, Colin said that that was somehow incorrect and irrelevant.

No, someone brought up the oldest known fossil insect. It was not the first insect (genus and species), or at least no one has claimed that it was the first insect (genus and species).

And from that, we see that Colin was moving the goalposts. Didn't you accuse someone else of doing that? Why defend Colin, then?

Kris said: If you were here I'd kick your teeth down your throat. I'm not a liar and I don't take kindly to being called one. You can be thankful that we're not standing face to face. Build a profile?? You really are crazy.

Kris said:

Robin said:

Kris said:

Robin said:

Kris said: I can 'understand' astrology, or christianity, or probably any other religion or any fairy tale, but that doesn't mean I automatically believe or believe in those religions or fairy tales. I have been a strong believer for a long time that evolution has and does occur, but I also know that there are some pretty big holes in evolutionary theory. There's almost as much 'faith' in it as there is in religious beliefs. In the future there may be more evidence or proof that the theory of evolution is solid but for now at least you guys ought to be a little more open minded about the possibilities, at least when it comes to the unproven and questionable aspects of the theory. There's a LOT left to learn.

This explains a lot. It appears that you never actually studied evolution or any aspect of biology given your claim of "belief" in it. People who understand naturalistic processes do not depend on believing in them - they know them and can act on and explain how they operate. It is no different than understanding that the Earth orbits the Sun. I don't believe in orbital mechanics - I understand the process and can act on that knowledge. Does this mean that I know everything there is to know about Newtonian and Einsteinium Mechanics? No, but I don't have to know all there is to still know with 100% confidence that the Earth orbits the Sun and thus dispense with belief in that area altogether. A pity then that you've never actually understood evolution, but then that explains a great deal about your posts.

Let's see you show where I have ever said that I believe "in" evolution or evolutionary theory. Well?

Here:

I have been a strong believer for a long time that evolution has and does occur, but I also know that there are some pretty big holes in evolutionary theory. There's almost as much 'faith' in it as there is in religious beliefs.

You have been a "strong believer for a long time" that evolution has and does occur? Really? Why? What's there to "believe" in? Have you also been a "strong believer for a long time" that gravitation has and does occur? Are you aware that there are more big holes in gravitational theory than in evolutionary theory? Is there almost as much 'faith' in the theory of gravitation then as there is in religious beliefs? Unless you answer yes to all of the above - and admit complete ignorance of a basic concept in physics - your being disingenuous. The fact that you rely on belief with regard to evolution means you don't understand it, Kris. Plain and simple. The fact that you think that it requires almost as much 'faith' as religion means you don't know much about either science or religion.

In FACT, I have made a very obvious distinction between believing something and believing "in" something.

Makes no difference here - your claim that evolutionary theory requires 'faith' means you don't know a thing about science.

When I said "I have been a strong believer for a long time that evolution has and does occur.." I was simply saying that I believe that evolution has and does occur. It DOES NOT mean that I believe "in" evolution, especially in the same sense as a person believes "in" religious beliefs.

Actually, it means the same thing in terms of the words you chose. I'll be happy to diagram the two sentences for you if you don't understand why. However even granting that you don't understand why those phrases are identical in meaning and that you actually intended a subtle difference, the fact is the use of the term 'belief' in association with ANY process indicates you don't understand that process, even in colloquial terms. Ahhh...but then the fact that you feel that a theory as concrete as evolution requires "almost as much 'faith'" along the lines of religion completely destroys the validity of your claim. It makes you look quite uneducated.

Is there anyone here who can read and comprehend English? Anyone??

LOL!

I didn't say I believe "in". Come on, show me where I've said I believe "in" science or evolution or evolutionary theory. Go ahead, show me and everyone else here. You can't do it, can you? You're just playing games.

Yes, I believe that evolution has occurred and does occur. What's wrong with that? Don't YOU believe that evolution has occurred and does occur? Isn't that what most people on this site believe?

Neither science nor religion are a belief system to me personally, at least in the way that most people perceive a belief system. In other words, I don't believe "in" either. I believe that science and/or evolutionary theory have answers for many things and that some of those answers are strong or solid. However, I don't believe that science or evolutionary theory has explained or can explain everything and I also believe that science has a lot more work to do to in many cases.

I believe or at least seriously consider strong evidence or proof. I don't believe "in" anything, except maybe my own morals, standards and/or skills, and even with those things I don't normally think of it as 'believing in' them.

I'm not answering yes to something you have totally twisted around and manipulated to become contrary to what I've said. Stop moving the goalposts and putting words in my mouth. YOU are the one being disingenuous, along with several others here.

When I said "I have been a strong believer for a long time that evolution has and does occur, but I also know that there are some pretty big holes in evolutionary theory. There’s almost as much ‘faith’ in it as there is in religious beliefs." it is obvious (to anyone with a clue) that I meant that some people have almost as much faith in evolutionary theory as some people have faith in their religious beliefs. I was referring to people like you and most of the others here. Most of you display a faith in evolutionary theory as blindly and certainly as religious zealots do in their religion.

And I did not say it "requires" faith. Show me where I did. You can't do that either, can you? What did you say about being disingenuous? Hypocrite.

And NO, the sentences you think you can "diagram" to prove your ridiculous interpretation of my words are NOT what you say they are. The REAL interpretation of what I wrote is what I say it is.

nd again I DID NOT say "requires", nor did I imply it. Learn how to read you stupid, illiterate moron.

You obviously have a gigantic problem with the words believe and belief.

You apparently believe that they are always connected with religious beliefs or creationists.

I've got news for you; they're not. When I, or most people, say I believe something I mean that I believe it's the truth or that it's real. It can apply to many things in life besides religious beliefs, but then you'd realize that if you weren't insanely obsessed with creationists and religion.

When a friend tells me they saw a particular species of butterfly I believe them, if I know that they know what that particular species of butterfly looks like. It does not mean that I believe "in" my friend or in the butterfly. It means that I trust my friend's ability and honesty. Still, before I would submit the sighting by my friend to others as fact, I would realize that 'officially' there's no proof of their sighting and therefore no real evidence.

