Exactly - tumbleweeds are irreducibly complex, full of CSI, and could not possibly have evolved!
Hercules Grytpype-Thynne · 8 April 2011
So tumbleweeds are the visual equivalent of crickets?
mrg · 8 April 2011
Rather more terse than the "creationist claims" list over on talk.origins. Wait to see what Denyse O'Luskin has to say about THIS!
"Listening to a creationist arguing science is like watching a dog chasing a car. There's a lot of running and barking, but if he catches it, he has absolutely no idea of how to drive."
And I emphatically agree with every single item on the list and DEMAND that every evolutionist acknowledge their absolute truth!!
And I demand that every biology teacher in every high school, charter school, private school, home school and every advisor to the Texas Board of Education teach every single one of these arguments!
John_S · 8 April 2011
Wait. Didn't somebody prove that if you leave a jar of peanut butter, it won't turn into a living creature? Plus, if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around? Why aren't they on that list, darn it? Didn't Darwin deny evolution on his death bed?
Karen S. · 8 April 2011
I always knew it was a hoax. And the tumbleweed is still a tumbleweed. It didn't evolve into a water buffalo as I watched it.
Hercules Grytpype-Thynne · 8 April 2011
Karen S. said:
I always knew it was a hoax. And the tumbleweed is still a tumbleweed. It didn't evolve into a water buffalo as I watched it.
And why is it we never see a true transitional form, such as a tumbleuffalo?
The lone cowboy stared at the haze of dust rising on the horizon. As his horse nickered nervously, he spat contemptuously in the dirt, knowing full well that the drift fence he'd just repaired would contain the oncoming thundering herd of tumbleweeds. "Them city slickers don't know whut they're missin'," he thought,"payin' over a hunnert dollars for a fancified green Christmas tree when they could have their very own real 'Merkan tumbleweed."
He sighed at the memories of the gaudily-bedecked tumbleweeds from holidays past, spat the last of his chew, and cantered out to guide the stragglers back to the herd. Yep, life was good.
mrg · 8 April 2011
Nice story, but there's also the amusement that tumbleweeds are an invasive species from the Ukraine. They were unknown in the USA until after the Civil War.
True Facts!
Mike Elzinga · 8 April 2011
That audio of the preacher linked to by Cheryl’s name is still the standard shtick containing the typical straw man arguments that ID/creationists still believe are their “slam dunk” arguments that will embarrass every teacher and professor of science.
Creationists flaunt their ignorance forever, no matter how many times they have been debunked.
This is one very bad preacher who rails in smug arrogance against things about which he knows absolutely nothing. He just makes up crap as he goes. He can’t even read the high school level books in front of him.
Children should not be preachers.
0112358 · 8 April 2011
Mike Elzinga said:
Children should not be preachers.
Many people who believe that God created the universe and everything in it make the mistake of equating evolution with naturalism and so, rant against evolution.
Many people who believe that life is the result of evolution make the mistake of equating evolution with naturalism and so, rant against super-naturalism.
There is much room for thinking on both sides of the aisle.
Mike Elzinga · 8 April 2011
0112358 said:
Mike Elzinga said:
Children should not be preachers.
Many people who believe that God created the universe and everything in it make the mistake of equating evolution with naturalism and so, rant against evolution.
Many people who believe that life is the result of evolution make the mistake of equating evolution with naturalism and so, rant against super-naturalism.
There is much room for thinking on both sides of the aisle.
I have been following ID/creationist “thinking” since the 1970s, beginning with Henry Morris’s and Duane Gish’s constant mischaracterizations of science that still continue to this very day on the ICR, AiG, and DI websites.
The only “thinking” that has ever taken place among ID/creationists has been political strategizing to get around the courts and for taunting scientists into debates in order to get a free ride on the coattails of legitimate scientists. Not one ID/creationist has ever done any research that demonstrates ID/creationism has any purchase in the real world.
There is not one, I repeat, not one ID/creationist that understands or can articulate any scientific concept.
That preacher hit every wrong note. That makes him not only irresponsible, but dishonest as well.
Children should not be preachers.
Life of Pi · 8 April 2011
Fibber said:
Many people who believe that life is the result of evolution make the mistake of equating evolution with naturalism and so, rant against super-naturalism.
People rant against super-naturalism because of a total lack of credible evidence for super-naturalism. Evolution has noting to do with it.
Most of us who criticise the supernaturalism in creationism also criticise supernaturalism in ghost-chasing, fortune telling, clairvoyance, demonic possession, magic (er, I mean magick), and so on. What's more, we also tend to criticise pseudonaturalism (that is, supernaturalism dressed up to look like natural science) like ID, quantum healing, homeopathy, etc.
One thing I do agree on: material naturalists like myself can learn a lot from supernatural theories. For one thing, we'll never run out of logical fallacies to study. One day, when neuroscience is more advanced, I'd love to watch the development of the field of neurofallacious theory, which would in principle be a comprehensive theory of the structure of fallacious arguments and the neurological feedback loops that make them so persistent even in the face of overwhelming fail.
I am reminded of some old country song with the line "drifting along with the tumbling tumbleweeds."
harold · 9 April 2011
Many people who believe that God created the universe and everything in it make the mistake of equating evolution with naturalism and so, rant against evolution.
Many, but by no means all, religious people, do indeed rant illogically against evolution. I also hear people ranting against "naturalism", although without bothering to clarify exactly what they mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism.
Many people who believe that life is the result of evolution
The theory of evolution explains the diversity and relatedness of life on earth, but not the origin of life on earth.
make the mistake of equating evolution with naturalism and so, rant against super-naturalism.
I haven't encountered this.
I've encountered many people who object to teaching religious dogma as "science" in public schools. I've encountered many people who are not religious. I've encountered many people who reject logically false arguments in favor of religion. I've encountered many people (both religious and not religious) who take supernatural or unscientific claims with healthy skepticism.
Of course, maybe you think that people should uncritically accept things like "the number 13 brings bad luck", and that failing to do so is a "rant against supernaturalism".
There is much room for thinking on both sides of the aisle.
I suppose this is trivially true.
However, I certainly object to the implied false equivalence between creationists and rational people who happen not to be religious.
harold · 9 April 2011
This is one very bad preacher who rails in smug arrogance against things about which he knows absolutely nothing. He just makes up crap as he goes. He can’t even read the high school level books in front of him.
I got exactly as far as the "if the first sentence is false it must all be false" bullshit at the beginning.
1) That's so trivially false that any honest person can see the logical error. Some parts of a book can be true while other parts are false. In fact, the Bible contains internal contradictions, parts that advise against following other parts, and also, however, many parts that almost anyone would accept as "true". (If it were logically valid, it would be an obvious argument that nothing in the Bible is "true", since insects don't have four legs, pi doesn't equal three, and so on, but it's logically absurd.)
2) It's also obnoxious, creepy, emotional blackmail.
3) Remember that this line of "reasoning" has nothing to do with sincere theological inquiry (whatever one may think of theological inquiry). He's just winding up to start demanding a harsh, sadistic, authoritarian social system, with, by some coincidence, himself as one of the privileged authorities. Since that won't be popular, he'll argue that you have to take it, and like it too, because "God commands it". But since that claim about God will be disputed by plenty of religious people, he'll pull out the false arguments that "the entire Bible has to be literally true", and then, in a display or pure self-serving hypocrisy, proceed to cherry pick a few obscure harsh or blatantly mythological passages to be "literally true", while acting completely in conflict with far more important passages.
Matt G · 9 April 2011
Reminds me of the opening scene of The Big Lebowski. Also reminds me of the Compendium of Jewish Professional Athletes and the Complete Collection of Irish Erotic Literature.
Cool images of the Flying Spaghetti Monster noodling from left to right.
harold · 9 April 2011
Compendium of Jewish Professional Athletes
Although you are possibly Jewish yourself if you made that joke, and I am not, still, in the interest of combating stereotypes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_American_sportspeople
Matt G · 9 April 2011
harold said:
Compendium of Jewish Professional Athletes
Although you are possibly Jewish yourself if you made that joke, and I am not, still, in the interest of combating stereotypes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_American_sportspeople
Books with titles similar to these actually exist, and I'm guessing that their authors were Jewish and Irish respectively (the ex-girlfriends who showed them to me were). Just like with the Michael Scott character in The Office, I'm making fun OF stereotypes, not making fun THROUGH stereotypes. And why did someone put that Wikipedia page together in the first place? Is there some connection between sports and religion I don't know about? Blacks are underrepresented in golf - is there a Wikipedia page for them too?
harold · 9 April 2011
Matt G. -
My comment was actually not intended to be critical.
I was completely non-offended by your comment, and by the Wikipedia page, which I found interesting. I'm not the biggest sports fan in the world, but I do follow some sports, and know some people who grew up with one of the people mentioned on the page.
I don't know who put the page up, I can't think of any argument against it being there, and anyone who wants to can put up a web site or Wiki article about the African-American experience in golf, any time.
harold said:
Matt G. -
My comment was actually not intended to be critical.
I was completely non-offended by your comment,
Harold - I didn't think you were being critical, and hope I didn't come across as defensive. (Off off topic: There's an interesting discussion over at Pharyngula about acceptance of interracial (etc.) marriage).
peter · 9 April 2011
"Remember that this line of “reasoning” has nothing to do with sincere theological inquiry"
hahahahhahahhhhhoooooooohuihuihui...serious theology...like serious inquiry into the existence of hobbits in england, eh?
peter · 9 April 2011
As there is no evidence except the brainfart products of various tribes and societies, mythologies codified without any reference to any objective observable phenomenon, how can theology anything but ridiculous. I let it pass to analyze the various not so holy books with the tools of litarary criticism - but THEOLOGY, that is like taking Fafnir serious as an actual entity.
Theology is as much a con as any religion it "studies". Clouds of fluff upon clouds of fluff with the angels dancing on the head of a pin.
Paul Burnett · 9 April 2011
peter said: Theology is as much a con as any religion it "studies".
Theologians observe the unobservable, define the undefinable, know the unknowable, rationalize the irrational - and want you to give them money for doing it.
FL · 9 April 2011
A bit off topic, but nothing on Tennessee?
Nope, nothing much to discuss, until and unless the Senate passes the bill around the end of the month (tentatively). Maybe si, maybe no. Just gotta wait patiently and see what happens.
But if, just if, the Senate does vote for it, then oh boy oh boyyyy .... it's gonna be time for some HOT TROLL IN THE PT HOUSE once again!!!
FL
After FL lied about racism, he ran away and refused to read the papers that proved he was wrong. Why listen to anything he has to say? Why not just ignore him and his ignorant nonsense? WHy not ban him to the bathroom wall?
mrg · 9 April 2011
Because people like to argue with them. I mean, look at these guys -- Stimpson, Biggie, FL, Byers -- they're just blowing smoke and it doesn't take more than a moment to figure out that it's all it is.
However, some people just enjoy trading shots with them. I will do so on occasion, but I pretty quickly realize I've got better things to do with my time, and gradually I've been learning to simply tune them out.
It would be nice if everyone did, but that's not going to happen, and so one has to be satisfied with making a personal choice in the matter.
mrg · 9 April 2011
Because people like it.
I mean, all these guys -- Biggie, FL, Stimpson, Byers -- are just blowing smoke, and it doesn't take very long to figure out there's nothing else there. But some folks just enjoy trading shots with them.
I will do so on occasion, but it doesn't take long for me to realize that I have better things to do with my time, and gradually I've learned to tune them out. It's not hard to do; once the babble has been recognized for what it is, it just doesn't register as anything more.
It would be nice if everyone tuned it out, but that's not going to happen, and so I take satisfaction in doing so as a personal decision.
