Are Creationists Getting Dumber
Will in New Haven
--
Will in New Haven
Dave Fritzinger
wrote:
> Or am I just running out of patience?
>
You're running out of patience. They *can't* get any dumber...
8^)
Ron O
I don't know if that is true. There are likely fewer creationists
willing to support the latest scams. Abject failure for the last
three decades has to have some effect. The AIG is even putting out a
list of arguments their supporters should no longer use. We just saw
a boob use 3 of them in one post. We are likely going to get more
guys too stupid to breath supporting the junk because no one else
will.
Ron Okimoto
Steven L.
> Or am I just running out of patience?
My theory: An odd kind of natural selection has taken place, in which
being smart is being selected *against*.
The reason is that if a creationist is smart enough to frame a logical,
cogent, scientific-sounding argument backed up by some kinds of data,
his argument becomes "good enough to criticize"--and MORE vulnerable to
being shot down in flames.
A good example is Sean Pitman ("SeanPit"), who thought of himself as a
scientific researcher--and made the mistake of critiquing the papers of
evolutionist scientists. They came onto this NG and shot him down in
flames.
Whereas if a creationist comes into this NG and starts ranting about how
Darwinism leads to Nazism, or how the ToE is thinly disguised atheism,
there's not much to do about it. He's entitled to his philosophical
opinions. We've been arguing moral philosophy for thousands of years,
and we've made remarkably slow progress--almost no progress as compared
with scientific progress.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
John Harshman
> On Nov 9, 5:48 pm, Dave Fritzinger <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 1:40 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Or am I just running out of patience?
>> You're running out of patience. They *can't* get any dumber...
>> 8^)
>
> I don't know if that is true. There are likely fewer creationists
> willing to support the latest scams. Abject failure for the last
> three decades has to have some effect.
Define "abject failure". Around half the population of the US thinks
that creationism is at least as good as evolution, if not better. Their
only failures are in logical argument, which doesn't matter, and in the
courts, which do.
> The AIG is even putting out a
> list of arguments their supporters should no longer use.
Been there for years and years.
> We just saw
> a boob use 3 of them in one post.
Which should be a clue to you that we're not making much progress. They
aren't failures until they realize it.
> We are likely going to get more
> guys too stupid to breath supporting the junk because no one else
> will.
Or perhaps all the minimally competent creationists have fled to more
friendly venues.
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
> Or am I just running out of patience?
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
Actually Will,. umm... I was not going to bring this up, but, since
you did...., the paradigm shift in society today is toward the
evolutionist being dumber then a rock. One who will fall for anything.
This happens to be the main assumption which underpins a generally
agreed upon world view today. The winds of change and all that.
It must sux to be an Evolutionist in this modern world of people that
think before they believe. The Internet is a wonderful thing even
though Al Gore invented it.
Because, after all, those that do not question everything will fall
for anything like the evolutionist does.
Desertphile
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> Or am I just running out of patience?
Creationists are getting desperate; they have always been stupid.
That was bound to happen, here in The Information Age.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
guscubed
> On Nov 9, 5:40 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Or am I just running out of patience?
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> Actually Will,. umm... I was not going to bring this up, but, since
> you did...., the paradigm shift in society today is toward the
> evolutionist being dumber then a rock. One who will fall for anything.
> This happens to be the main assumption which underpins a generally
> agreed upon world view today. The winds of change and all that.
Congratulations on achieving the same level of coherence as Great
Dayne, AdMan. One can hardly blame people for 'falling for the theory
of evolution', it is so plausible and there is a mountain of evidence
that supports it, in fact, I can't think of any evidence that
contradicts it, can you? Still, you and I know know the truth don't
we? We won't be dissuaded by such immaterial and ephemeral frippery
like facts or physical evidence, all hail the great green
akrleseizure! May he vanquish the dread handkerchief for ever!
>
> It must sux to be an Evolutionist in this modern world of people that
> think before they believe. The Internet is a wonderful thing even
> though Al Gore invented it.
Ah yes, this modern world where we worship a triune God who sacrificed
himself to himself in order to appease his own righteous anger at his
creation who disobeyed his omniscient self while his back was turned.