I believe that the sun is shining right now because it is shining right now. Does that automatically mean that I believe "in" the sun? Not to me, and not to any other sane person.

You describe evolutionary theory as "concrete". That literally means that you believe that evolutionary theory is rock solid. It sounds like you believe in and have faith in the theory of evolution as strongly and solidly as any creationist does in their religious beliefs. Maybe you should be looking at yourself and your beliefs, not me or mine.

Kris:

"If you were here I’d kick your teeth down your throat. I’m not a liar and I don’t take kindly to being called one. You can be thankful that we’re not standing face to face."

....and you REALLY expect us to take you seriously ?????? You have come here and not talked on thread, called people names and accused them of lack of reading comprehension. Now you are acting the tough little bully, threatening to beat us up..... GROW UP !!!!

By the way, you did lie by contradicting yourself, changing your stories, and showing that you are willling to change the common meanings of words just so you can "best" the regulars here.

Sorry, you have to do better than that to survive here. Come back when you're actually grown up and decided to act like an adult.

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: I get it, the only thing you and most people want here is ranting about creationists. Anything else just can't be allowed here because it isn't inline with your obsessive compulsive creationist-hating disorder and the expressions of it here.

What else would you expect, Kris? Creationist bigots like you lie constantly, refuse to deal with reality in a consistent fashion, put 2000 or 3000 year old dogma above the latest scientific discoveries, and then have the nerve to come here and pick fights with people who understand evolution and the issues of science its education far better than them and you. OF COURSE when confronted with such dishonesty and idiocy, we spit back. THAT'S WHAT HUMAN BEINGS DO! Condemning us for it is itself abuse. You are an verbal abuser, period. No one is fooled by your plea for "tolerance".

If you're not a liar, Kris, then how come you've claimed that you aren't a troll, yet, make it clear that your sole purpose here is to pick fights?

And then there's the fact how you claimed to be a scientist, and yet, demonstrated a profound ignorance of science, such as conflating scientific debate and discussion with inner turmoil.

If you really hate this place, and hate everyone here who does not bend over backwards to agree with your statements, why do you insist on coming back again and again to pick fights with everyone? It makes your protests of not being a troll look hypocritical.

Kris said: How is being specific about what he was asking for moving the goalposts? I had no problem understanding what he asked for, because I know how to read. Even if he hadn't said genus and species I still would have understood.

Robin said:

Kris said:

Robin said:

Kris said:

Robin said:

Kris said: I can 'understand' astrology, or christianity, or probably any other religion or any fairy tale, but that doesn't mean I automatically believe or believe in those religions or fairy tales. I have been a strong believer for a long time that evolution has and does occur, but I also know that there are some pretty big holes in evolutionary theory. There's almost as much 'faith' in it as there is in religious beliefs. In the future there may be more evidence or proof that the theory of evolution is solid but for now at least you guys ought to be a little more open minded about the possibilities, at least when it comes to the unproven and questionable aspects of the theory. There's a LOT left to learn.

This explains a lot. It appears that you never actually studied evolution or any aspect of biology given your claim of "belief" in it. People who understand naturalistic processes do not depend on believing in them - they know them and can act on and explain how they operate. It is no different than understanding that the Earth orbits the Sun. I don't believe in orbital mechanics - I understand the process and can act on that knowledge. Does this mean that I know everything there is to know about Newtonian and Einsteinium Mechanics? No, but I don't have to know all there is to still know with 100% confidence that the Earth orbits the Sun and thus dispense with belief in that area altogether. A pity then that you've never actually understood evolution, but then that explains a great deal about your posts.

Let's see you show where I have ever said that I believe "in" evolution or evolutionary theory. Well?

Here:

I have been a strong believer for a long time that evolution has and does occur, but I also know that there are some pretty big holes in evolutionary theory. There's almost as much 'faith' in it as there is in religious beliefs.

You have been a "strong believer for a long time" that evolution has and does occur? Really? Why? What's there to "believe" in? Have you also been a "strong believer for a long time" that gravitation has and does occur? Are you aware that there are more big holes in gravitational theory than in evolutionary theory? Is there almost as much 'faith' in the theory of gravitation then as there is in religious beliefs? Unless you answer yes to all of the above - and admit complete ignorance of a basic concept in physics - your being disingenuous. The fact that you rely on belief with regard to evolution means you don't understand it, Kris. Plain and simple. The fact that you think that it requires almost as much 'faith' as religion means you don't know much about either science or religion.

In FACT, I have made a very obvious distinction between believing something and believing "in" something.

Makes no difference here - your claim that evolutionary theory requires 'faith' means you don't know a thing about science.

When I said "I have been a strong believer for a long time that evolution has and does occur.." I was simply saying that I believe that evolution has and does occur. It DOES NOT mean that I believe "in" evolution, especially in the same sense as a person believes "in" religious beliefs.

Actually, it means the same thing in terms of the words you chose. I'll be happy to diagram the two sentences for you if you don't understand why. However even granting that you don't understand why those phrases are identical in meaning and that you actually intended a subtle difference, the fact is the use of the term 'belief' in association with ANY process indicates you don't understand that process, even in colloquial terms. Ahhh...but then the fact that you feel that a theory as concrete as evolution requires "almost as much 'faith'" along the lines of religion completely destroys the validity of your claim. It makes you look quite uneducated.

Is there anyone here who can read and comprehend English? Anyone??

LOL!

I didn't say I believe "in". Come on, show me where I've said I believe "in" science or evolution or evolutionary theory. Go ahead, show me and everyone else here. You can't do it, can you? You're just playing games.

Are you actually still swinging that shovel, Kris? Dude - stop digging...the horse is dead...get over it. The fact is, whether you believe "in" a process vs believe "that a process has occurred" in the context of such including 'faith', the end result in terms of scientific validity of the claim is the same - none. You just scored an own goal - congrats!