Bob Carroll · 9 April 2011
There may not be a tumbluffalo, but how about buffalo grass?
Nope, nothing much to discuss, until and unless the Senate passes the bill around the end of the month (tentatively). Maybe si, maybe no. Just gotta wait patiently and see what happens.
But if, just if, the Senate does vote for it, then oh boy oh boyyyy .... it's gonna be time for some HOT TROLL IN THE PT HOUSE once again!!!
FL
So you admit to being nothing but a troll. We always knew that. You and the other members of your degenerate cult can go suck lemons all day.
harold · 9 April 2011
My impressions -
FL - Repetitive, but worth shooting down once in a while. There may be some new lurkers around, and he is a pure, laboratory grade version of some of the whackier and more internally contradictory creationist claims. Also an exceptionally classic example of a troll in the true sense of "one who posts to stir up trouble".
Byers - A regressive troglodyte, but with some manners; doesn't threaten, abuse, or try to take over threads. Has spelling and grammar issues but is no more logically incoherent than the more polished weasels at the DI; Anglo-looking name does not rule out English as a second language, Irish and English surnames are pretty common among French Canadians, just as French surnames are pretty common among Anglophone Americans and Canadians. Generally makes obscure points of his own that don't really need to be addressed. Seems to provoke some people to rage, however. Often accused of lying but may be the rare example of a creationist who believes himself.
Stimpson - In past incarnations, the mirror image of FL - pure, unadulterated version of "ID isn't religious" type (despite strong evidence that he denies evolution to avoid rejection by fundamentalist relatives), with a lot of meaningless blather about "information". Relatively non-abusive but prone to juvenile one-liners, cherry-picking, and evading challenges. May have savant characteristics. Often worth addressing for the sake of new lurkers, as he reproduces DI cant fairly accurately, and then crumbles when it is challenged. Less manners than Byers, and with definite trolling tendencies, but let's give credit where it is due, generally not prone to threats, or overt homophobia/misogyny/racism. Sometimes manipulated/egged on by the more purely trollish Steve P.
IBIG - Here are my educated guesses - Individual or small team of individuals who are in an isolated, authoritarian, fundamentalist situation, and suffering from severe cognitive dissonance/probable suppressed desire to escape. Gender unclear (could be mixed gender team). Could be present or past victim of physical abuse. Strong obsessive tendencies. Uses "never stop talking as fast as possible" defense mechanism. Despite this, could be shamefully holding back uglier parts of an ideology. Inevitably sent to BW shortly after appearance.
Mike Elzinga · 9 April 2011
mrg said:
It would be nice if everyone tuned it out, but that's not going to happen, and so I take satisfaction in doing so as a personal decision.
Extracting their profiles has been of some use in getting a better picture of ID/creationist rubes; but they have become pretty repetitive by now.
None of them can articulate anything scientific or even pseudo-scientific. They have been pretty much reduced throwing feces and taunting (and that, in itself, tells us something about their so-called “Christianity”).
FL the malicious mendacious delusional Afro-American IDiot barked:
FL the Racist Bigoted Liar said:
If FL went away after these intemperate outbursts, I would not particularly blame him. I am a bit late, but I have decided to send them both to the bathroom wall, and I will not tolerate any more veiled or unveiled racist jibes on this thread. Frankly, if the policy were left up to me, I would have deleted those comments entirely.
Karen S. · 9 April 2011
There may not be a tumbluffalo, but how about buffalo grass?
heck, why not buffalo chips?
Mike Elzinga · 9 April 2011
Karen S. said:
There may not be a tumbluffalo, but how about buffalo grass?
heck, why not buffalo chips?
There it is; convergent evolution. Chips evolved from buffalo, pokers, and potatoes.
william e emba · 9 April 2011
Matt G said:
Reminds me of the opening scene of The Big Lebowski. Also reminds me of the Compendium of Jewish Professional Athletes and the Complete Collection of Irish Erotic Literature.
The only one of these books I ever bought was Dinnerstein The Wit and Wisdom of Spiro T. Agnew.
FL · 9 April 2011
When the Senate votes up or down on the TN bill, we can go ahead and discuss it then. If it passes--and also if the governor signs the bill, as per Paul Burnett's reminder--then that would be very important. (And also historic, since TN gave us the big Scopes drama.)
Meanwhile, I'm not particularly worried about recent heat-of-battle mistakes by certain posters, (nor about recent armchair profiling efforts by other posters), and I don't do grudges.
Having said that, I am in fact done with this thread (except to acknowledge out loud that PT's level of moderation IS visibly better than some other forums. Have to give credit where due.)
FL
SWT · 10 April 2011
FL said:
When the Senate votes up or down on the TN bill, we can go ahead and discuss it then.
Right. It's never a good idea to discuss legislation before it's voted on.
John Kwok · 10 April 2011
Matt Young said:
FL the malicious mendacious delusional Afro-American IDiot barked:
FL the Racist Bigoted Liar said:
If FL went away after these intemperate outbursts, I would not particularly blame him. I am a bit late, but I have decided to send them both to the bathroom wall, and I will not tolerate any more veiled or unveiled racist jibes on this thread. Frankly, if the policy were left up to me, I would have deleted those comments entirely.
I personally wouldn't lose any sleep Matt if I was referred to as John Kwok the zealous former Asian-American Stuyvesant High School student of Frank McCourt who thinks he was Irish. There is nothing that either Stanton or I wrote in our respective comments that could be viewed as racist. Anyway, to set the record straight, it was FL who wanted everyone to know that he's a diehard delusional Xian of Afro-American heritage.
John Kwok · 10 April 2011
FL the malicious mendicant Xian IDiot decreed:
When the Senate votes up or down on the TN bill, we can go ahead and discuss it then. If it passes--and also if the governor signs the bill, as per Paul Burnett's reminder--then that would be very important. (And also historic, since TN gave us the big Scopes drama.)
Meanwhile, I'm not particularly worried about recent heat-of-battle mistakes by certain posters, (nor about recent armchair profiling efforts by other posters), and I don't do grudges.
Having said that, I am in fact done with this thread (except to acknowledge out loud that PT's level of moderation IS visibly better than some other forums. Have to give credit where due.)
FL
What you have proposed Floyd is conduct that occurred in the most notorious totalitarian dictatorships of the 20th Century, whether it was Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia (especially under Lenin, Stalin and, to a lesser extent, Brezhnev), the People's Republic of China and such notable Fascist "democracies" as Mussolini's Italy and Hussein's Iraq. The last time I checked, ours is a democratic republic and we - that is the voting electorate of the United States - have every right to debate the merits of such breathtakingly inane legislation like the one just passed by Tennessee's lower House. This is the very same democratic republic that protects your right to profess belief in a twisted, tormented, form of Protestant Christianity that is unrecognizable to virtually all of us here posting at PT as a truly valid, sound, religious faith.
FL said:
When the Senate votes up or down on the TN bill, we can go ahead and discuss it then. If it passes--and also if the governor signs the bill, as per Paul Burnett's reminder--then that would be very important. (And also historic, since TN gave us the big Scopes drama.)
So tell us how this bill will improve science education by forcing teachers to teach anti-science religious propaganda in place of science.
harold · 10 April 2011
I can't recall whether FL ever said he was African-American, or whether someone else made that guess (possibly because there is an African American blues musician who, if it isn't the same person, is also named Floyd Lee), and I can't think of anything more irrelevant.
I have not seen FL make any racist statements, ever. That's not praise, it's just an objective statement of fact. Is there a positive association between political creationism and racism? There absolutely is. However, many individuals adhere to one or the other without adhering to both.
All creationists make false statements that must be, by definition, products of either dishonesty, disconnect from reality, or a combination of the two. I don't see the use of synonyms for those conditions, applied to creationists, as a big problem. They can always stop denying scientific reality any time they want.
Mike Elzinga · 10 April 2011
One sees FL buying into the notion that Darwin was the cause of the eugenics movements, especially against Blacks, over on that ”Why it needed saying, UK style" thread.
Interesting video, but anybody who watches it will immediately notice that Dr. Tyson doesn’t say one word (count ‘em–not even one!!) in rebuttal to the fact that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.
Nor is there a single word from Tyson against the clear historical connection between evolution, eugenics, sterilizations, Hitler, and dead Aborigines. Not even one word.
The entire video was simply Tyson arguing the standard canned dysteleology argument, denying the existence of what he called “a benevolent anything”.
And of course he ignores ALL the clear astronomical evidences (such as solar eclipses) by which a rational person might at least conclude that there’s too many current coinky-dinks for mere chance to account for, regarding the Earth-Moon system and other astronomical factors. .
At any rate, I don’t have to tell you that Tyson’s opinions as expressed in the video, do NOT represent nor dominate the black churches. Ohhhh no no no. It’s quite the opposite, trust me. Black Christians simply aren’t buying what he’s selling in that video.
FL
And again, with the implication that he speaks for the Black community, he replies to mrg’s question about Neil deGrasse Tyson being an “Uncle Charlie” with the following:
I believe Black Americans used (and still use) a slightly different name other than “Charlie”, but at least you understand the general phrasing.
However, for me, I would not call Dr. Tyson that phrase. Black America needs more, MUCH more astrophysicists like Tyson, plus engineers, physicists, biologists, and such. Tyson’s a great example in that way, bar none.
It’s just that, while Tyson has reached great heights in the astrophysics realm, he’s seriously messed up his butt in the spiritual realm. Totally wrecked example in that way, bar none. That’s just the way it is.
FL
I don’t happen to think that FL is a spokesman for the African American community. And I suspect that most of those that I know in that community would be quite offended by FL’s implication that they have “messed up their butts in the spiritual realm” just because they don’t belong to churches that buy into FL’s twisted view of humanity and religion along with its grotesque distortions of science and history.
There is indeed a part of the Black community being dragged down by constantly nurtured hatreds of whites and by wallowing in the lies being told to them about the relationship between Darwin, eugenics, Nazism, and other grotesque distortions such as Social Darwinism.
FL apparently belongs to that hate-filled community; and he attempts to give the impression that he speaks for all African Americans. You see it in his constant snarking, in his smarmy taunts, and in his continued refusal to correct his misconceptions and learn some real science. We also see it in his frequent threats of the hell-fire judgments that he claims will come from his version of a deity he asserts he speaks for.
FL is the one who is seriously messed up.
Michael Roberts · 10 April 2011
Paul Burnett said:
peter said: Theology is as much a con as any religion it "studies".
Theologians observe the unobservable, define the undefinable, know the unknowable, rationalize the irrational - and want you to give them money for doing it.
Do they define or rationalise orgasms? or do they know about them?
Ray Martinez · 10 April 2011
RationalWiki has posted an exhaustive list of evidence that evolution is a hoax.
Since all polls and surveys consistently show that half of all adults in the United States reject evolution, the list is now more or less complete.
Ray
mrg · 10 April 2011
Ray good buddy ... what percentage of the people you meet do NOT think you are a nut? WELL less than half, I should think.
Ray Martinez · 10 April 2011
mrg said:
Ray good buddy ... what percentage of the people you meet do NOT think you are a nut? WELL less than half, I should think.
Since Darwinists think all IDists are nuts, I do not feel slighted.
To be sure, we are glad to be considered insane by persons who think apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years.
mrg · 10 April 2011
Since Darwinists think all IDists are nuts, I do not feel slighted.
Actually I was thinking in terms of the general population. Let me rephrase this: how many people do you meet who DON'T think you are nut? How many PETS do you meet who DON'T think you are a nut?
Ray Martinez · 10 April 2011
mrg said:
Since Darwinists think all IDists are nuts, I do not feel slighted.