This sophisticated utopia where we ritually sup on the flesh and blood
of a sado-masochist ditator and sing his praises for eternity, because
there's nothing more that an omnipotent, omoniscient being likes more
than to be told just how bloody wonderful he is, constantly, for ever.
>
> Because, after all, those that do not question everything will fall
> for anything like the evolutionist does.
Yeah! Wait, no - if we question everything we might have to change our
notions about how the world works, we might have to drop ancient
superstitions for provable hypotheses and test predictions made from
these hypotheses - then where would we be? That way chaos and madness
lie! We'd best close our eyes and ears and trust in the third-hand
translation of the oral legends of desert dwelling nomads, for surely
they knew everything about everything.
fnord
Will in New Haven
I wasn't really asking you, you stupid shit. That you think that facts
can be settled by, or even influenced by, a vote shows that you are an
imbecile. In fact, compared to some of the creationists who used to
come here, you were my primary example of being an imbecile.
You've fallen for the oldest con in the world.
Tim DeLaney
The stock in trade for the creationist seems to be
wishful thinking. Even though the vast majority of
the scientific community accepts evolution as the
best explanation of workings of the biological world,
you continue to pretend that ToE is on the decline.
It is not. You are simply wrong to believe otherwise.
You are engaged in wishful thinking. Maybe it comforts
you to delude yourself into thinking that "Darwinism"
is on the verge of being consigned to the dustbin of
history. Nothing could be further from the truth.
ToE is robust, and has remarkable explanatory power.
There is no school of thought that comes close to
replacing it. People here have offered you example
after example of evidence for evolution, and yet you
pretend that it cannot be valid. You you offer
nothing in the way of an alternative explanation,
except the lame "Goddidit".
Tim
VoiceOfReason
All-Seeing-I wrote:
> On Nov 9, 5:40 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
> wrote:
> > Or am I just running out of patience?
> >
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> Actually Will,. umm... I was not going to bring this up, but, since
> you did...., the paradigm shift in society today is toward the
> evolutionist being dumber then a rock.
Which of course is why the more educated a person is, the more likely
it is that they accept the fact of evolution. Duh.
<...>
VoiceOfReason
Will in New Haven wrote:
> Or am I just running out of patience?
>
The current crop are certainly less creative than the ones who used to
hang out here. I suspect some may have crawled away realizing they
were wrong all along, and too embarrassed to admit it.
VoiceOfReason
wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:40:04 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
>
> > Or am I just running out of patience?
>
> Creationists are getting desperate; they have always been stupid.
> That was bound to happen, here in The Information Age.
I think that desperation is obvious in all right-wingers these days.
Their screeching is growing more frantic day by day. The things you
see these days from garbage grinders like WND and Fox is just
amazing. Since these wackjobs are associated with the Republican
party now, it's no wonder people are leaving the party in increasing
numbers.
Will in New Haven
Fuck off with that right-winger stuff. The religious right has decreed
that you have to leave your brain behind to be a Republican but some
of us still believe in individual liberty and small government without
being god-deluded.
Will in New Haven
Which is why his ilk would like to destroy education in this country,
if not in the world. We could make facts subject to a popular vote. Pi
would be much simpler if it were just 3 and the engineering
catastrophe's that resulted would be a small price to pay for the
serenity of knowing that the deceased from those disasters, at least
the ones who weren't doomed by being able to perceive god, would be
with god and he probably wouldn't decide to torture them.
Mark Evans
> wrote:
>
> > Or am I just running out of patience?
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> Actually Will,. umm... I was not going to bring this up, but, since
> you did...., the paradigm shift in society today is toward the
> This happens to be the main assumption which underpins a generally
> agreed upon world view today. The winds of change and all that.
>
> think before they believe. The Internet is a wonderful thing even
> though Al Gore invented it.
>
> Because, after all, those that do not question everything will fall
There, I fixed your post's spelling errors.
Mark Evans
Ron O
> Ron O wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 5:48 pm, Dave Fritzinger <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 9, 1:40 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Or am I just running out of patience?
> >> You're running out of patience. They *can't* get any dumber...