Yes, I believe that evolution has occurred and does occur. What's wrong with that? Don't YOU believe that evolution has occurred and does occur? Isn't that what most people on this site believe?

If you really don't get it, answer this: do you believe that the Earth has and does orbit the Sun? I certainly DON'T believe that evolution has or does occur, any more than I believe that condensation has and does occur or that combustion has or does occur. These are physical processes that one either understands (and can explain absent belief) or that one does not understand. The latter is clearly where you fall in terms of evolution.

Neither science nor religion are a belief system to me personally, at least in the way that most people perceive a belief system. In other words, I don't believe "in" either. I believe that science and/or evolutionary theory have answers for many things and that some of those answers are strong or solid. However, I don't believe that science or evolutionary theory has explained or can explain everything and I also believe that science has a lot more work to do to in many cases.

Completely irrelevant to the point, but nice non-sequitur anyway.

I believe or at least seriously consider strong evidence or proof. I don't believe "in" anything, except maybe my own morals, standards and/or skills, and even with those things I don't normally think of it as 'believing in' them.

If you actually "seriously considered strong evidence", you'd never have considered, nevermind typed, the utter contradictory comment that evolution has nearly as much 'faith' as religion. Ironically, you have now indicated that you are completely unaware of the stark difference between seriously considering evidence and believing. That indicates a heck of a lot more to me about your understanding of science than your pleadings and explanations regarding your concept of what you don't "believing in."

I'm not answering yes to something you have totally twisted around and manipulated to become contrary to what I've said. Stop moving the goalposts and putting words in my mouth. YOU are the one being disingenuous, along with several others here.

I haven't moved any goalposts or twisted anything around. That you won't answer the question "Have you also been a "strong believer for a long time" that gravitation has and does occur?" says all I need to know about what you meant and your integrity.

When I said "I have been a strong believer for a long time that evolution has and does occur, but I also know that there are some pretty big holes in evolutionary theory. There’s almost as much ‘faith’ in it as there is in religious beliefs." it is obvious (to anyone with a clue) that I meant that some people have almost as much faith in evolutionary theory as some people have faith in their religious beliefs. I was referring to people like you and most of the others here. Most of you display a faith in evolutionary theory as blindly and certainly as religious zealots do in their religion.

That doesn't follow from your previous diatribe paragraph concerning the understanding vs believing in other religions. Further, your comment regarding YOUR belief that evolution has and does occur doesn't make any sense in that context. And since you didn't include any pronoun indicating anyone else but yourself, your claim here that "anyone with a clue" is disingenuous at best. What "clue" of this other context you are claiming do you think you presented? No...your claim as made is transparent - and it reveals your disingenuous nature.

And I did not say it "requires" faith. Show me where I did. You can't do that either, can you? What did you say about being disingenuous? Hypocrite.

No hypocrisy here. Not my fault your you're claims and ramblings demonstrate you are ignorant of the subjects.

And NO, the sentences you think you can "diagram" to prove your ridiculous interpretation of my words are NOT what you say they are. The REAL interpretation of what I wrote is what I say it is.

LOL! If that's the case, then your accusation that folks hereon can't read English is rather moot. How are we to know what your interpretation is unless you actually provide it in clear and concise English in context.

nd again I DID NOT say "requires", nor did I imply it. Learn how to read you stupid, illiterate moron.

You did imply such, and given your reading issues, nevermind writing issues, your name calling is rather amusing. LOL!

You obviously have a gigantic problem with the words believe and belief.

No, I just happen to know what they actually mean.

You apparently believe that they are always connected with religious beliefs or creationists.

Incorrect, but nice projection.

I've got news for you; they're not. When I, or most people, say I believe something I mean that I believe it's the truth or that it's real. It can apply to many things in life besides religious beliefs, but then you'd realize that if you weren't insanely obsessed with creationists and religion.

Project much? As for your accusation, since I already addressed this in (see my comment regarding use even in colloquial terms), I'll repeat - you might consider brushing up on your reading comprehension.

When a friend tells me they saw a particular species of butterfly I believe them, if I know that they know what that particular species of butterfly looks like. It does not mean that I believe "in" my friend or in the butterfly. It means that I trust my friend's ability and honesty. Still, before I would submit the sighting by my friend to others as fact, I would realize that 'officially' there's no proof of their sighting and therefore no real evidence.

Once again, irrelevant to the point. Apparently you missed the part where I pointed out the issue is with using 'belief' in terms of a process. You'd of course recognize this if you were honest enough to answer whether you believe gravity has and still does occur.

I believe that the sun is shining right now because it is shining right now. Does that automatically mean that I believe "in" the sun? Not to me, and not to any other sane person.

Irrelevant to the point yet again.

You describe evolutionary theory as "concrete". That literally means that you believe that evolutionary theory is rock solid. It sounds like you believe in and have faith in the theory of evolution as strongly and solidly as any creationist does in their religious beliefs. Maybe you should be looking at yourself and your beliefs, not me or mine.

Ummm...not quite, no. Expressing a theory as 'concrete' reflects the level of consistency the theory has demonstrated in its application within the area it pertains to. In this case, the Theory of Evolution has demonstrated "rock solid" (to use your phrase) consistency against the variety of tests across domains of research over the past 200 odd years. No "faith" is required in arriving at that assessment. Your assessment of my "beliefs" regarding such is, however, off the mark.

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: I get it, the only thing you and most people want here is ranting about creationists. Anything else just can't be allowed here because it isn't inline with your obsessive compulsive creationist-hating disorder and the expressions of it here.

What else would you expect, Kris? Creationist bigots like you lie constantly, refuse to deal with reality in a consistent fashion, put 2000 or 3000 year old dogma above the latest scientific discoveries, and then have the nerve to come here and pick fights with people who understand evolution and the issues of science its education far better than them and you. OF COURSE when confronted with such dishonesty and idiocy, we spit back. THAT'S WHAT HUMAN BEINGS DO! Condemning us for it is itself abuse. You are an verbal abuser, period. No one is fooled by your plea for "tolerance".