Actually I was thinking in terms of the general population. Let me rephrase this: how many people do you meet who DON'T think you are nut? How many PETS do you meet who DON'T think you are a nut?
Only Darwinists, why is that?
You are trapped. No matter what you say your slanderous assertion, that I am insane, is explained to be the predictable opinion of a Darwinist.
Again, since Darwinists assert all IDists to be insane, what is the point?
Crudely Wrott · 10 April 2011
One tumbleweed would be sufficient.
Mike Elzinga · 10 April 2011
Ray Martinez said:
RationalWiki has posted an exhaustive list of evidence that evolution is a hoax.
Since all polls and surveys consistently show that half of all adults in the United States reject evolution, the list is now more or less complete.
Ray
So what is your excuse for never learning any science? Just how far down on the lower tail of the intelligence distribution are you?
mrg · 10 April 2011
Ray Martinez said:
Only Darwinists, why is that?
Actually, Ray, that's because that's the only subject you troll the internet on. Try some other subjects, you won't get any different reaction.
OK Pandas, I've had my fun, sorry people. This is cruelty to dumb animals. Moderator, when you flush out the Ray troll, just delete my responses please ... this is rather beneath me.
Ray Martinez · 10 April 2011
RationalWiki has posted an exhaustive list of evidence that evolution is a hoax.
Like I pointed out upthread: about half of all adults in the U.S. reject natural evolution. And the RationalWiki "article" failed to list this devastating fact. Darwinists cannot convince most adults---that's the point. This massive segment of our society recognizes that Darwinists are liars or Atheists.
Bobbie · 10 April 2011
I love to visit RationalWiki for stuff related to evolution and skepticism. They have some hilarious pages making fun of pseudoscience.
Bobbie · 10 April 2011
In reply to a comment Ray Martinez made, just because most people believe something DOES NOT mean it is true. For example, 49% of Americans also think that ordinary tomatoes don't have genes, but that genetically modified ones do.
tresmal · 10 April 2011
Ray Martinez said:
RationalWiki has posted an exhaustive list of evidence that evolution is a hoax.
Since all polls and surveys consistently show that half of all adults in the United States reject evolution, the list is now more or less complete.
Ray
And polls and surveys are how scientific fact is determined, right?
Ray Martinez · 10 April 2011
Mike Elzinga said:
Ray Martinez said:
RationalWiki has posted an exhaustive list of evidence that evolution is a hoax.
Since all polls and surveys consistently show that half of all adults in the United States reject evolution, the list is now more or less complete.
Ray
So what is your excuse for never learning any science? Just how far down on the lower tail of the intelligence distribution are you?
If you had any knowledge of science you wouldn't accept evolution.
See how easy it is to defeat your rhetoric?
didymos · 10 April 2011
Like I pointed out upthread: about half of all adults in the U.S. reject natural evolution.
Not aware of "argumentum ad populum", eh?
Ray Martinez · 10 April 2011
didymos said:
Like I pointed out upthread: about half of all adults in the U.S. reject natural evolution.
Not aware of "argumentum ad populum", eh?
Does that apply to "no practicing biologist rejects evolution"?
Ray Martinez · 10 April 2011
Bobbie said:
In reply to a comment Ray Martinez made, just because most people believe something DOES NOT mean it is true. For example, 49% of Americans also think that ordinary tomatoes don't have genes, but that genetically modified ones do.
Except when Darwinists say all scientists accept the fact of evolution, right?
Ray Martinez · 10 April 2011
Bobbie said:
I love to visit RationalWiki for stuff related to evolution and skepticism. They have some hilarious pages making fun of pseudoscience.
Dear Bobbie: post any evidence supporting microevolution and I will promptly toss my Bible in the trashcan.
I define microevolution as "any slight change in species accomplished by an unguided/unintelligent natural process."
Waiting....
Mike Elzinga · 10 April 2011
Ray Martinez said:
Mike Elzinga said:
Ray Martinez said:
RationalWiki has posted an exhaustive list of evidence that evolution is a hoax.
Since all polls and surveys consistently show that half of all adults in the United States reject evolution, the list is now more or less complete.
Ray
So what is your excuse for never learning any science? Just how far down on the lower tail of the intelligence distribution are you?
If you had any knowledge of science you wouldn't accept evolution.
See how easy it is to defeat your rhetoric?
Thank you for offering to articulate and defend ID/creationism.
Let’s start with a favorite ID/creationist paper by Dembski and Marks.
I claim you cannot articulate or defend any ID/creationist concept; and there are plenty to defend in that Dembski and Marks paper.
See how easy it is to tell the difference between people who know things and people who bullshit?
Bobbie · 10 April 2011
I wasn't talking about just evolution. I was talking about their articles on cryptozoology and ufos.
Bobbie · 10 April 2011
And by most people I mean the public, not scientists.
Ray Martinez · 10 April 2011
Mike Elzinga said:
Ray Martinez said:
Mike Elzinga said:
Ray Martinez said:
RationalWiki has posted an exhaustive list of evidence that evolution is a hoax.
Since all polls and surveys consistently show that half of all adults in the United States reject evolution, the list is now more or less complete.
Ray
So what is your excuse for never learning any science? Just how far down on the lower tail of the intelligence distribution are you?
If you had any knowledge of science you wouldn't accept evolution.
See how easy it is to defeat your rhetoric?
Thank you for offering to articulate and defend ID/creationism.
Let’s start with a favorite ID/creationist paper by Dembski and Marks.
I claim you cannot articulate or defend any ID/creationist concept; and there are plenty to defend in that Dembski and Marks paper.
See how easy it is to tell the difference between people who know things and people who bullshit?
Neither Dembski or Marks is an IDist: both accept microevolution, macroevolution, common descent and limited natural selection.
Ray Martinez · 10 April 2011
Ray Martinez said:
Mike Elzinga said:
Ray Martinez said:
Mike Elzinga said:
Ray Martinez said:
RationalWiki has posted an exhaustive list of evidence that evolution is a hoax.
Since all polls and surveys consistently show that half of all adults in the United States reject evolution, the list is now more or less complete.
Ray
So what is your excuse for never learning any science? Just how far down on the lower tail of the intelligence distribution are you?
If you had any knowledge of science you wouldn't accept evolution.
See how easy it is to defeat your rhetoric?
Thank you for offering to articulate and defend ID/creationism.
Let’s start with a favorite ID/creationist paper by Dembski and Marks.
I claim you cannot articulate or defend any ID/creationist concept; and there are plenty to defend in that Dembski and Marks paper.
See how easy it is to tell the difference between people who know things and people who bullshit?
Neither Dembski or Marks is an IDist: both accept microevolution, macroevolution, common descent and limited natural selection.
Why don't we use a real ID paper, written by a real IDist, like this one:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=A142&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
?
Mike Elzinga · 10 April 2011
Ray Martinez said:
Neither Dembski or Marks is an IDist: both accept microevolution, macroevolution, common descent and limited natural selection.
Are you really suggesting that Dembski had nothing to do with the development of intelligent design “theory?”
It appears that you don’t even know who the movers and shakers in your own ideological political movement are.
Where did the term “complex specified information” come from?
What about “endogenous information,” exogenous information,” and “active information?”
Why is it that every time one of you ID/creationists is given a golden opportunity to articulate and defend a paper by one of your own heroes (and this is a paper in a peer review journal), you attempt to change the subject?
I’ll tell you why you changed the subject; you don’t know anything about intelligent design. You don’t know what “concepts” are being politically pushed by ID, you don’t know any real science; and you don’t even how ID is supposed to address the misconceptions ID/creationists have about every field of science.
There is a huge difference between ID pushers such as you and those of us who have spent our careers in science. You can’t even assess the claims of your own dear leaders and whether or not your own dear leaders know anything about science.
On the other hand, we not only know the real science, we know your pseudo-science better than you do.
And we don’t have to play the game “my-daddy-can-beat-up-on-your-daddy” by copy/pasting references. We can sit down with a paper by one of your own and demonstrate that you don’t understand it. And by not understanding anything your own leaders write, you are in no position to claim it is right or wrong.
So I say again; you cannot articulate and defend any concept in that Dembski and Marks paper.
You don’t get to change the subject.
Bobbie said:
I love to visit RationalWiki for stuff related to evolution and skepticism. They have some hilarious pages making fun of pseudoscience.
Dear Bobbie: post any evidence supporting microevolution and I will promptly toss my Bible in the trashcan.
I define microevolution as "any slight change in species accomplished by an unguided/unintelligent natural process."
Waiting....
Ray Martinez said:
Mike Elzinga said:
Thank you for offering to articulate and defend ID/creationism.
Let’s start with a favorite ID/creationist paper by Dembski and Marks.
I claim you cannot articulate or defend any ID/creationist concept; and there are plenty to defend in that Dembski and Marks paper.
See how easy it is to tell the difference between people who know things and people who bullshit?
Neither Dembski or Marks is an IDist: both accept microevolution, macroevolution, common descent and limited natural selection.
As usual, Ray Martinez says absolutely nothing useful, truthful, or challenging. He makes Robert Byers look intelligent by comparison.
Plus, I know he is lying about being willing to toss away his Bible. No one asked him to do that. It is merely useless rhetoric.
Ray Martinez said:
Neither Dembski or Marks is an IDist: both accept microevolution, macroevolution, common descent and limited natural selection.
Are you really suggesting that Dembski had nothing to do with the development of intelligent design “theory?”
It appears that you don’t even know who the movers and shakers in your own ideological political movement are.
Where did the term “complex specified information” come from?
What about “endogenous information,” exogenous information,” and “active information?”
Why is it that every time one of you ID/creationists is given a golden opportunity to articulate and defend a paper by one of your own heroes (and this is a paper in a peer review journal), you attempt to change the subject?
I’ll tell you why you changed the subject; you don’t know anything about intelligent design. You don’t know what “concepts” are being politically pushed by ID, you don’t know any real science; and you don’t even how ID is supposed to address the misconceptions ID/creationists have about every field of science.
There is a huge difference between ID pushers such as you and those of us who have spent our careers in science. You can’t even assess the claims of your own dear leaders and whether or not your own dear leaders know anything about science.
On the other hand, we not only know the real science, we know your pseudo-science better than you do.
And we don’t have to play the game “my-daddy-can-beat-up-on-your-daddy” by copy/pasting references. We can sit down with a paper by one of your own and demonstrate that you don’t understand it. And by not understanding anything your own leaders write, you are in no position to claim it is right or wrong.
So I say again; you cannot articulate and defend any concept in that Dembski and Marks paper.
You don’t get to change the subject.
Mike, why not just call Ray Martinez a total fraud and be done with him? Because that is all he has ever been from Day One of his useless trolling here. Almost everything he ever says here is an outright lie, period.
Mike Elzinga · 10 April 2011
Dale Husband said:
Mike, why not just call Ray Martinez a total fraud and be done with him? Because that is all he has ever been from Day One of his useless trolling here. Almost everything he ever says here is an outright lie, period.
I’m not going to waste any more time with him than I did with FL or any of those other trolls.
I know damned well he knows nothing; and I know damned well that he can’t do it.
What is more, he knows damned well he can only throw feces and taunt. He is a cookie-cutter ID/creationist that has already gone completely bat shit crazy from cognitive dissonance and denial.
didymos · 10 April 2011
Ray Martinez said:
didymos said:
Like I pointed out upthread: about half of all adults in the U.S. reject natural evolution.
Not aware of "argumentum ad populum", eh?
Does that apply to "no practicing biologist rejects evolution"?
Actually, no, it doesn't. I'm sure if you think about it a bit, you'll be able to figure out why.