> >> 8^)
>
> > I don't know if that is true. There are likely fewer creationists
> > willing to support the latest scams. Abject failure for the last
> > three decades has to have some effect.
>
> Define "abject failure". Around half the population of the US thinks
> that creationism is at least as good as evolution, if not better. Their
> only failures are in logical argument, which doesn't matter, and in the
> courts, which do.
Loss in three court cases, and the ID perps running the bait and
switch on their own creationist support base when they had to own up
to the fact that they never had the science to back up their
creationist propaganda. There probably isn't a failure bigger than
when your own side stabs you in the back and makes you look like a
boob for believing the scam artists.
There aren't any creationists that are not as badly off as adman or
Tapestry that aren't just ignorant of what is going on that could
support the junk without second thoughts at this time.
I don't discount ignorance, and ignorance doesn't make the abject
failure into anything else.
>
> > The AIG is even putting out a
> > list of arguments their supporters should no longer use.
>
> Been there for years and years.
Only around 7 or 8 years from my recollection. Only around a year or
two before the ID perps began running the bait and switch scam on any
rube stupid enough to have believed that they had any ID science to
teach.
>
> > We just saw
> > a boob use 3 of them in one post.
>
> Which should be a clue to you that we're not making much progress. They
> aren't failures until they realize it.
We don't have to make the progress. You seem to have a mistaken idea
of what is going on. It is the creationists propaganda machine that
have to get the boobs to, at least, listen to them when they cry uncle
and tell their side that some arguments are so stupid that no one
should use them because they make their side look like the ignorant
and incompetent boobs that they are.
Just look how long it has taken the ID perps to get the message across
that the ID scam was dead and that everyone should get on board the
switch scam. The last example of school boards and legislators
claiming to want to teach ID was in Florida earlier this year. Over 3
years after Dover and over half a decade after they started running
the bait and switch scam on every rube legislator and schoolboard that
had bought into the ID scam. Their inability to get the ignorant and
incompetent in line has made it nearly impossible for anyone to take
the switch scam seriously. All anyone has to do is look up what Judge
Jones said about the "teach the controversy" switch scam, and that it
has been backed up by 3 years of stupidity where the creationists have
demonstrated just what the scam really is.
The ignorance cuts both ways. The ID perps have to wait for a
pristine group of losers that are willing to lie about what they are
doing and have no history of having been had by the ID scam, before
the switch scam has any chance. So far they haven't been able to find
such a group because they have relied on the ignorant and incomptent
to support them. Every group has screwed up so far. With that record
they might get a group dishonest enough to try to perpetrate the
switch scam, but who would not know that they were lying? From guys
that want to call it devine design to guys that get caught on tape
outlining the switch scam and how the supporters can't mention
creationism nor ID in a switch scam bootcamp run in a church. How
much of a chance would the switch scam have in court (even in Texas)
with McLeroy having that evidence against what ever he could make up
as an excuse for what he said in his church of all places? You can't
make this junk up.
>
> > We are likely going to get more
> > guys too stupid to breath supporting the junk because no one else
> > will.
>
> Or perhaps all the minimally competent creationists have fled to more
> friendly venues.
ARN still exists, one or two guys still post to ISCID, and there is
UD, but I would not call these guys minimally competent. Not only
that, but they are leaving a record of how all the creationists scams
are related and woven together. Just look at all the obvious YEC ID
supporters that are coming out in favor of the switch scam. These
guys really are their own worst enemies.
Ron Okimoto
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ladies and Gentlemen of Lurk Land, I rest my case.
All-seeing-I
I'll be the first to admit. There are some parts to evolution that are
valid.
But that fish-to-man and ape-to-man thingy has got to go.
chop chop... get busy.
Will in New Haven
What you don't understand is that evolution is what has happened, not
what will make you feel better.
Dana Tweedy
> I'll be the first to admit. There are some parts to evolution that are
> valid.
>
> But that fish-to-man and ape-to-man thingy has got to go.
Since they are some of the valid parts, why would they have to go?
>
> chop chop... get busy.
Why not learn something about what you are trying to "chop"?