Creationist bigots like me?????? And that's coming from a wacko (you) who makes up his own religion? If you really believe that I'm a creationist, you are seriously delusional.

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: How is being specific about what he was asking for moving the goalposts? I had no problem understanding what he asked for, because I know how to read. Even if he hadn't said genus and species I still would have understood.

Because, you worthless @$$hole, Colin was making a request that he must have known was impossible, given that the only insects we would have from the time of their origins would be fossilized ones. And how could we tell that the earliest fossilized ones were indeed the first ones? And that is why you are a total fraud, Kris. LOL!

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

What else would you expect, Kris? Creationist bigots like you lie constantly, refuse to deal with reality in a consistent fashion, put 2000 or 3000 year old dogma above the latest scientific discoveries, and then have the nerve to come here and pick fights with people who understand evolution and the issues of science its education far better than them and you. OF COURSE when confronted with such dishonesty and idiocy, we spit back. THAT'S WHAT HUMAN BEINGS DO! Condemning us for it is itself abuse. You are an verbal abuser, period. No one is fooled by your plea for "tolerance".

Creationist bigots like me?????? And that's coming from a wacko (you) who makes up his own religion? If you really believe that I'm a creationist, you are seriously delusional.

I made up my own PHILOSOPHY, called Honorable Skepticism, in 2005 to replace religion in my life. And you ACT like a Creationist, constantly, and repeat most Creationist canards to annoy us. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, why should accept its claim that it is actually a dog?

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: How is being specific about what he was asking for moving the goalposts? I had no problem understanding what he asked for, because I know how to read. Even if he hadn't said genus and species I still would have understood.

Because, you worthless @$$hole, Colin was making a request that he must have known was impossible, given that the only insects we would have from the time of their origins would be fossilized ones. And how could we tell that the earliest fossilized ones were indeed the first ones? And that is why you are a total fraud, Kris. LOL!

I hope I'm not the only one who sees how nonsensical your remarks are.

Kris said:

Dale Husband said: What else would you expect, Kris? Creationist bigots like you lie constantly, refuse to deal with reality in a consistent fashion, put 2000 or 3000 year old dogma above the latest scientific discoveries, and then have the nerve to come here and pick fights with people who understand evolution and the issues of science its education far better than them and you. OF COURSE when confronted with such dishonesty and idiocy, we spit back. THAT'S WHAT HUMAN BEINGS DO! Condemning us for it is itself abuse. You are an verbal abuser, period. No one is fooled by your plea for "tolerance".

Creationist bigots like me?????? And that's coming from a wacko (you) who makes up his own religion? If you really believe that I'm a creationist, you are seriously delusional.

Stanton said: If you're not a liar, Kris, then how come you've claimed that you aren't a troll, yet, make it clear that your sole purpose here is to pick fights? And then there's the fact how you claimed to be a scientist, and yet, demonstrated a profound ignorance of science, such as conflating scientific debate and discussion with inner turmoil. If you really hate this place, and hate everyone here who does not bend over backwards to agree with your statements, why do you insist on coming back again and again to pick fights with everyone? It makes your protests of not being a troll look hypocritical.

Kris said: Colin asked to narrow it down to genus and species. You really like to play games and distort things and move goalposts and put words in people's mouths and just argue for the sake of arguing, don't you?

Kris said: Learn how to read and comprehend. Seriously. And you still haven’t (and can’t) show where I said the things you say I said. It must be embarrassing being you. I hope I’m not the only one who sees how nonsensical your remarks are. You’re pretty good at distorting facts and putting a dishonest spin on things. I’m not fooled though, even if other people are. I know what I’ve actually said.

Am I the only one that thinks the length of the discussion of what Kris did or did not say has far exceeded its value?

Science Avenger said: Am I the only one that thinks the length of the discussion of what Kris did or did not say has far exceeded its value?

Kris said: Learn how to read and comprehend. Seriously.

And you still haven't (and can't) show where I said the things you say I said. It must be embarrassing being you.

Stanton said:

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: I get it, the only thing you and most people want here is ranting about creationists. Anything else just can't be allowed here because it isn't inline with your obsessive compulsive creationist-hating disorder and the expressions of it here.

What else would you expect, Kris? Creationist bigots like you lie constantly, refuse to deal with reality in a consistent fashion, put 2000 or 3000 year old dogma above the latest scientific discoveries, and then have the nerve to come here and pick fights with people who understand evolution and the issues of science its education far better than them and you. OF COURSE when confronted with such dishonesty and idiocy, we spit back. THAT'S WHAT HUMAN BEINGS DO! Condemning us for it is itself abuse. You are an verbal abuser, period. No one is fooled by your plea for "tolerance".

Creationist bigots like me?????? And that's coming from a wacko (you) who makes up his own religion? If you really believe that I'm a creationist, you are seriously delusional.

Then how come you insist on deliberately ignoring all of the Creationist trolls here, save to defend them whenever we point out their egregious abuses of logic? How come you constantly harp about giant holes in the Theory of Evolution, while never elaborating or even specifying what they are, beyond dropping cryptic hints that you deliberately refuse to explain?

Kris said: Am I the only one that thinks the length of the discussion of what Kris did or did not say has far exceeded its value?

Mike Elzinga said:

Kris said: Am I the only one that thinks the length of the discussion of what Kris did or did not say has far exceeded its value?

Nope. I think we all see it pretty clearly. And now we can add violence to the profile. People who see right through his fakery really piss him off. He has been faking it most of his life; and it is obvious he has been called on it more than once before he even got to PT. I recall there was another abusive troll who haunted PT for a time. I think it was Keith Eaton. This current troll appears even more abusive and violent.

Stanton said: It's hard to top Keith's pogrom fantasies or veiled threats of rape.