Mike Elzinga · 10 April 2011
didymos said:
Ray Martinez said:
didymos said:
Like I pointed out upthread: about half of all adults in the U.S. reject natural evolution.
Not aware of "argumentum ad populum", eh?
Does that apply to "no practicing biologist rejects evolution"?
Actually, no, it doesn't. I'm sure if you think about it a bit, ...
That is a process I have yet to observe in any ID/creationist.
… you’ll be able to figure out why.
Hmmm; I wonder. ;-)
harold · 10 April 2011
Ray Martinez -
Who is the designer, what did the designer design, how did the designer design it, and when did the designer design it?
Hi Mike,
I'm curious about your comment that the link "can't even tell us what a "baramin" ... encompasses." The linked page seems directed at high school kids, or lower. It's short on details, but it seems to address in a general sense what a "baramin" is. It doesn't mention "science", but the article doesn't appear to be particularly interested in science. It's using the bible to justify the creation and use of the term "baramin". It does admit that, "We have identified only a handful of created kinds out of thousands that are expected to exist." Is that what you were referring to?
I find it amusing that the caption with the cute animal pictures states, "The original created kinds most likely looked very different from animals we see today..." One has to wonder why they believe that. What in the bible leads them to believe that? More to the point, if the kinds of animals that were created just 6,000 years ago were very different than the animals we see today (which BTW are exactly the same animals seen by the ancient Hebrews 4,000 years ago (minus the unicorns, of course)), yet the YECs don't believe in even micro-evolution, then how did the animals change and differentiate into the millions of species we see today, all in less than 2,000 years? Perhaps God just liked to fiddle?
Ah! That must be it. God the perfectionist. Just can't leave well enough alone. During the creation week, God only said things were "good". He didn't say they were "perfect". He needed another 2,000 years to fiddle with things until they were juuuust right.
Perhaps Ray can enlighten us on this peculiar YEC topic.
harold · 11 April 2011
Ray Martinez -
So much for you. You would't testify that your designer is Jehovah/Jesus, that he "designed" man from dust and woman from man's rib, that he did it 6000 years ago, and that he did it with magic.
In other words, even a loon like you tries to play the cheesy DI "plausible deniability game".
Of course, you had to play it by running away.
Can you stand to actually take it to its logical extension? Can you say "the designer may well be a super-powered alien, he may have acted a billion years ago, the best example of his design is the bacterial flagellum, and he may have done it with super alien biotechnology"?
FL, Please give me one example of a scientific topic whose veracity was verified by law.
Ray, will you accept evidence of microevolution that uses the actual definition of microevolution and not your incorrect version?
I know you guys will get right on this, thanks.
phantomreader42 · 11 April 2011
One word: Nylonase.
Of course, we all know you were lying. You will now begin moving the goalposts and continue denying reality until the day you die. That's all your cult is capable of.
Ray Martinez said:
Bobbie said:
I love to visit RationalWiki for stuff related to evolution and skepticism. They have some hilarious pages making fun of pseudoscience.
Dear Bobbie: post any evidence supporting microevolution and I will promptly toss my Bible in the trashcan.
I define microevolution as "any slight change in species accomplished by an unguided/unintelligent natural process."
Waiting....
phantomreader42 · 11 April 2011
You're trying to get a creationist to stop playing word games and address reality? Don't you know that even contemplating such a thing could cause them to die of fright? They can't survive without their lies, not for a single second!
OgreMkV said:
FL, Please give me one example of a scientific topic whose veracity was verified by law.
Ray, will you accept evidence of microevolution that uses the actual definition of microevolution and not your incorrect version?
I know you guys will get right on this, thanks.
Matt G · 11 April 2011
Ray- Three mutations in E. coli which allow it to use citrate as an energy source. First mutation did nothing, but allowed the second mutation to make digestion of citrate possible (though at a low level), followed by a third mutation which (IIRC) made it possible to rely exclusively on citrate. We win!
Ray Martinez · 11 April 2011
Ray Martinez said:
Neither Dembski or Marks is an IDist: both accept microevolution, macroevolution, common descent and limited natural selection.
Mike Elzinga reply: Are you really suggesting that Dembski had nothing to do with the development of intelligent design “theory?”
It appears that you don’t even know who the movers and shakers in your own ideological political movement are.
Initially you had touted the Dembski/Marks paper as containing fundamental ID scientific concepts. Now you say the paper exists within the domain of political ideology????
Next: I am a Paleyan IDist, Old Earth-Young Biosphere species immutabilist. Dembski is an Evolutionist. A person cannot be an IDist and an Evolutionist at the same time. Are we to believe that you do not know that Dembski accepts micro/macroevolution, common descent and limited natural selection? Since when does IDism accept the main claims of Darwinism?
And where did you obtain the idea that ID is a theory? From Dembski the Evolutionist? Historic IDism is NOT a theory, but an observation (Paley 1802). The point Mike, is that YOU are totally ignorant (like Dembski) in BASIC knowledge of the History and Philosophy of Creationism-IDism and Darwinism. You actually think Evolutionists (Dembski and the DI) founded IDism! LOL!
Now you are all hot about some paper written by Dembski. Since Dembski has actually maintains that Intelligence does not mean or indicate or refer to God, what is it about the paper that makes you sit up and take notice? How smart or honest is a guy who says Intelligence does not refer to or indicate God?
When Arch-Deacon Paley published in 1802 there was no debate as to whose Intelligence he was documenting.
Mike Elzinga: Why is it that every time one of you ID/creationists is given a golden opportunity to articulate and defend a paper by one of your own heroes (and this is a paper in a peer review journal), you attempt to change the subject?
I’ll tell you why you changed the subject; you don’t know anything about intelligent design. You don’t know what “concepts” are being politically pushed by ID, you don’t know any real science; and you don’t even how ID is supposed to address the misconceptions ID/creationists have about every field of science.
You just assumed that I was a disciple of Dembski. You need to really read what I said. The ultimate point is that Dembski is in YOUR bed: he is an Evolutionist attempting to turn the tables on Ken Miller. He wants "Intelligent evolution." There is no such thing. If Intelligence is involved with biological production (and it is) then the history of science has ALWAYS called the same Creationism.
Ray Martinez · 11 April 2011
CORRECTION
Ray Martinez wrote: Now you are all hot about some paper written by Dembski. Since Dembski has actually maintains that Intelligence does not mean or indicate or refer to God....
Should read:
"Since Dembski maintains that Intelligence does not mean or indicate or refer to God...."
DS · 11 April 2011
Time to throw your bible in the trash Ray. Microevolution is real, you lose.
DS · 11 April 2011
Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Genetics 160:823-832 (2002)
Citrate Metabolism in Bacteria
PNAS 105(23):7899-7906 (2008)
There are literally thousands more examples Ray. Microevolution is well documented. Even most religious nuts don't argue with it any more. Time to toss your bible in the trash Ray. You lose again. Unless of course you can come up with some reason why these are not examples of microevolution. No fair making up your own definitions either. Of course you would have to actually read the papers in order to disagree with them, theoretically speaking.
Ray Martinez · 11 April 2011
Ray Martinez said:
Neither Dembski or Marks is an IDist: both accept microevolution, macroevolution, common descent and limited natural selection.
Dale Husband: Mike, why not just call Ray Martinez a total fraud and be done with him? Because that is all he has ever been from Day One of his useless trolling here. Almost everything he ever says here is an outright lie, period.
Imagine that; we have an intelligent, well-informed and well-read Evolutionist (Dale Husband) who does not know that Dembski accepts evolution, CD and the concept of selection to exist in nature!
Matt G · 11 April 2011
Ray Martinez said:
CORRECTION
Ray Martinez wrote: Now you are all hot about some paper written by Dembski. Since Dembski has actually maintains that Intelligence does not mean or indicate or refer to God....
Should read:
"Since Dembski maintains that Intelligence does not mean or indicate or refer to God...."
Ah Dembski, Intelligent Design's Messiah! Lord of the Fleas.
Ray, does it also surprise you to learn that Dembski is a Young Earth Creationist?
All that means is that Dembski says whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear. Why don't you actually talk about the science, instead of Dembski?
Now, how about answering my initial question... will you accept evidence that supports the real version of microevolution (as DS has provided) instead of the incorrect version that you stated?
And where did FL run off too?
Ray Martinez · 11 April 2011
tresmal said:
Ray Martinez said:
RationalWiki has posted an exhaustive list of evidence that evolution is a hoax.
Since all polls and surveys consistently show that half of all adults in the United States reject evolution, the list is now more or less complete.
Ray
And polls and surveys are how scientific fact is determined, right?
No, they tell us what the public thinks of Darwinism.
Matt G · 11 April 2011
DS said:
Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Genetics 160:823-832 (2002)
Citrate Metabolism in Bacteria
PNAS 105(23):7899-7906 (2008)
There are literally thousands more examples Ray. Microevolution is well documented. Even most religious nuts don't argue with it any more. Time to toss your bible in the trash Ray. You lose again. Unless of course you can come up with some reason why these are not examples of microevolution. No fair making up your own definitions either. Of course you would have to actually read the papers in order to disagree with them, theoretically speaking.
Let's not fall into that creationist false dichotomy of macroevolution vs. microevolution - there is only a matter of degree.
Ray Martinez · 11 April 2011
OgreMkV said:
Ray, does it also surprise you to learn that Dembski is a Young Earth Creationist?
If true, that would surprise me.
All that means is that Dembski says whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear. Why don't you actually talk about the science, instead of Dembski?
You Darwinists brought him up, not me.
Now, how about answering my initial question... will you accept evidence that supports the real version of microevolution (as DS has provided) instead of the incorrect version that you stated?
And where did FL run off too?
My next post
DS · 11 April 2011
Matt G said:
DS said:
Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Genetics 160:823-832 (2002)
Citrate Metabolism in Bacteria
PNAS 105(23):7899-7906 (2008)
There are literally thousands more examples Ray. Microevolution is well documented. Even most religious nuts don't argue with it any more. Time to toss your bible in the trash Ray. You lose again. Unless of course you can come up with some reason why these are not examples of microevolution. No fair making up your own definitions either. Of course you would have to actually read the papers in order to disagree with them, theoretically speaking.
Let's not fall into that creationist false dichotomy of macroevolution vs. microevolution - there is only a matter of degree.
Agreed. But then again, I can provide lots of evidence for macroevolution as well. Ray just can't win. He can't understand any science, so he can't argue with any science. All he can do is deny that which he does no understand. No one is going to be fooled by that. He can make up definitions and stammer all he wants to, but he hasn't got a scientific leg to stand on. I wonder if he will burn his bible after he throws it in the trash?
Matt,
Feel free to send all of this to the bathroom wall where it belongs. I won't be offended in the least. DItto for FL.
Ray Martinez · 11 April 2011
DS said:
Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Genetics 160:823-832 (2002)
Citrate Metabolism in Bacteria
PNAS 105(23):7899-7906 (2008)
There are literally thousands more examples Ray. Microevolution is well documented. Even most religious nuts don't argue with it any more. Time to toss your bible in the trash Ray. You lose again. Unless of course you can come up with some reason why these are not examples of microevolution. No fair making up your own definitions either. Of course you would have to actually read the papers in order to disagree with them, theoretically speaking.
I defined microevolution as "any slight change in species accomplished by an unguided/unintelligent natural process."
The main object of explanation in the Creationism-ID v. Darwinism debate is not antibiotic resistance, but how the concept of species comes to be in nature. Darwin's On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection (1859) was a reply to Paley 1802.
You guys need to provide evidence that species undergo modification by unguided/unintelligent natural process.