DJT
RAM
Better get out of the quicksand and return to something more solid
like empirical evidence. And of course when you do your case
dissolves in thin air.
So Lurk Landers evidence is more important than Adman's assertions,
opinions or ancient texts.
RAM
Remember Lurk Landers evidence over opinions, assertions and beliefs.
Boikat
I don't know about dumber, but they sure are pressing the limits of
sanity.
Boikat
Klaus Hellnick
> On Nov 10, 11:51 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 5:40 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Or am I just running out of patience?
>>> --
>>> Will in New Haven
>> Actually Will,. umm... I was not going to bring this up, but, since
>> you did...., the paradigm shift in society today is toward the
>> evolutionist being dumber then a rock. One who will fall for anything.
>> This happens to be the main assumption which underpins a generally
>> agreed upon world view today. The winds of change and all that.
>
> Congratulations on achieving the same level of coherence as Great
> Dayne, AdMan.
I am pretty certain he IS Great Dayne, Tapestry, Skinny Cartman, and others.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Will in New Haven" <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
news:f637c6f2-f78d-4a59...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> Or am I just running out of patience?
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
>
Neither.
Creationists cannot get any dumber.
If you are impatient, it is no different than the impatience the rest of the
world had against Hitler.
(Caveat to the Second amendment:
The only legally justified reason to own a gun is to protect yourself from
creationists and Jehovah's Witnesses)
Ye Old One
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Or am I just running out of patience?
I think both are true. Certainly I would say that I'm finding them
dumber and I'm running out of patience.
--
Bob.
VoiceOfReason
wrote:
> On Nov 9, 9:23 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 8:38 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:40:04 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
>
> > > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > > > Or am I just running out of patience?
>
> > > Creationists are getting desperate; they have always been stupid.
> > > That was bound to happen, here in The Information Age.
>
> > I think that desperation is obvious in all right-wingers these days.
> > Their screeching is growing more frantic day by day. The things you
> > see these days from garbage grinders like WND and Fox is just
> > amazing. Since these wackjobs are associated with the Republican
> > party now, it's no wonder people are leaving the party in increasing
> > numbers.
>
> Fuck off with that right-winger stuff. The religious right has decreed
> that you have to leave your brain behind to be a Republican but some
> of us still believe in individual liberty and small government without
> being god-deluded.
>
Understood, but in the public eye perception is everything. And
increasingly the perception is that the lunatic fringe (Limbaugh,
Beck, etc.) represent the Republican party. The moderates and old-
time Republicans are being drowned out by the wingnuts.
bpuharic
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>Or am I just running out of patience?
yeah i think they're getting more desperate...their language is
becoming almost incoherent
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Nov 9, 5:40 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
>wrote:
>> Or am I just running out of patience?
>>
>> --
>> Will in New Haven
>
>Actually Will,. umm... I was not going to bring this up, but, since
>you did...., the paradigm shift in society today is toward the
>evolutionist being dumber then a rock.
really? we scientists don't think so. scientists across the world
accept evolution as fact
>
>It must sux to be an Evolutionist in this modern world of people that
>think before they believe. The Internet is a wonderful thing even
>though Al Gore invented it.
>
>Because, after all, those that do not question everything will fall
>for anything like the evolutionist does.
let's sse...he doesn't question creationism...a 2000 year old failed
idea...
THEN he comes here to tell scientists about our failed ideas.
gee. talk about a failed paradigm
bpuharic
>
>I'll be the first to admit. There are some parts to evolution that are
>valid.
>
>But that fish-to-man and ape-to-man thingy has got to go.
>
>chop chop... get busy.
kind of like saying a car has to run without an engine
and creationism?
2000 years of failure...not a single success. yet he thinks it's valid
Nashton
> Or am I just running out of patience?
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
>
How's this for dumb, stupid:
1. All modern drugs are derived from the ToE.
2. Science is not a human invention.
Sound familiar?
Nashton
> Ron O wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 5:48 pm, Dave Fritzinger <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or am I just running out of patience?
>>> 8^)
>>
>> I don't know if that is true. There are likely fewer creationists
>> willing to support the latest scams. Abject failure for the last
>> three decades has to have some effect.