Kris said:

Stanton said: How come you constantly harp about giant holes in the Theory of Evolution, while never elaborating or even specifying what they are, beyond dropping cryptic hints that you deliberately refuse to explain?

Where did I ever say...

Kris said: You're pretty good at distorting facts and putting a dishonest spin on things. I'm not fooled though, even if other people are. I know what I've actually said.

Oh man, the Pandas are in a troll-bashing frenzy today.

eric said:

Kris said:

Stanton said: How come you constantly harp about giant holes in the Theory of Evolution, while never elaborating or even specifying what they are, beyond dropping cryptic hints that you deliberately refuse to explain?

Where did I ever say...

For the record, Kris' response was 440 words long and didn't mention or discuss a single "giant hole. Kris, what holes do you see?

mrg said: Oh man, the Pandas are in a troll-bashing frenzy today.

Dale Husband said: More empty rhetoric, now that his bogus postering has been totally undone here. Kris, you are indeed a liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, pants on fire! And a hypocrite, because you can clearly dish out abuse but you cannot take it, can you?

IBelieveInGod said: I'm none of the above! Why engage Kris? I have my concerns about whether He/She really has any of my views.

Kris, if all you want to do is rant, please go to the place you have been directed for the past few pages. It is polite. This is not a place to rant, rave, or threaten.

If you truly are interested in being polite, then please move to After the Bar Closes forum and feel free to engage there. If you are polite, then I will be polite, but you better bring evidence and actually answer questions... unlike creationists.

Deal?

Krs sd: Whr dd vr s tht "nsst n dlbrtl grng ll f th Crtnst trlls hr, sv t dfnd thm whnvr w pnt t thr grgs bss f lgc?" Whr d GT ths CRP????? nd thrs rlly r clrl dmnstrtng wht ths st nd mst f th ppl hr rlly r bt. t's LL bt htng nd rntng bt crtnsts. Tht's th NL prpse hr. Scnc hs nthng t d wth t. 'r s fndmntlst n r blf sstm s an crtnsts. Th nl dffrnc btwn nd th ppl ht s th nm f r rlgn. XPCT m t ttck vry crtnst wh psts hr. thrws, 'm nt 'n f ' nd dn't blng hr. cll thm trlls jst bcs thy dn't gr wth . Fr ll knw an crtnst wh psts hr m b sncr n thr blfs nd sncr n th sttmnts r qustns thy pst hr. Tht dsn't ncssarl mk thm rght r wrng bt dn't ssm th'r hr jst t cs trbl. f thy wr t mk t pprnt t m tht th'r hr jst fr tht rsn mght b s lkl s nn t jmp n thm bt t. 'm nt mndlss zmb wh jns gng jst bcse th crrnt mmbrs f th gng thnk shld r dmnd tht shld. mk p m wn mnd bt wht ppl sy nd dn't tmtcll thnk tht th'r 'trll' (th mst vrsd wrd n th wb) jst bcs dn't r my nt agr wth thm. gs jst rll wn't ndrstnd r vn tr t ndrstnd tht smn cld pssbl dsgr wth , nd bvsl blv tht nn wh ds mst b hr nl t dlbrtl pck fghts nd cse trble. 'r s ntrnchd n R blf sstm tht, t , n thr ln f thght cld pssbl hv mrt r sncrt f ny knd. h, sme lns f thght b sm ppl r rll wck, bt gys xpct bslt, strct bdnc nd dvtn t r xct ln f thght, t ll tme nd n ll ws. N xcptns f n knd. nd nne wh dsn't b nd dvt thmslvs t r ln f thght (r ble sstm) bsltl, pstvl MST b 'crtnst trll' nd n nm f th stt (r chrch, r chrch). ff wth thr hds! nvr wld hv thght tht llgd scntsts cld thnk nd bhv th wy mst f ppl d, ntl spnt sm tm hr. Wht n pnr. N wndr prfr th cmpn f bttrfls vr ppl.

Dale Husband said: More empty rhetoric, now that his bogus postering has been totally undone here.

Kris said: Learn how to read and comprehend. Seriously. And you still haven’t (and can’t) show where I said the things you say I said. It must be embarrassing being you. I hope I’m not the only one who sees how nonsensical your remarks are. You’re pretty good at distorting facts and putting a dishonest spin on things. I’m not fooled though, even if other people are. I know what I’ve actually said.

Kris, you are indeed a liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, pants on fire! And a hypocrite, because you can clearly dish out abuse but you cannot take it, can you?

Dale Husband said: I can only hope that after this final useless and phony rant, Kris will do the obvious thing and never show up here to pick fights with us again. That is, if he really meant anything he said. Somehow, I think he didn't. Yes, we wage war on Creationists. We never said otherwise about ourselves or about the purpose of the Panda's Thumb blog. For some loon from out of nowhere to CONDEMN us for that very thing is most disingenuous. It's like condemning a pride of lions for hunting and killing zebras and wildebeests. That's what lions do, period.