But in the meantime: what is the evidence that antibiotic resistance is micoevolutionary, that is, caused by an unguided/unintelligent natural process? How does an unguided and unintelligent process baffle our brightest minds? We see satanic intelligence behind said resistance.
Ray Martinez, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Paleyan Creatorist-IDist-species immutabilist
DS · 11 April 2011
Ray wrote:
"I defined microevolution as “any slight change in species accomplished by an unguided/unintelligent natural process.”
FIrst, unguided is not the definition of microevolutuion. And nothing has baffled anyone except you.
Second, that is exactly what the papers document anyway Ray. They show exactly what the process is and exactly how it is unguided. If you refuse to read them, how can you say otherwise? If you can't understand the papers, how can you disagree? You got any evidence that the process is "guided"? By who? How? Why? To what end? Why did it take so long is there was someone guiding it? Thirty thousand generations is quite some time Ray. Was satan punishing humans by helping bacteria to develop resistance? Why did he do this Ray? Is this the best he could do? Why couldn't god stop this Ray?
You lose. Throw your bible in the trash. You promised.
DS said:
Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Genetics 160:823-832 (2002)
Citrate Metabolism in Bacteria
PNAS 105(23):7899-7906 (2008)
There are literally thousands more examples Ray. Microevolution is well documented. Even most religious nuts don't argue with it any more. Time to toss your bible in the trash Ray. You lose again. Unless of course you can come up with some reason why these are not examples of microevolution. No fair making up your own definitions either. Of course you would have to actually read the papers in order to disagree with them, theoretically speaking.
I defined microevolution as "any slight change in species accomplished by an unguided/unintelligent natural process."
The main object of explanation in the Creationism-ID v. Darwinism debate is not antibiotic resistance, but how the concept of species comes to be in nature. Darwin's On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection (1859) was a reply to Paley 1802.
You guys need to provide evidence that species undergo modification by unguided/unintelligent natural process.
But in the meantime: what is the evidence that antibiotic resistance is micoevolutionary, that is, caused by an unguided/unintelligent natural process? How does an unguided and unintelligent process baffle our brightest minds? We see satanic intelligence behind said resistance.
Ray Martinez, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Paleyan Creatorist-IDist-species immutabilist
You are the only one that has that definition of micro-evolution. Again, will you accept evidence using the actual definition of microevolution instead of your incorrect definition?
from Dembski
In writing The End of Christianity today, I would also underscore three points: (1) As a biblical inerrantist, I accept the full verbal inspiration of the Bible and the conventional authorship of the books of the Bible. Thus, in particular, I accept Mosaic authorship of Genesis (and of the Pentateuch) and reject the Documentary Hypothesis. (2) Even though I introduce in the book a distinction between kairos (God’s time) and chronos (the world’s time), the two are not mutually exclusive. In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1- 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch. (3) I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors....
(I)n a brief section on Genesis 4-11, I weigh in on the Flood, raising questions about its universality, without adequate study or reflection on my part. Before I write on this topic again, I have much exegetical, historical, and theological work to do. In any case, not only Genesis 6-9 but also Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Second Peter seem clearly to teach that the Flood was universal. As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality.
I'll accept your statement of surprise now... unless you, like all the ID folks, try to change the definition of YEC so that these statements do not match it.
Tell me, why can't you people just use the same definitions as everyone else?
Ray Martinez · 11 April 2011
Matt G said:
Ray- Three mutations in E. coli which allow it to use citrate as an energy source. First mutation did nothing, but allowed the second mutation to make digestion of citrate possible (though at a low level), followed by a third mutation which (IIRC) made it possible to rely exclusively on citrate. We win!
Assuming your facts accurate, how do you know or what is the evidence that said changes were caused by an unguided/unintelligent natural process?
Matt G · 11 April 2011
Ray Martinez said:
Ray Martinez, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Paleyan Creatorist-IDist-species immutabilist
WHY are you as you describe yourself, and what POSITIVE evidence do you have which supports that position? By positive, I mean actual evidence for your brand of creationism, not just a "I don't find the evidence for evolution convincing" dodge.
DS · 11 April 2011
Ray Martinez said:
Matt G said:
Ray- Three mutations in E. coli which allow it to use citrate as an energy source. First mutation did nothing, but allowed the second mutation to make digestion of citrate possible (though at a low level), followed by a third mutation which (IIRC) made it possible to rely exclusively on citrate. We win!
Assuming your facts accurate, how do you know or what is the evidence that said changes were caused by an unguided/unintelligent natural process?
Ray,
If you read the paper you will see that the main conclusion is the importance of historical contingency. This is absolutely expected if the mutations were random and "unguided". This is absolutely NOT what is expected if there is any intelligence guiding the process. Now Ray, you tell us, why did this intelligence require thirty thousand generations to produce just three simple mutations? Why did the intelligence cause evolution in a laboratory strain? Why would satan give antibiotic resistance to bacteria that will never have the chance to infect anyone?What evidence do you have of this intelligence, it's purpose, it's methods, it's goals? Even if you were right, it would still be microevolution by any reasonable definition.
Look Ray, quite frankly we all know that you will never accept any evidence. You will always claim "intelligence" and "guidance" without any evidence of your own. No one cares. You can believe any fool thing you want. But you have not dealt with the evidence. You haven't even read the papers, so you lose. Throw your bible in the trash like you promised.
Ray Martinez · 11 April 2011
OgreMkV said:
from Dembski
In writing The End of Christianity today, I would also underscore three points: (1) As a biblical inerrantist, I accept the full verbal inspiration of the Bible and the conventional authorship of the books of the Bible. Thus, in particular, I accept Mosaic authorship of Genesis (and of the Pentateuch) and reject the Documentary Hypothesis. (2) Even though I introduce in the book a distinction between kairos (God’s time) and chronos (the world’s time), the two are not mutually exclusive. In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1- 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch. (3) I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors....
(I)n a brief section on Genesis 4-11, I weigh in on the Flood, raising questions about its universality, without adequate study or reflection on my part. Before I write on this topic again, I have much exegetical, historical, and theological work to do. In any case, not only Genesis 6-9 but also Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Second Peter seem clearly to teach that the Flood was universal. As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality.
I'll accept your statement of surprise now... unless you, like all the ID folks, try to change the definition of YEC so that these statements do not match it.
Tell me, why can't you people just use the same definitions as everyone else?
Where does the Dembski quote indicate acceptance of Young Earth?
And your belief that the Bible advocates a Young Earth is a false assumption.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/10/dembski-coming.html
Dembski:
By creationism one typically understands what is also called “young earth creationism,” and what advocates of that position refer to alternately as “creation science” or “scientific creationism.” According to this view the opening chapters of Genesis are to be read literally as a scientifically accurate account of the world’s origin and subsequent formation. What’s more, it is the creation scientist’s task to harmonize science with Scripture.
Given this account of creationism, am I a creationist? No. I do not regard Genesis as a scientific text. I have no vested theological interest in the age of the earth or the universe. I find the arguments of geologists persuasive when they argue for an earth that is 4.5 billion years old. What’s more, I find the arguments of astrophysicists persuasive when they argue for a universe that is approximately 14 billion years old. I believe they got it right. Even so, I refuse to be dogmatic here. I’m willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. Yet to date I’ve found none of the arguments for a young earth or a young universe convincing. Nature, as far as I’m concerned, has an integrity that enables it to be understood without recourse to revelatory texts.
In addition: your Dembski quote, and mine, contradict. Of course Dembski would deny; he is accountable to no one. One could assemble endless quotes by Dembski that contradict.
Ray Martinez · 11 April 2011
DS said:
Ray Martinez said:
Matt G said:
Ray- Three mutations in E. coli which allow it to use citrate as an energy source. First mutation did nothing, but allowed the second mutation to make digestion of citrate possible (though at a low level), followed by a third mutation which (IIRC) made it possible to rely exclusively on citrate. We win!
Assuming your facts accurate, how do you know or what is the evidence that said changes were caused by an unguided/unintelligent natural process?
Ray,
If you read the paper you will see that the main conclusion is the importance of historical contingency.
What paper? Where did anyone post a link to some evo paper?
This is absolutely expected if the mutations were random and "unguided". This is absolutely NOT what is expected if there is any intelligence guiding the process.
Since the "mutations" enabled a harmful bacteria to thrive, and not get weaker or die, how does this support lack of intelligence? Explain your assertions.
Now Ray, you tell us, why did this intelligence require thirty thousand generations to produce just three simple mutations? Why did the intelligence cause evolution in a laboratory strain? Why would satan give antibiotic resistance to bacteria that will never have the chance to infect anyone?What evidence do you have of this intelligence, it's purpose, it's methods, it's goals? Even if you were right, it would still be microevolution by any reasonable definition.
Antibiotic resistance causes great harm to people. Your comments do not make sense.
Mike Elzinga · 11 April 2011
Ray Martinez said:
Next: I am a Paleyan IDist, Old Earth-Young Biosphere species immutabilist.
It doesn’t really matter what you think you are or what you call yourself.
You don’t understand any concepts in science, you can’t articulate any concepts in science, and therefore any “argument” you think you bring against science is totally irrelevant.
Even further, you can’t even articulate any of your own pseudo-science and why it “refutes” or “answers” anything.
That’s sufficient.
Matt,
Feel free to send all of this to the bathroom wall where it belongs. I won’t be offended in the least. DItto for FL.
Yes, I think it is time. Further comments by or about the FL troll or the Ray Martinez troll will be sent to the bathroom wall. Of course, you (that is, youse) could stop feeding them and save us all the trouble. You know by now that they will not learn.
John Vanko · 11 April 2011
Good for you Matt.
On another subject: I have a question, the answers to which should be posted on the BW I suppose.
If the Intelligent Designer turned out to be the Prince of Darkness, would IDists willingly become 'evolutionists'? How about YECreationists?
Please don't see this as some sort of smart-aleck challenge or gotcha. I REALLY admire your work here and the time you devote to it.
Lately you've taken to making the entirely defensible statement that creationists are unable to articulate a concept in science. I think I know what you mean by that, but I would like an example. Would you articulate a scientific concept? That way I, and maybe some others, will have a more concrete idea of what you mean when you use that phrase.
Just Bob said:
Mike E.,
Please don't see this as some sort of smart-aleck challenge or gotcha. I REALLY admire your work here and the time you devote to it.
Lately you've taken to making the entirely defensible statement that creationists are unable to articulate a concept in science. I think I know what you mean by that, but I would like an example. Would you articulate a scientific concept? That way I, and maybe some others, will have a more concrete idea of what you mean when you use that phrase.
Thanks,
Just Bob
Oops; sorry I missed your question, Bob. I’ve been away from the computer for a while.
And no; I do not see your question as a smart-aleck challenge. In fact it is an important part of an instructor’s obligation as well as a tool to get students to start becoming more precise in their understanding of concepts. One gets at that by asking a student to articulate a concept rather than simply recite a definition or an equation.
I’ll grab a couple of examples where I have tried to articulate specific concepts to laypersons here on Panda’s Thumb. These are stripped of the most of the more precise mathematical specifications for a very good reason. Anyone can write down a formula; but the point is to explain what is behind the formula.
There are a number of such examples on this thread dealing thermodynamics.
There are some more examples in one of my talks and PowerPoint presentations at a Science Café here.
Here is a common one that can be addressed at several levels of conceptual ability.
“Explain why things fall.”
An answer one can expect from conceptual levels common in pre-adolescents and middle schoolers:
“Because of gravity.”
Q: “But what is gravity?”
A: “Gravity makes things fall.”
An answer one can expect from many high school students and beginning college students:
“Because of the Universal Law of Gravitation which, according to Newton, says that bodies attract with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.”
Q: “But what is mass?”