>
> Define "abject failure". Around half the population of the US thinks
> that creationism is at least as good as evolution, if not better. Their
> only failures are in logical argument, which doesn't matter, and in the
> courts, which do.
Well, when you can't convince people of your convictions, make a judge
force it upon them.
>
>> The AIG is even putting out a
>> list of arguments their supporters should no longer use.
>
> Been there for years and years.
>
>> We just saw
>> a boob use 3 of them in one post.
>
> Which should be a clue to you that we're not making much progress. They
> aren't failures until they realize it.
Ah, the pride thing.
So Harshman can you elaborate on why creationists are failures when the
ToE hasn't been behind any discovery in science that has been of any use
to Man.
Who's the failure, Harshman?
>
>> We are likely going to get more
>> guys too stupid to breath supporting the junk because no one else
>> will.
>
> Or perhaps all the minimally competent creationists have fled to more
> friendly venues.
>
Oh we are certainly not as competent as Darwinists, who have contributed
so much to the world of science and yet, the ToE remains useless.
Burkhard
Unless of course your job is wildlife management say. See e.g. Marco
Festa-Bianchet, Marco Apollonio: Animal behavior and wildlife
conservation, in particular Chapter 12, Exploitative Wildlife
Management as a Selective Pressure for the Life-History Evolution of
Large Mammals and Chapter 14: Pathogen-Driven Sexual Selection for “Good
Genes” versus Genetic Variability in Small Populations with further
references
But of course, if you think that animals are given to us to do what we
want with them, and the gods make sure there will always be plenty of
them, you arguably won't need the ToE for this.
Nashton
What's hilarious is that the Darwinists also rely on a sort of consensus
to promulgate their useless theory.
The consensus in their case happens to be legal.
Nashton
>
> Better get out of the quicksand and return to something more solid
> like empirical evidence. And of course when you do your case
> dissolves in thin air.
Their is hardly any empirical evidence for the ToE. it's all inference.
And do try to communicate your thoughts in English.
>
> So Lurk Landers evidence is more important than Adman's assertions,
> opinions or ancient texts.
According to whom?
And why should anyone care about the ToE given that it's utterly useless?
>
Nashton
>
> Unless of course your job is wildlife management say. See e.g. Marco
> Festa-Bianchet, Marco Apollonio: Animal behavior and wildlife
> conservation, in particular Chapter 12, Exploitative Wildlife
> Management as a Selective Pressure for the Life-History Evolution of
> Large Mammals and Chapter 14: Pathogen-Driven Sexual Selection for “Good
> Genes” versus Genetic Variability in Small Populations with further
> references
>
> But of course, if you think that animals are given to us to do what we
> want with them, and the gods make sure there will always be plenty of
> them, you arguably won't need the ToE for this.
>
That's nice. Methodology? Abstract? n?
You're welcome
Nashton
Why not use your superior knowledge skills to get a University degree
instead of pretending that a vocational college education can prepare
you for the sort of analytical thinking that is required in science.
Have you *ever* taken up a course in stats, for example?
Burkhard
And you mean with that what exactly? The methodology is the usual
methodology of science (observation, hypothesis, testing,refining of
hypothesis, retesting), the book should be in a library near you, and I
don't know what "n" means.
> You're welcome
>
For what? Your post was as always content free.
MAB
wrote:
> Or am I just running out of patience?
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
Are you talking about creationists that post here or in general? This
group seems to attract a more radical sub-set of the average.
Mark
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in messagenews:f637c6f2-f78d-4a59...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Or am I just running out of patience?
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> Neither.
> Creationists cannot get any dumber.
> If you are impatient, it is no different than the impatience the rest of the
> world had against Hitler.
>
> (Caveat to the Second amendment:
> The only legally justified reason to own a gun is to protect yourself from
> creationists and Jehovah's Witnesses)
My legally justified reason, under Connecticut state law, is because I
want one. I needed more justification than that for my permit to
carry. I find Witnesses amusing and can usually get them out of my
doorway without shooting them, although that option IS a comfort.
Will in New Haven
Those are not core arguments for the fact of evolution. Let's have a
quick experiment.