Krs sd: Whr dd vr s tht "nsst n dlbrtl grng ll f th Crtnst trlls hr, sv t dfnd thm whnvr w pnt t thr grgs bss f lgc?" Whr d GT ths CRP????? nd thrs rlly r clrl dmnstrtng wht ths st nd mst f th ppl hr rlly r bt. t's LL bt htng nd rntng bt crtnsts. Tht's th NL prpse hr. Scnc hs nthng t d wth t. 'r s fndmntlst n r blf sstm s an crtnsts. Th nl dffrnc btwn nd th ppl ht s th nm f r rlgn. XPCT m t ttck vry crtnst wh psts hr. thrws, 'm nt 'n f ' nd dn't blng hr. cll thm trlls jst bcs thy dn't gr wth . Fr ll knw an crtnst wh psts hr m b sncr n thr blfs nd sncr n th sttmnts r qustns thy pst hr. Tht dsn't ncssarl mk thm rght r wrng bt dn't ssm th'r hr jst t cs trbl. f thy wr t mk t pprnt t m tht th'r hr jst fr tht rsn mght b s lkl s nn t jmp n thm bt t. 'm nt mndlss zmb wh jns gng jst bcse th crrnt mmbrs f th gng thnk shld r dmnd tht shld. mk p m wn mnd bt wht ppl sy nd dn't tmtcll thnk tht th'r 'trll' (th mst vrsd wrd n th wb) jst bcs dn't r my nt agr wth thm. gs jst rll wn't ndrstnd r vn tr t ndrstnd tht smn cld pssbl dsgr wth , nd bvsl blv tht nn wh ds mst b hr nl t dlbrtl pck fghts nd cse trble. 'r s ntrnchd n R blf sstm tht, t , n thr ln f thght cld pssbl hv mrt r sncrt f ny knd. h, sme lns f thght b sm ppl r rll wck, bt gys xpct bslt, strct bdnc nd dvtn t r xct ln f thght, t ll tme nd n ll ws. N xcptns f n knd. nd nne wh dsn't b nd dvt thmslvs t r ln f thght (r ble sstm) bsltl, pstvl MST b 'crtnst trll' nd n nm f th stt (r chrch, r chrch). ff wth thr hds! nvr wld hv thght tht llgd scntsts cld thnk nd bhv th wy mst f ppl d, ntl spnt sm tm hr. Wht n pnr. N wndr prfr th cmpn f bttrfls vr ppl.

IBelieveInGod said: Wage war on Creationists? That is your purpose here on this site? Wow you finally admit it, and I thought this was supposedly a science site. That clears things up! HUH!

Kris said: You and others really are clearly demonstrating what this site and most of the people here really are about. It's ALL about hating and ranting about creationists. That's the ONLY purpose here. Science has nothing to do with it. You're as fundamentalist in your belief system as any creationists. The only difference between you and the people you hate is the name of your religion.

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said: I can only hope that after this final useless and phony rant, Kris will do the obvious thing and never show up here to pick fights with us again. That is, if he really meant anything he said. Somehow, I think he didn't. Yes, we wage war on Creationists. We never said otherwise about ourselves or about the purpose of the Panda's Thumb blog. For some loon from out of nowhere to CONDEMN us for that very thing is most disingenuous. It's like condemning a pride of lions for hunting and killing zebras and wildebeests. That's what lions do, period.

Krs sd: Whr dd vr s tht "nsst n dlbrtl grng ll f th Crtnst trlls hr, sv t dfnd thm whnvr w pnt t thr grgs bss f lgc?" Whr d GT ths CRP????? nd thrs rlly r clrl dmnstrtng wht ths st nd mst f th ppl hr rlly r bt. t's LL bt htng nd rntng bt crtnsts. Tht's th NL prpse hr. Scnc hs nthng t d wth t. 'r s fndmntlst n r blf sstm s an crtnsts. Th nl dffrnc btwn nd th ppl ht s th nm f r rlgn. XPCT m t ttck vry crtnst wh psts hr. thrws, 'm nt 'n f ' nd dn't blng hr. cll thm trlls jst bcs thy dn't gr wth . Fr ll knw an crtnst wh psts hr m b sncr n thr blfs nd sncr n th sttmnts r qustns thy pst hr. Tht dsn't ncssarl mk thm rght r wrng bt dn't ssm th'r hr jst t cs trbl. f thy wr t mk t pprnt t m tht th'r hr jst fr tht rsn mght b s lkl s nn t jmp n thm bt t. 'm nt mndlss zmb wh jns gng jst bcse th crrnt mmbrs f th gng thnk shld r dmnd tht shld. mk p m wn mnd bt wht ppl sy nd dn't tmtcll thnk tht th'r 'trll' (th mst vrsd wrd n th wb) jst bcs dn't r my nt agr wth thm. gs jst rll wn't ndrstnd r vn tr t ndrstnd tht smn cld pssbl dsgr wth , nd bvsl blv tht nn wh ds mst b hr nl t dlbrtl pck fghts nd cse trble. 'r s ntrnchd n R blf sstm tht, t , n thr ln f thght cld pssbl hv mrt r sncrt f ny knd. h, sme lns f thght b sm ppl r rll wck, bt gys xpct bslt, strct bdnc nd dvtn t r xct ln f thght, t ll tme nd n ll ws. N xcptns f n knd. nd nne wh dsn't b nd dvt thmslvs t r ln f thght (r ble sstm) bsltl, pstvl MST b 'crtnst trll' nd n nm f th stt (r chrch, r chrch). ff wth thr hds! nvr wld hv thght tht llgd scntsts cld thnk nd bhv th wy mst f ppl d, ntl spnt sm tm hr. Wht n pnr. N wndr prfr th cmpn f bttrfls vr ppl.

Wage war on Creationists? That is your purpose here on this site? Wow you finally admit it, and I thought this was supposedly a science site. That clears things up! HUH!

Please stop feeding the trolls.

They only get pleasure from tweaking us. They can't even handle a smidgen of actual intellectual effort. It's actually funny, but they are just boring.

Science bitches, it works. ID fails... again and again.

ben said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said: I can only hope that after this final useless and phony rant, Kris will do the obvious thing and never show up here to pick fights with us again. That is, if he really meant anything he said. Somehow, I think he didn't. Yes, we wage war on Creationists. We never said otherwise about ourselves or about the purpose of the Panda's Thumb blog. For some loon from out of nowhere to CONDEMN us for that very thing is most disingenuous. It's like condemning a pride of lions for hunting and killing zebras and wildebeests. That's what lions do, period.