A: “Mass is what makes them attract and gives them inertia.”
Q: “Why do masses attract?”
A: “Because of the Law of Gravitation?”
An answer one might start seeing from upper level college student in physics:
“It is an experimental fact. For example, two spherical bodies placed in space will accelerate toward each other. The acceleration tells us that these bodies attract because forces cause accelerations.”
An answer one might expect to see from an upper level or beginning graduate student:
“Masses move on the geodesics in space-time. Mass bends space-time which then produces the geodesics along which the masses move.”
One can continue on up the ladder in this and start delving into the connections between mass and energy and space-time; but at this level, one must rely on the mathematics.
There are a number of things to look for in explanations, depending on the level one aims them and what cognitive skills one can expect from the student.
At the lower levels of cognitive skills, we see explanations given in terms of definitions and authorities. As cognitive levels begin to develop, we start to see what is referred to as the early stages of “reductionist” kinds of thinking. Here we see the probing for more basic or fundamental concepts on which the observations rest (atoms, forces, distance, time, mass, kinematics and dynamics).
Moving up a little further, we get into phenomenological types of explanations that rely on only what is experimentally and objectively observable. You may have heard of “logical positivism.” But here the general idea is that one is not to speculate on things that cannot be directly observed in principle.
Climbing higher, we start getting into postulated models from which experimental and objectively observable consequences can be quantitatively specified. Those models may contain “unobservables” in the sense of technological limitations which, in principle can be overcome. Unobservables “in principle” start crossing the line into the supernatural. However, if some clever individual actually finds a way - using natural, experimentally verifiable methods – to observe that “unobservable” that unobservable leaves the realm of the supernatural. Neutrinos come close to an example of this, but now neutrinos are used routinely in making observations.
I can go on; but in just explaining these examples, I am articulating a set of concepts.
There have been a lot of studies on just what kinds of concepts can be understood and explained at various ages of normal growth in cognitive ability. And there are also techniques teachers can use to start students along the paths that can enhance that development.
A bit of a long answer; hope it helps. There is so much more.
And I can congratulate myself for being at the grad student level of gravity concepts. As soon as you mentioned it, my thoughts were "Einstein: mass warping space-time."
Could your statement that creationists can't articulate scientific concepts be a bit of hyperbole? Surely some could explain some concepts, at least at lower levels. True, they rarely, if ever, do when they're in creationist mode, but in an area where their bible-blather doesn't immediately kick in, I imagine they could articulate a few reasonably well.
As a general statement, though, I think you're right on.
Mike Elzinga · 13 April 2011
Just Bob said:
Thanks, Mike.
And I can congratulate myself for being at the grad student level of gravity concepts. As soon as you mentioned it, my thoughts were "Einstein: mass warping space-time."
Could your statement that creationists can't articulate scientific concepts be a bit of hyperbole? Surely some could explain some concepts, at least at lower levels. True, they rarely, if ever, do when they're in creationist mode, but in an area where their bible-blather doesn't immediately kick in, I imagine they could articulate a few reasonably well.
As a general statement, though, I think you're right on.
At 4:30 am I had to shut down and get to bed. I didn’t even get into the cognitive abilities of dealing with analogy, metaphor, and allegory.
In the case of the trolls who typically show up here, and also in the cases of creationists I know personally, I seriously doubt that what I am saying about what I am observing is hyperbole.
In every case I know of directly, the creationists refer to authority and definitions; e.g., what the sentence on page blah blah of the book says, what so-and-so says, what the dictionary says, what their bible says, what the preacher says, etc.
Those that I have known who are teachers use a really horrible testing technique of lifting sentences from a textbook and then turning them into true/false questions by inserting double, triple, quadruple negatives into the sentence or by adding other words to the sentence. Students who rightfully protest this trick are scolded with, “So you admit that you didn’t read the book. I should flunk you.”
Once they are in “bible mode,” they pretty much revert to exegesis, hermeneutics, etymology, definitions, and citing accepted “biblical authorities” to justify their interpretations. But those habits carry over to reading “secularist writings.”
In every fundamentalist creationist I have known and interacted with, the abilities for using analogy, metaphor, and allegory to move to more abstract and general knowledge are severely compromised or shut down. And universally the most obvious cause is fear.
Fear that any other interpretation of scripture, any transition to another level of understanding, any influence by “unapproved authority” is evidence of Satan messing with your mind. And that must be resisted at all costs.
I have been fortunate enough to have encountered only one or two hostile fundamentalist parents; but their wrath has been memorable. And their poor children a mess.
Just Bob · 13 April 2011
I completely agree with you about metaphor. I've seen that here and in other places, including face-to-face.
And I can testify to how messed-up fundy-raised kids can be (even ones with decent native intelligence). I taught in a science/math/engineering public magnet high school. We tended to get many students from local Christian "academies," attending public school for the first time. Bright 10th grade girl: "But sir, doesn't the space shuttle run into all those planets, comets, and stars and things up there?" True story--and she objected to reading *The Lives of a Cell* since it was by an "evolutionist."
Another student, in making notes and commentary on Sagan's *Cosmos*, responded to item after item with "I don't believe that" and "the Bible says...." After she insisted that the speed of light had changed radically and that red shift was not a Doppler effect showing recession and universal expansion, I (sarcastically, yeah, but on paper, not in front of others) suggested that she should consider a career in cosmology and astrophysics, since she clearly was smarter than all those astronomers. She thought I was serious.
I knew many like that. And their parents weren't much in favor of "academic freedom" for public school teachers when our English department required them to read *Brave New World*.
eric · 13 April 2011
Just Bob said:
I knew many like that. And their parents weren't much in favor of "academic freedom" for public school teachers when our English department required them to read *Brave New World*.
Or about a hundred other books.
That's Academic Freedomfor me, but not for thee.
harold · 14 April 2011
Mike E and Bob -
I assume this thread is pretty much over, but anyway, I notice that certain very basic cognitive issues are incredibly common.
There is a widespread inability to get past concrete, arbitrary statements, derived from authority (often the implied authority of group identification), into any level of critical thinking. This is especially true when a pre-existing bias interferes, but often seems to be independent of that.
For example -
1) The New York City area gained more residents than any other urban area in the nation except San Antonio, during the the census period 2000-2010. It is also suggested that the census undercounted the NYC gain. Be that as it may, it was widely reported that the NYC area grew very "slowly", with results given in percentage terms. The logical flaw is glaring. New York City is already so large that it logically cannot have a high percentage of population growth except under extreme circumstances. The NYC metropolitan area is conservatively estimated at a bit more than 19M people (some estimates are larger due to including more geographical areas), so for a 10% growth rate, almost two million new residents, more than the population of many large cities or states, would have had to have arrived. Yet not only was the claim that the NYC area population "grew slowly" widespread, but interviews with New Yorkers were broadcast, and they almost all showed New Yorkers either expressing dismay that the area was failing attract new residents, or insisting (correctly) that something was "wrong" with the analysis, yet not being able to state what the problem was. Similar logic is often used to claim that initially very small areas that gained a few thousand people due to some one time event are "the fastest growing area in America". What's interesting is that there is a bias at work in the initial presentation of the data (journalists always want to claim that "conservative" things are on the upswing, and "liberal" things are being crushed), few people are able to see the obviously illogic.
2) In another forum, I pointed out that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is no worse ideologically than the other primary candidates, merely more blunt and buffoonish than most. It should be obvious that this is no statement of support for Trump, but merely a neutral observation that Gingrich, Palin, Huckabee, etc, aren't actually any less ideologically extreme. It was also obvious from the context that I strongly oppose Trump's political views. Nevertheless, the comment generated outrage from other Trump opponents for "saying something good about Donald Trump".
3) I had a similar experience in a high level finance class. A group I was in did a project comparing the exchange rates of the Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso to the US dollar during a certain time period. The Canadian dollar tracked the US dollar much more closely. However, as the time period we were studying was familiar to me as a period during which the US dollar had changed value rapidly relative to the euro (and this had been constantly reported in the media), I happened to casually point out the neutral fact that, looking at exchange rate relative to the euro, the Mexican peso had been relatively stable during the same period, and the US and Canadian dollars, by that standard, volatile. A group member of Indian South African descent immediately got what I was saying, but a male American group member became angry and belligerent and told me that he "didn't agree with me".
Clearly, unconscious bias plays a role, but the failure to grasp very simple abstractions is often striking.
I honestly wonder how people would do on these types of problems if pre-existing social biases were removed. Suppose a web site presented scale pictures of a baseball, a volleyball, and a basketball, and Americans were asked to categorize them as "large" or "small". At least two would have to be one or the other. Then what would happen if they were asked something like "of the two you chose as 'big', which is the smaller?". I strongly suspect that a surprisingly high percentage would react with anger that one of the "big" balls was being called "small".
Mike Elzinga · 14 April 2011
harold said:
There is a widespread inability to get past concrete, arbitrary statements, derived from authority (often the implied authority of group identification), into any level of critical thinking. This is especially true when a pre-existing bias interferes, but often seems to be independent of that.
I’m sure you are familiar with the bookHow to Lie With Statistics written by Darrel Huff way back in 1954. It is still a good read.
We dealt with many of these kinds of issues in the statistics courses I have taught. And in my work with those bright high school students at the math/science center, I was finding that even 9th and 10th graders could grasp these issues and have fun with them. There were many humorous exchanges over such issues during class.
One of the topics of philosophical conversation among a number of members of the instructional staff, as well as with members of the professional community who were also involved in the mentorship of these students, was about just how early these kinds of abilities would develop in children and adolescents in the general population if our educational system and parenting abilities could be vastly improved over what they are.
Many of us suspect that such abilities and growth are very quickly killed off by the socio/political norms of our society. The mental and emotional development that takes place before adolescence is much more rapid than we apparently know because most adults derive attitudes from their surrounding society about how to raise kids; and most of these methods are sub-optimal.
In fact, I suspect that you are correct in your observation that there is a widespread inability to get beyond the level of concrete thinking and being stalled in most of the forms of pre-adolescent cognitive abilities. Most people compensate; but the stunted development remains. Authoritarianism seems to be one of the culprits. Fear also plays a large roll.
Some of the members in one of our local churches formed a team of retired school teachers to become involved in targeted mentoring of disadvantaged children in the community. The results of their work were stunning; but it could not be sustained over the period from elementary school through to high school graduation. There were too many intervening socio/political and economic interferences that didn’t allow these teachers to follow through. The program was eventually abandoned as these retired teachers died or became too old to continue.
But the experiment pointed to some possibilities that even children caught in the trap of severe socio/economic disadvantage had the potential to grow much faster than they typically do.
But then there are also those children who have already been brain damaged before birth because of what kinds of things their mothers were doing when they were pregnant.
It’s a huge problem; and the majority of our politicians are too immature and ignorant to address it. Politics has become a battleground dominated by nasty, cognitively stunted children.
Lamarckism has never been taught as a "big lie," it's been taught as a disproven hypothesis.
Furthermore, epigenetics is actually very different from Lamarckism. Epigenetics is modification of RNA after translation. Lamarckism is giraffes inheriting long necks from straining, and blacksmiths' sons inheriting massive arms from their fathers' labors.
Pros: A smaller touchscreen revision of Apple’s mid-priced flash RAM media player, available in seven colors. New user interface mimics the iOS operating system of the iPhone and ipod touch, using swipe and tap gestures for most of the device’s controls, while using album art and wallpapers to nicely fill the screen with color. Integrated FM radio, pedometer, and accelerometer components carry over from the prior-generation iPod nano, along with sufficient 8GB and 16GB storage capacities. Includes an integrated clip that renders it instantly wearable. Superior audio battery life and volume to predecessors; remains compatible with Dock Connector accessories, including the Nike + iPod Sport Kit.