You have a really bad heart attack (which makes the whole thing
worthwile, no matter what the outcome) and go to a hospital run by
creationists. I will simulate having a bad heart attack and go to St.
Rapheal's, a hospital run by a church that has accepted the fact of
evolution.
In the spirit of Titanic Thompson and Gene Scott, I have loaded the
dice in my favor but what's the difference.
Will in New Haven
Oh, I agree there. I know lots of religious people and I am sure some
of them are creationists. But they don't pretend to study biology and
_refute_ evolution. They don't jump up and down hysterically denying
the discoveries of science. Just as I have known atheists who did
_not_ accept the reality of evolution, which is something RayRay
believes never happens. Some people just don't care much, also.
John Harshman
> On Nov 9, 6:37 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ron O wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 5:48 pm, Dave Fritzinger <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Or am I just running out of patience?
>>>> 8^)
>>> I don't know if that is true. There are likely fewer creationists
>>> willing to support the latest scams. Abject failure for the last
>>> three decades has to have some effect.
>> Define "abject failure". Around half the population of the US thinks
>> that creationism is at least as good as evolution, if not better. Their
>> only failures are in logical argument, which doesn't matter, and in the
>> courts, which do.
>
> switch on their own creationist support base when they had to own up
> to the fact that they never had the science to back up their
> creationist propaganda. There probably isn't a failure bigger than
> when your own side stabs you in the back and makes you look like a
> boob for believing the scam artists.
>
> There aren't any creationists that are not as badly off as adman or
> Tapestry that aren't just ignorant of what is going on that could
> support the junk without second thoughts at this time.
>
> I don't discount ignorance, and ignorance doesn't make the abject
> failure into anything else.
>
>>> The AIG is even putting out a
>>> list of arguments their supporters should no longer use.
>> Been there for years and years.
>
> two before the ID perps began running the bait and switch scam on any
> rube stupid enough to have believed that they had any ID science to
> teach.
>
>>> We just saw
>>> a boob use 3 of them in one post.
>> Which should be a clue to you that we're not making much progress. They
>> aren't failures until they realize it.
>
> of what is going on. It is the creationists propaganda machine that
> have to get the boobs to, at least, listen to them when they cry uncle
> and tell their side that some arguments are so stupid that no one
> should use them because they make their side look like the ignorant
> and incompetent boobs that they are.
>
> Just look how long it has taken the ID perps to get the message across
> that the ID scam was dead and that everyone should get on board the
> switch scam. The last example of school boards and legislators
> claiming to want to teach ID was in Florida earlier this year. Over 3
> years after Dover and over half a decade after they started running
> the bait and switch scam on every rube legislator and schoolboard that
> had bought into the ID scam. Their inability to get the ignorant and
> incompetent in line has made it nearly impossible for anyone to take
> the switch scam seriously. All anyone has to do is look up what Judge
> Jones said about the "teach the controversy" switch scam, and that it
> has been backed up by 3 years of stupidity where the creationists have
> demonstrated just what the scam really is.
>
> The ignorance cuts both ways. The ID perps have to wait for a
> pristine group of losers that are willing to lie about what they are
> doing and have no history of having been had by the ID scam, before
> the switch scam has any chance. So far they haven't been able to find
> such a group because they have relied on the ignorant and incomptent
> to support them. Every group has screwed up so far. With that record
> they might get a group dishonest enough to try to perpetrate the
> switch scam, but who would not know that they were lying? From guys
> that want to call it devine design to guys that get caught on tape
> outlining the switch scam and how the supporters can't mention
> creationism nor ID in a switch scam bootcamp run in a church. How
> much of a chance would the switch scam have in court (even in Texas)
> with McLeroy having that evidence against what ever he could make up
> as an excuse for what he said in his church of all places? You can't
> make this junk up.
>
>>> We are likely going to get more
>>> guys too stupid to breath supporting the junk because no one else
>>> will.
>> Or perhaps all the minimally competent creationists have fled to more
>> friendly venues.
>
> UD, but I would not call these guys minimally competent.
By comparison only, of course.