Krs sd: Whr dd vr s tht "nsst n dlbrtl grng ll f th Crtnst trlls hr, sv t dfnd thm whnvr w pnt t thr grgs bss f lgc?" Whr d GT ths CRP????? nd thrs rlly r clrl dmnstrtng wht ths st nd mst f th ppl hr rlly r bt. t's LL bt htng nd rntng bt crtnsts. Tht's th NL prpse hr. Scnc hs nthng t d wth t. 'r s fndmntlst n r blf sstm s an crtnsts. Th nl dffrnc btwn nd th ppl ht s th nm f r rlgn. XPCT m t ttck vry crtnst wh psts hr. thrws, 'm nt 'n f ' nd dn't blng hr. cll thm trlls jst bcs thy dn't gr wth . Fr ll knw an crtnst wh psts hr m b sncr n thr blfs nd sncr n th sttmnts r qustns thy pst hr. Tht dsn't ncssarl mk thm rght r wrng bt dn't ssm th'r hr jst t cs trbl. f thy wr t mk t pprnt t m tht th'r hr jst fr tht rsn mght b s lkl s nn t jmp n thm bt t. 'm nt mndlss zmb wh jns gng jst bcse th crrnt mmbrs f th gng thnk shld r dmnd tht shld. mk p m wn mnd bt wht ppl sy nd dn't tmtcll thnk tht th'r 'trll' (th mst vrsd wrd n th wb) jst bcs dn't r my nt agr wth thm. gs jst rll wn't ndrstnd r vn tr t ndrstnd tht smn cld pssbl dsgr wth , nd bvsl blv tht nn wh ds mst b hr nl t dlbrtl pck fghts nd cse trble. 'r s ntrnchd n R blf sstm tht, t , n thr ln f thght cld pssbl hv mrt r sncrt f ny knd. h, sme lns f thght b sm ppl r rll wck, bt gys xpct bslt, strct bdnc nd dvtn t r xct ln f thght, t ll tme nd n ll ws. N xcptns f n knd. nd nne wh dsn't b nd dvt thmslvs t r ln f thght (r ble sstm) bsltl, pstvl MST b 'crtnst trll' nd n nm f th stt (r chrch, r chrch). ff wth thr hds! nvr wld hv thght tht llgd scntsts cld thnk nd bhv th wy mst f ppl d, ntl spnt sm tm hr. Wht n pnr. N wndr prfr th cmpn f bttrfls vr ppl.

Wage war on Creationists? That is your purpose here on this site? Wow you finally admit it, and I thought this was supposedly a science site. That clears things up! HUH!

This site isn't "a science site". It's about "defending the integrity of science". The reason that the integrity of science needs to be defended is that science is under vigorous and constant attack from nitwits like yourself, who hate science because it focuses its singularly-effective explanatory power on the universe and finds not the slightest trace of, or need for, your silly imaginary friend. Science didn't start the war, religious bigots like you did. Quit whining, and quit pretending that your moronic bronze age superstitions can be confirmed scientifically, and I promise you the war will end. Another, simpler step you could take to rise above all of it would be to just stop coming here, which I think would please almost everyone greatly.

IBelieveInGod said:

ben said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said: I can only hope that after this final useless and phony rant, Kris will do the obvious thing and never show up here to pick fights with us again. That is, if he really meant anything he said. Somehow, I think he didn't. Yes, we wage war on Creationists. We never said otherwise about ourselves or about the purpose of the Panda's Thumb blog. For some loon from out of nowhere to CONDEMN us for that very thing is most disingenuous. It's like condemning a pride of lions for hunting and killing zebras and wildebeests. That's what lions do, period.

Krs sd: Whr dd vr s tht "nsst n dlbrtl grng ll f th Crtnst trlls hr, sv t dfnd thm whnvr w pnt t thr grgs bss f lgc?" Whr d GT ths CRP????? nd thrs rlly r clrl dmnstrtng wht ths st nd mst f th ppl hr rlly r bt. t's LL bt htng nd rntng bt crtnsts. Tht's th NL prpse hr. Scnc hs nthng t d wth t. 'r s fndmntlst n r blf sstm s an crtnsts. Th nl dffrnc btwn nd th ppl ht s th nm f r rlgn. XPCT m t ttck vry crtnst wh psts hr. thrws, 'm nt 'n f ' nd dn't blng hr. cll thm trlls jst bcs thy dn't gr wth . Fr ll knw an crtnst wh psts hr m b sncr n thr blfs nd sncr n th sttmnts r qustns thy pst hr. Tht dsn't ncssarl mk thm rght r wrng bt dn't ssm th'r hr jst t cs trbl. f thy wr t mk t pprnt t m tht th'r hr jst fr tht rsn mght b s lkl s nn t jmp n thm bt t. 'm nt mndlss zmb wh jns gng jst bcse th crrnt mmbrs f th gng thnk shld r dmnd tht shld. mk p m wn mnd bt wht ppl sy nd dn't tmtcll thnk tht th'r 'trll' (th mst vrsd wrd n th wb) jst bcs dn't r my nt agr wth thm. gs jst rll wn't ndrstnd r vn tr t ndrstnd tht smn cld pssbl dsgr wth , nd bvsl blv tht nn wh ds mst b hr nl t dlbrtl pck fghts nd cse trble. 'r s ntrnchd n R blf sstm tht, t , n thr ln f thght cld pssbl hv mrt r sncrt f ny knd. h, sme lns f thght b sm ppl r rll wck, bt gys xpct bslt, strct bdnc nd dvtn t r xct ln f thght, t ll tme nd n ll ws. N xcptns f n knd. nd nne wh dsn't b nd dvt thmslvs t r ln f thght (r ble sstm) bsltl, pstvl MST b 'crtnst trll' nd n nm f th stt (r chrch, r chrch). ff wth thr hds! nvr wld hv thght tht llgd scntsts cld thnk nd bhv th wy mst f ppl d, ntl spnt sm tm hr. Wht n pnr. N wndr prfr th cmpn f bttrfls vr ppl.

Wage war on Creationists? That is your purpose here on this site? Wow you finally admit it, and I thought this was supposedly a science site. That clears things up! HUH!