134 Comments
harold · 8 April 2011
Exactly - tumbleweeds are irreducibly complex, full of CSI, and could not possibly have evolved!
Hercules Grytpype-Thynne · 8 April 2011
So tumbleweeds are the visual equivalent of crickets?
mrg · 8 April 2011
Rather more terse than the "creationist claims" list over on talk.origins. Wait to see what Denyse O'Luskin has to say about THIS!
"Listening to a creationist arguing science is like watching a dog chasing a car. There's a lot of
running and barking, but if he catches it, he has absolutely no idea of how to drive."
Henry J · 8 April 2011
WATERLOO!!111!!!eleven!!!one!!!!
Glen Davidson · 8 April 2011
I'm glad that they could manage a truly comprehensive list.
All of it should be taught in biology classes.
Glen Davidson
Mike Clinch · 8 April 2011
And I emphatically agree with every single item on the list and DEMAND that every evolutionist acknowledge their absolute truth!!
And I demand that every biology teacher in every high school, charter school, private school, home school and every advisor to the Texas Board of Education teach every single one of these arguments!
John_S · 8 April 2011
Wait. Didn't somebody prove that if you leave a jar of peanut butter, it won't turn into a living creature? Plus, if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around? Why aren't they on that list, darn it? Didn't Darwin deny evolution on his death bed?
Karen S. · 8 April 2011
I always knew it was a hoax. And the tumbleweed is still a tumbleweed. It didn't evolve into a water buffalo as I watched it.
Hercules Grytpype-Thynne · 8 April 2011
Cheryl Shepherd-Adams · 8 April 2011
The lone cowboy stared at the haze of dust rising on the horizon. As his horse nickered nervously, he spat contemptuously in the dirt, knowing full well that the drift fence he'd just repaired would contain the oncoming thundering herd of tumbleweeds. "Them city slickers don't know whut they're missin'," he thought,"payin' over a hunnert dollars for a fancified green Christmas tree when they could have their very own real 'Merkan tumbleweed."
He sighed at the memories of the gaudily-bedecked tumbleweeds from holidays past, spat the last of his chew, and cantered out to guide the stragglers back to the herd. Yep, life was good.
mrg · 8 April 2011
Nice story, but there's also the amusement that tumbleweeds are an invasive species from the Ukraine. They were unknown in the USA until after the Civil War.
True Facts!
Mike Elzinga · 8 April 2011
That audio of the preacher linked to by Cheryl’s name is still the standard shtick containing the typical straw man arguments that ID/creationists still believe are their “slam dunk” arguments that will embarrass every teacher and professor of science.
Creationists flaunt their ignorance forever, no matter how many times they have been debunked.
This is one very bad preacher who rails in smug arrogance against things about which he knows absolutely nothing. He just makes up crap as he goes. He can’t even read the high school level books in front of him.
Children should not be preachers.
0112358 · 8 April 2011
Mike Elzinga · 8 April 2011
Life of Pi · 8 April 2011
Chris Lawson · 9 April 2011
Most of us who criticise the supernaturalism in creationism also criticise supernaturalism in ghost-chasing, fortune telling, clairvoyance, demonic possession, magic (er, I mean magick), and so on. What's more, we also tend to criticise pseudonaturalism (that is, supernaturalism dressed up to look like natural science) like ID, quantum healing, homeopathy, etc.
One thing I do agree on: material naturalists like myself can learn a lot from supernatural theories. For one thing, we'll never run out of logical fallacies to study. One day, when neuroscience is more advanced, I'd love to watch the development of the field of neurofallacious theory, which would in principle be a comprehensive theory of the structure of fallacious arguments and the neurological feedback loops that make them so persistent even in the face of overwhelming fail.
Dale Husband · 9 April 2011
I am reminded of some old country song with the line "drifting along with the tumbling tumbleweeds."
harold · 9 April 2011
harold · 9 April 2011
Matt G · 9 April 2011
Reminds me of the opening scene of The Big Lebowski. Also reminds me of the Compendium of Jewish Professional Athletes and the Complete Collection of Irish Erotic Literature.
TomS · 9 April 2011
RationalWiki also has articles on those:
Peanut Butter Argument
How come there are still monkeys?
Chris Booth · 9 April 2011
Cool images of the Flying Spaghetti Monster noodling from left to right.
harold · 9 April 2011
Matt G · 9 April 2011
harold · 9 April 2011
Matt G. -
My comment was actually not intended to be critical.
I was completely non-offended by your comment, and by the Wikipedia page, which I found interesting. I'm not the biggest sports fan in the world, but I do follow some sports, and know some people who grew up with one of the people mentioned on the page.
I don't know who put the page up, I can't think of any argument against it being there, and anyone who wants to can put up a web site or Wiki article about the African-American experience in golf, any time.
tresmal · 9 April 2011
A bit off topic but nothing on Tennessee?
Matt G · 9 April 2011
peter · 9 April 2011
"Remember that this line of “reasoning” has nothing to do with sincere theological inquiry"
hahahahhahahhhhhoooooooohuihuihui...serious theology...like serious inquiry into the existence of hobbits in england, eh?
peter · 9 April 2011
As there is no evidence except the brainfart products of various tribes and societies, mythologies codified without any reference to any objective observable phenomenon, how can theology anything but ridiculous.
I let it pass to analyze the various not so holy books with the tools of litarary criticism - but THEOLOGY, that is like taking Fafnir serious as an actual entity.
Theology is as much a con as any religion it "studies". Clouds of fluff upon clouds of fluff with the angels dancing on the head of a pin.
Paul Burnett · 9 April 2011
FL · 9 April 2011
John Kwok · 9 April 2011
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
Paul Burnett · 9 April 2011
Stanton · 9 April 2011
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
DS · 9 April 2011
After FL lied about racism, he ran away and refused to read the papers that proved he was wrong. Why listen to anything he has to say? Why not just ignore him and his ignorant nonsense? WHy not ban him to the bathroom wall?
mrg · 9 April 2011
Because people like to argue with them. I mean, look at these guys -- Stimpson, Biggie, FL, Byers -- they're just blowing smoke and it doesn't take more than a moment to figure out that it's all it is.
However, some people just enjoy trading shots with them. I will do so on occasion, but I pretty quickly realize I've got better things to do with my time, and gradually I've been learning to simply tune them out.
It would be nice if everyone did, but that's not going to happen, and so one has to be satisfied with making a personal choice in the matter.
mrg · 9 April 2011
Because people like it.
I mean, all these guys -- Biggie, FL, Stimpson, Byers -- are just blowing smoke, and it doesn't take very long to figure out there's nothing else there. But some folks just enjoy trading shots with them.
I will do so on occasion, but it doesn't take long for me to realize that I have better things to do with my time, and gradually I've learned to tune them out.
It's not hard to do; once the babble has been recognized for what it is, it just doesn't register
as anything more.
It would be nice if everyone tuned it out, but that's not going to happen, and so I take satisfaction in doing so as a personal decision.
Bob Carroll · 9 April 2011
There may not be a tumbluffalo, but how about buffalo grass?
Dale Husband · 9 April 2011
harold · 9 April 2011
My impressions -
FL - Repetitive, but worth shooting down once in a while. There may be some new lurkers around, and he is a pure, laboratory grade version of some of the whackier and more internally contradictory creationist claims. Also an exceptionally classic example of a troll in the true sense of "one who posts to stir up trouble".
Byers - A regressive troglodyte, but with some manners; doesn't threaten, abuse, or try to take over threads. Has spelling and grammar issues but is no more logically incoherent than the more polished weasels at the DI; Anglo-looking name does not rule out English as a second language, Irish and English surnames are pretty common among French Canadians, just as French surnames are pretty common among Anglophone Americans and Canadians. Generally makes obscure points of his own that don't really need to be addressed. Seems to provoke some people to rage, however. Often accused of lying but may be the rare example of a creationist who believes himself.
Stimpson - In past incarnations, the mirror image of FL - pure, unadulterated version of "ID isn't religious" type (despite strong evidence that he denies evolution to avoid rejection by fundamentalist relatives), with a lot of meaningless blather about "information". Relatively non-abusive but prone to juvenile one-liners, cherry-picking, and evading challenges. May have savant characteristics. Often worth addressing for the sake of new lurkers, as he reproduces DI cant fairly accurately, and then crumbles when it is challenged. Less manners than Byers, and with definite trolling tendencies, but let's give credit where it is due, generally not prone to threats, or overt homophobia/misogyny/racism. Sometimes manipulated/egged on by the more purely trollish Steve P.
IBIG - Here are my educated guesses - Individual or small team of individuals who are in an isolated, authoritarian, fundamentalist situation, and suffering from severe cognitive dissonance/probable suppressed desire to escape. Gender unclear (could be mixed gender team). Could be present or past victim of physical abuse. Strong obsessive tendencies. Uses "never stop talking as fast as possible" defense mechanism. Despite this, could be shamefully holding back uglier parts of an ideology. Inevitably sent to BW shortly after appearance.
Mike Elzinga · 9 April 2011
Matt Young · 9 April 2011
Karen S. · 9 April 2011
Mike Elzinga · 9 April 2011
william e emba · 9 April 2011
FL · 9 April 2011
When the Senate votes up or down on the TN bill, we can go ahead and discuss it then. If it passes--and also if the governor signs the bill, as per Paul Burnett's reminder--then that would be very important. (And also historic, since TN gave us the big Scopes drama.)
Meanwhile, I'm not particularly worried about recent heat-of-battle mistakes by certain posters, (nor about recent armchair profiling efforts by other posters), and I don't do grudges.
Having said that, I am in fact done with this thread (except to acknowledge out loud that PT's level of moderation IS visibly better than some other forums. Have to give credit where due.)
FL
SWT · 10 April 2011
John Kwok · 10 April 2011
John Kwok · 10 April 2011
Stanton · 10 April 2011
harold · 10 April 2011
I can't recall whether FL ever said he was African-American, or whether someone else made that guess (possibly because there is an African American blues musician who, if it isn't the same person, is also named Floyd Lee), and I can't think of anything more irrelevant.
I have not seen FL make any racist statements, ever. That's not praise, it's just an objective statement of fact. Is there a positive association between political creationism and racism? There absolutely is. However, many individuals adhere to one or the other without adhering to both.
All creationists make false statements that must be, by definition, products of either dishonesty, disconnect from reality, or a combination of the two. I don't see the use of synonyms for those conditions, applied to creationists, as a big problem. They can always stop denying scientific reality any time they want.
Mike Elzinga · 10 April 2011
Michael Roberts · 10 April 2011
Ray Martinez · 10 April 2011
mrg · 10 April 2011
Ray good buddy ... what percentage of the people you meet do NOT think you are a nut? WELL less than half, I should think.
Ray Martinez · 10 April 2011
mrg · 10 April 2011
Ray Martinez · 10 April 2011
Crudely Wrott · 10 April 2011
One tumbleweed would be sufficient.
Mike Elzinga · 10 April 2011
mrg · 10 April 2011
Ray Martinez · 10 April 2011
Bobbie · 10 April 2011
I love to visit RationalWiki for stuff related to evolution and skepticism. They have some hilarious pages making fun of pseudoscience.
Bobbie · 10 April 2011
In reply to a comment Ray Martinez made, just because most people believe something DOES NOT mean it is true. For example, 49% of Americans also think that ordinary tomatoes don't have genes, but that genetically modified ones do.
tresmal · 10 April 2011
Ray Martinez · 10 April 2011
didymos · 10 April 2011
Ray Martinez · 10 April 2011
Ray Martinez · 10 April 2011
Ray Martinez · 10 April 2011
Mike Elzinga · 10 April 2011
Bobbie · 10 April 2011
I wasn't talking about just evolution. I was talking about their articles on cryptozoology and ufos.