> Not only
> that, but they are leaving a record of how all the creationists scams
> are related and woven together. Just look at all the obvious YEC ID
> supporters that are coming out in favor of the switch scam. These
> guys really are their own worst enemies.
And yet it seems to matter only in the courts. As far as the general
public is concerned, none of these dodges and swerves matter, and
creationism is as popular as it ever was. Every new claim of scientific
respectability is accepted with gratitude, just as if the last one
hadn't failed. If the courst system ever fails us, we're toast.
John Harshman
If that's your criterion for failure, then isn't creationism a failure?
Or can you name a useful discovery, or any discovery for that matter,
that was based on creationism?
Now I reject your criterion. Even if evolutionary biology had no
practical value, knowledge is valuable for its own sake. Ignorance, on
the other hand, is pernicious even if it has no obvious harmful effects.
Evolutionary biology does have uses, but that's beside the point.
>>> We are likely going to get more
>>> guys too stupid to breath supporting the junk because no one else
>>> will.
>>
>> Or perhaps all the minimally competent creationists have fled to more
>> friendly venues.
>
> Oh we are certainly not as competent as Darwinists, who have contributed
> so much to the world of science and yet, the ToE remains useless.
Why should practical utility be the judge of science?
hersheyh
wrote:
> Or am I just running out of patience?
>
> Will in New Haven
Look on it as a source of amusement. Take the two following recent
comments by an unnamed creationist [soon to be a published author,
according to him] in the *same* thread, and parse it for logical
coherence.
"NS [natural selection] does not exist."
"I do not dispute the handful of truisms that comprise natural
selection."
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 9, 8:04 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
>wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 7:51 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 9, 5:40 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > Or am I just running out of patience?
>>
>> > > --
>> > > Will in New Haven
>>
>> > Actually Will,. umm... I was not going to bring this up, but, since
>> > you did...., the paradigm shift in society today is toward the
>> > evolutionist being dumber then a rock. One who will fall for anything.
>> > This happens to be the main assumption which underpins a generally
>> > agreed upon world view today. The winds of change and all that.
>>
>> > It must sux to be an Evolutionist in this modern world of people that
>> > think before they believe. The Internet is a wonderful thing even
>> > though Al Gore invented it.
>>
>> > Because, after all, those that do not question everything will fall
>> > for anything like the evolutionist does.
>>
>> I wasn't really asking you, you stupid shit. That you think that facts
>> can be settled by, or even influenced by, a vote shows that you are an
>> imbecile. In fact, compared to some of the creationists who used to
>> come here, you were my primary example of being an imbecile.
>>
>> You've fallen for the oldest con in the world.
>>
>> --
>> Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Ladies and Gentlemen of Lurk Land, I rest my case.
You don't have a case.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Nashton
Oh, the irony.
You don't know what "n" means when analyzing research?
If all scientific research had adequate methodology, there would be many
orders of magnitude more peer reviewed, scientific papers than there are
at the moment. Most research gets a failing grade because of methodology.
Do you know *anything* about science?
>
>
>> You're welcome
>>
>
> For what? Your post was as always content free.
LOL
>
Burkhard
> Burkhard wrote:
> > Nashton wrote:
> >> Burkhard wrote:
>
> >>> Unless of course your job is wildlife management say. See e.g. Marco
> >>> Festa-Bianchet, Marco Apollonio: Animal behavior and wildlife
> >>> conservation, in particular Chapter 12, Exploitative Wildlife
> >>> Management as a Selective Pressure for the Life-History Evolution of
> >>> Large Mammals and Chapter 14: Pathogen-Driven Sexual Selection for
> >>> “Good Genes” versus Genetic Variability in Small Populations with
> >>> further references
>
> >>> But of course, if you think that animals are given to us to do what
> >>> we want with them, and the gods make sure there will always be plenty
> >>> of them, you arguably won't need the ToE for this.
>
> >> That's nice. Methodology? Abstract? n?
>
> > And you mean with that what exactly? The methodology is the usual
> > methodology of science (observation, hypothesis, testing,refining of
> > hypothesis, retesting), the book should be in a library near you, and I
> > don't know what "n" means.
>
> Oh, the irony.
> You don't know what "n" means when analyzing research?