This site isn't "a science site". It's about "defending the integrity of science". The reason that the integrity of science needs to be defended is that science is under vigorous and constant attack from nitwits like yourself, who hate science because it focuses its singularly-effective explanatory power on the universe and finds not the slightest trace of, or need for, your silly imaginary friend. Science didn't start the war, religious bigots like you did. Quit whining, and quit pretending that your moronic bronze age superstitions can be confirmed scientifically, and I promise you the war will end. Another, simpler step you could take to rise above all of it would be to just stop coming here, which I think would please almost everyone greatly.

Science needs defending? Sorry, I don't see that here, what I see defended here is pseudo-science.

I don't consider Abiogenesis, Evolution by common descent, or Big Bang to actually be real science.

So, if the integrity of science is what you want to defend, then stop the defending of pseudo-science.

Ten Reasons Why "Kris" Is Not "IBIG"

1) "Kris" said so.

2) "IBIG" said so.

3) "Kris" uses profane language. "IBIG" refrains from profanity, so far (though he might tell you you're going to Hell).

4) "IBIG" copiously quotes bible verses and posts 6,000-word Spurgeon sermons copied from AiG. "Kris" has not quoted the bible (so far) nor copied a sermon (so far).

5) "Kris", despite thousands of words posted, has yet to make a point or to write anything of substance. "IBIG" has difficulty posting his own thoughts, but once in a while makes a point (he says, "The point I was trying to make was ...")

6) "Kris" says "Sure doesn't sound scientific!" "IBIG" says "NOT SCIENTIFIC!".

7) "IBIG" claims to 'understand evolution' and says "Common Descent IS A LIE!!!!!!!!". "Kris" claims to 'believe' in evolution but has 'doubts' about the 'gaping holes' in evolutionary theory.

8) "Kris" replies to responses posters make to "IBIG". "IBIG" replies to responses posters make to "Kris".

9) "IBIG" has flooded a forum with his provocative posts. "Kris" floods forums with his provocative posts.

10) "IBIG" often makes one-sentence and one-question replies to long, thoughtful responses. "Kris" often makes one-sentence and one-question replies to long, thoughtful responses.

IBelieveInGod said:

ben said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said: I can only hope that after this final useless and phony rant, Kris will do the obvious thing and never show up here to pick fights with us again. That is, if he really meant anything he said. Somehow, I think he didn't. Yes, we wage war on Creationists. We never said otherwise about ourselves or about the purpose of the Panda's Thumb blog. For some loon from out of nowhere to CONDEMN us for that very thing is most disingenuous. It's like condemning a pride of lions for hunting and killing zebras and wildebeests. That's what lions do, period.

Krs sd: Whr dd vr s tht "nsst n dlbrtl grng ll f th Crtnst trlls hr, sv t dfnd thm whnvr w pnt t thr grgs bss f lgc?" Whr d GT ths CRP????? nd thrs rlly r clrl dmnstrtng wht ths st nd mst f th ppl hr rlly r bt. t's LL bt htng nd rntng bt crtnsts. Tht's th NL prpse hr. Scnc hs nthng t d wth t. 'r s fndmntlst n r blf sstm s an crtnsts. Th nl dffrnc btwn nd th ppl ht s th nm f r rlgn. XPCT m t ttck vry crtnst wh psts hr. thrws, 'm nt 'n f ' nd dn't blng hr. cll thm trlls jst bcs thy dn't gr wth . Fr ll knw an crtnst wh psts hr m b sncr n thr blfs nd sncr n th sttmnts r qustns thy pst hr. Tht dsn't ncssarl mk thm rght r wrng bt dn't ssm th'r hr jst t cs trbl. f thy wr t mk t pprnt t m tht th'r hr jst fr tht rsn mght b s lkl s nn t jmp n thm bt t. 'm nt mndlss zmb wh jns gng jst bcse th crrnt mmbrs f th gng thnk shld r dmnd tht shld. mk p m wn mnd bt wht ppl sy nd dn't tmtcll thnk tht th'r 'trll' (th mst vrsd wrd n th wb) jst bcs dn't r my nt agr wth thm. gs jst rll wn't ndrstnd r vn tr t ndrstnd tht smn cld pssbl dsgr wth , nd bvsl blv tht nn wh ds mst b hr nl t dlbrtl pck fghts nd cse trble. 'r s ntrnchd n R blf sstm tht, t , n thr ln f thght cld pssbl hv mrt r sncrt f ny knd. h, sme lns f thght b sm ppl r rll wck, bt gys xpct bslt, strct bdnc nd dvtn t r xct ln f thght, t ll tme nd n ll ws. N xcptns f n knd. nd nne wh dsn't b nd dvt thmslvs t r ln f thght (r ble sstm) bsltl, pstvl MST b 'crtnst trll' nd n nm f th stt (r chrch, r chrch). ff wth thr hds! nvr wld hv thght tht llgd scntsts cld thnk nd bhv th wy mst f ppl d, ntl spnt sm tm hr. Wht n pnr. N wndr prfr th cmpn f bttrfls vr ppl.

Wage war on Creationists? That is your purpose here on this site? Wow you finally admit it, and I thought this was supposedly a science site. That clears things up! HUH!

This site isn't "a science site". It's about "defending the integrity of science". The reason that the integrity of science needs to be defended is that science is under vigorous and constant attack from nitwits like yourself, who hate science because it focuses its singularly-effective explanatory power on the universe and finds not the slightest trace of, or need for, your silly imaginary friend. Science didn't start the war, religious bigots like you did. Quit whining, and quit pretending that your moronic bronze age superstitions can be confirmed scientifically, and I promise you the war will end. Another, simpler step you could take to rise above all of it would be to just stop coming here, which I think would please almost everyone greatly.

Science needs defending? Sorry, I don't see that here, what I see defended here is pseudo-science. I don't consider Abiogenesis, Evolution by common descent, or Big Bang to actually be real science. So, if the integrity of science is what you want to defend, then stop the defending of pseudo-science.