Bobbie · 10 April 2011
And by most people I mean the public, not scientists.
Ray Martinez · 10 April 2011
Ray Martinez · 10 April 2011
Mike Elzinga · 10 April 2011
Dale Husband · 10 April 2011
Dale Husband · 10 April 2011
Mike Elzinga · 10 April 2011
didymos · 10 April 2011
Mike Elzinga · 10 April 2011
harold · 10 April 2011
Ray Martinez -
Who is the designer, what did the designer design, how did the designer design it, and when did the designer design it?
Mike Elzinga · 10 April 2011
And speaking of the inability of ID/creationists to even explain their own concepts, let alone articulate any concepts in science, here is a creationist that can’t even tell us what a “baramin” in creationism encompasses, or what “problem” in science it addresses.
Here is another “profound” paper that Ray cannot articulate and defend.
This one is particularly important to YECs because it purports to “solve the distant starlight problem.” And poor Ray can’t tell us how it does that.
So many lost opportunities to demonstrate profound genius.
Scott F · 10 April 2011
harold · 11 April 2011
Ray Martinez -
So much for you. You would't testify that your designer is Jehovah/Jesus, that he "designed" man from dust and woman from man's rib, that he did it 6000 years ago, and that he did it with magic.
In other words, even a loon like you tries to play the cheesy DI "plausible deniability game".
Of course, you had to play it by running away.
Can you stand to actually take it to its logical extension? Can you say "the designer may well be a super-powered alien, he may have acted a billion years ago, the best example of his design is the bacterial flagellum, and he may have done it with super alien biotechnology"?
OgreMkV · 11 April 2011
FL, Please give me one example of a scientific topic whose veracity was verified by law.
Ray, will you accept evidence of microevolution that uses the actual definition of microevolution and not your incorrect version?
I know you guys will get right on this, thanks.
phantomreader42 · 11 April 2011
phantomreader42 · 11 April 2011
Matt G · 11 April 2011
Ray- Three mutations in E. coli which allow it to use citrate as an energy source. First mutation did nothing, but allowed the second mutation to make digestion of citrate possible (though at a low level), followed by a third mutation which (IIRC) made it possible to rely exclusively on citrate. We win!
Ray Martinez · 11 April 2011
Ray Martinez · 11 April 2011
DS · 11 April 2011
Time to throw your bible in the trash Ray. Microevolution is real, you lose.
DS · 11 April 2011
Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Genetics 160:823-832 (2002)
Citrate Metabolism in Bacteria
PNAS 105(23):7899-7906 (2008)
There are literally thousands more examples Ray. Microevolution is well documented. Even most religious nuts don't argue with it any more. Time to toss your bible in the trash Ray. You lose again. Unless of course you can come up with some reason why these are not examples of microevolution. No fair making up your own definitions either. Of course you would have to actually read the papers in order to disagree with them, theoretically speaking.
Ray Martinez · 11 April 2011
Matt G · 11 April 2011
OgreMkV · 11 April 2011
Ray, does it also surprise you to learn that Dembski is a Young Earth Creationist?
All that means is that Dembski says whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear. Why don't you actually talk about the science, instead of Dembski?
Now, how about answering my initial question... will you accept evidence that supports the real version of microevolution (as DS has provided) instead of the incorrect version that you stated?
And where did FL run off too?
Ray Martinez · 11 April 2011
Matt G · 11 April 2011
Ray Martinez · 11 April 2011
DS · 11 April 2011
Ray Martinez · 11 April 2011
DS · 11 April 2011
Ray wrote:
"I defined microevolution as “any slight change in species accomplished by an unguided/unintelligent natural process.”
FIrst, unguided is not the definition of microevolutuion. And nothing has baffled anyone except you.
Second, that is exactly what the papers document anyway Ray. They show exactly what the process is and exactly how it is unguided. If you refuse to read them, how can you say otherwise? If you can't understand the papers, how can you disagree? You got any evidence that the process is "guided"? By who? How? Why? To what end? Why did it take so long is there was someone guiding it? Thirty thousand generations is quite some time Ray. Was satan punishing humans by helping bacteria to develop resistance? Why did he do this Ray? Is this the best he could do? Why couldn't god stop this Ray?
You lose. Throw your bible in the trash. You promised.
OgreMkV · 11 April 2011
Ray Martinez · 11 April 2011
Matt G · 11 April 2011
DS · 11 April 2011
Ray Martinez · 11 April 2011
Ray Martinez · 11 April 2011
Mike Elzinga · 11 April 2011
Matt Young · 11 April 2011
John Vanko · 11 April 2011
Good for you Matt.
On another subject: I have a question, the answers to which should be posted on the BW I suppose.
If the Intelligent Designer turned out to be the Prince of Darkness, would IDists willingly become 'evolutionists'? How about YECreationists?
Ray Martinez · 11 April 2011
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
Matt G · 11 April 2011
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
Crudely Wrott · 11 April 2011
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
OgreMkV · 11 April 2011
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
John Kwok · 12 April 2011
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
NoNick · 12 April 2011
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
NoNick · 12 April 2011
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
Just Bob · 12 April 2011
Mike E.,
Please don't see this as some sort of smart-aleck challenge or gotcha. I REALLY admire your work here and the time you devote to it.
Lately you've taken to making the entirely defensible statement that creationists are unable to articulate a concept in science. I think I know what you mean by that, but I would like an example. Would you articulate a scientific concept? That way I, and maybe some others, will have a more concrete idea of what you mean when you use that phrase.
Thanks,
Just Bob
Robert Byers · 13 April 2011
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
Mike Elzinga · 13 April 2011
John Kwok · 13 April 2011
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
Just Bob · 13 April 2011
Thanks, Mike.
And I can congratulate myself for being at the grad student level of gravity concepts. As soon as you mentioned it, my thoughts were "Einstein: mass warping space-time."
Could your statement that creationists can't articulate scientific concepts be a bit of hyperbole? Surely some could explain some concepts, at least at lower levels. True, they rarely, if ever, do when they're in creationist mode, but in an area where their bible-blather doesn't immediately kick in, I imagine they could articulate a few reasonably well.
As a general statement, though, I think you're right on.
Mike Elzinga · 13 April 2011
Just Bob · 13 April 2011
I completely agree with you about metaphor. I've seen that here and in other places, including face-to-face.
And I can testify to how messed-up fundy-raised kids can be (even ones with decent native intelligence). I taught in a science/math/engineering public magnet high school. We tended to get many students from local Christian "academies," attending public school for the first time. Bright 10th grade girl: "But sir, doesn't the space shuttle run into all those planets, comets, and stars and things up there?" True story--and she objected to reading *The Lives of a Cell* since it was by an "evolutionist."
Another student, in making notes and commentary on Sagan's *Cosmos*, responded to item after item with "I don't believe that" and "the Bible says...." After she insisted that the speed of light had changed radically and that red shift was not a Doppler effect showing recession and universal expansion, I (sarcastically, yeah, but on paper, not in front of others) suggested that she should consider a career in cosmology and astrophysics, since she clearly was smarter than all those astronomers. She thought I was serious.
I knew many like that. And their parents weren't much in favor of "academic freedom" for public school teachers when our English department required them to read *Brave New World*.
eric · 13 April 2011
harold · 14 April 2011
Mike E and Bob -
I assume this thread is pretty much over, but anyway, I notice that certain very basic cognitive issues are incredibly common.
There is a widespread inability to get past concrete, arbitrary statements, derived from authority (often the implied authority of group identification), into any level of critical thinking. This is especially true when a pre-existing bias interferes, but often seems to be independent of that.
For example -
1) The New York City area gained more residents than any other urban area in the nation except San Antonio, during the the census period 2000-2010. It is also suggested that the census undercounted the NYC gain. Be that as it may, it was widely reported that the NYC area grew very "slowly", with results given in percentage terms. The logical flaw is glaring. New York City is already so large that it logically cannot have a high percentage of population growth except under extreme circumstances. The NYC metropolitan area is conservatively estimated at a bit more than 19M people (some estimates are larger due to including more geographical areas), so for a 10% growth rate, almost two million new residents, more than the population of many large cities or states, would have had to have arrived. Yet not only was the claim that the NYC area population "grew slowly" widespread, but interviews with New Yorkers were broadcast, and they almost all showed New Yorkers either expressing dismay that the area was failing attract new residents, or insisting (correctly) that something was "wrong" with the analysis, yet not being able to state what the problem was. Similar logic is often used to claim that initially very small areas that gained a few thousand people due to some one time event are "the fastest growing area in America". What's interesting is that there is a bias at work in the initial presentation of the data (journalists always want to claim that "conservative" things are on the upswing, and "liberal" things are being crushed), few people are able to see the obviously illogic.
2) In another forum, I pointed out that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is no worse ideologically than the other primary candidates, merely more blunt and buffoonish than most. It should be obvious that this is no statement of support for Trump, but merely a neutral observation that Gingrich, Palin, Huckabee, etc, aren't actually any less ideologically extreme. It was also obvious from the context that I strongly oppose Trump's political views. Nevertheless, the comment generated outrage from other Trump opponents for "saying something good about Donald Trump".
3) I had a similar experience in a high level finance class. A group I was in did a project comparing the exchange rates of the Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso to the US dollar during a certain time period. The Canadian dollar tracked the US dollar much more closely. However, as the time period we were studying was familiar to me as a period during which the US dollar had changed value rapidly relative to the euro (and this had been constantly reported in the media), I happened to casually point out the neutral fact that, looking at exchange rate relative to the euro, the Mexican peso had been relatively stable during the same period, and the US and Canadian dollars, by that standard, volatile. A group member of Indian South African descent immediately got what I was saying, but a male American group member became angry and belligerent and told me that he "didn't agree with me".
Clearly, unconscious bias plays a role, but the failure to grasp very simple abstractions is often striking.
I honestly wonder how people would do on these types of problems if pre-existing social biases were removed. Suppose a web site presented scale pictures of a baseball, a volleyball, and a basketball, and Americans were asked to categorize them as "large" or "small". At least two would have to be one or the other. Then what would happen if they were asked something like "of the two you chose as 'big', which is the smaller?". I strongly suspect that a surprisingly high percentage would react with anger that one of the "big" balls was being called "small".
Mike Elzinga · 14 April 2011
Stanton · 23 April 2011
Lamarckism has never been taught as a "big lie," it's been taught as a disproven hypothesis.
Furthermore, epigenetics is actually very different from Lamarckism. Epigenetics is modification of RNA after translation. Lamarckism is giraffes inheriting long necks from straining, and blacksmiths' sons inheriting massive arms from their fathers' labors.
Dov Henis · 8 May 2011
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
Dave Luckett · 9 May 2011
Is anyone able to figure out what this guy is saying? And why?
Mike Elzinga · 9 May 2011
fnxtr · 9 May 2011
Timecube emulator.
Carroll B. Merriman · 6 June 2011
Pros: A smaller touchscreen revision of Apple’s mid-priced flash RAM media player, available in seven colors. New user interface mimics the iOS operating system of the iPhone and ipod touch, using swipe and tap gestures for most of the device’s controls, while using album art and wallpapers to nicely fill the screen with color. Integrated FM radio, pedometer, and accelerometer components carry over from the prior-generation iPod nano, along with sufficient 8GB and 16GB storage capacities. Includes an integrated clip that renders it instantly wearable. Superior audio battery life and volume to predecessors; remains compatible with Dock Connector accessories, including the Nike + iPod Sport Kit.