That depends really on the context, which you failed to provide. It
could be pretty much anything that requires a variable to express
some numerical value.
> If all scientific research had adequate methodology, there would be many
> orders of magnitude more peer reviewed, scientific papers than there are
> at the moment. Most research gets a failing grade because of methodology.
>
> Do you know *anything* about science?
>
Very little given all there is to know, and infinitesimally more than
you.
RAM
> Burkhard wrote:
> > Nashton wrote:
> >> Burkhard wrote:
>
> >>> Unless of course your job is wildlife management say. See e.g. Marco
> >>> Festa-Bianchet, Marco Apollonio: Animal behavior and wildlife
> >>> conservation, in particular Chapter 12, Exploitative Wildlife
> >>> Management as a Selective Pressure for the Life-History Evolution of
> >>> Large Mammals and Chapter 14: Pathogen-Driven Sexual Selection for
> >>> “Good Genes” versus Genetic Variability in Small Populations with
> >>> further references
>
> >>> But of course, if you think that animals are given to us to do what
> >>> we want with them, and the gods make sure there will always be plenty
> >>> of them, you arguably won't need the ToE for this.
>
> >> That's nice. Methodology? Abstract? n?
>
> > And you mean with that what exactly? The methodology is the usual
> > methodology of science (observation, hypothesis, testing,refining of
> > hypothesis, retesting), the book should be in a library near you, and I
> > don't know what "n" means.
>
> Oh, the irony.
> You don't know what "n" means when analyzing research?
That is because they employ "N" when referring to the sample size and
never use "n".
> If all scientific research had adequate methodology, there would be many
> orders of magnitude more peer reviewed, scientific papers than there are
> at the moment.
This makes not sense and it is typical of you to think you know more
than you do.
> Most research gets a failing grade because of methodology.
You wouldn't understand the methodology well enough to make any
reasoned judgment of the professional research techniques employed.
This is a field research study and employs a variety of methods. And
the N's vary all over the place that is the nature of the beast when
doing field research.
Abstracts are not a characteristic of books.
>
> Do you know *anything* about science?
>
>
You know way less than you think.
>
>> You're welcome
>
> > For what? Your post was as always content free.
>
> LOL
Indeed.
>
>
Nashton
Creationism isn't a science unless you endow it with the same axioms as
non creationism.
The one thing that comes to mind is the axiom of the Big Bang. this
fairy tale is as valid as any conjecture imagined in the minds of
materialists.
> Or can you name a useful discovery, or any discovery for that matter,
> that was based on creationism?
>
> Now I reject your criterion. Even if evolutionary biology had no
> practical value, knowledge is valuable for its own sake.
I disagree. Knowledge is not, imv, to be attained for its own sake.
Resources are scarce and priorities should be allocated to feeding the
world, curing disease and improving the everyday life of humans, just to
mention a few.
Ignorance, on
> the other hand, is pernicious even if it has no obvious harmful effects.
Agreed.
>
> Evolutionary biology does have uses, but that's beside the point.
>
>>>> We are likely going to get more
>>>> guys too stupid to breath supporting the junk because no one else
>>>> will.
>>>
>>> Or perhaps all the minimally competent creationists have fled to more
>>> friendly venues.
>>
>> Oh we are certainly not as competent as Darwinists, who have
>> contributed so much to the world of science and yet, the ToE remains
>> useless.
>
> Why should practical utility be the judge of science?
In the case of the ToE, given its long history and the fuss that has
been created around it, one would expect something useful to have
derived from it directly.
As it stands, Mendel did a heck of a lot more for biology than the ToE
can ever dream of doing.
>
RAM
Your stupidities about science in general and the nature of scientific
theories in particular reveal a bone-headedness that verges on the
ludicrous. All scientific theories are in part a function of
consensus. Get over yourself, you have almost nothing to offer
science.
RAM
> RAM wrote:
>
> > Better get out of the quicksand and return to something more solid
> > like empirical evidence. And of course when you do your case
> > dissolves in thin air.
>
> Their is hardly any empirical evidence for the ToE. it's all inference.
This is so stupid on the surface that I am between laughing and
crying.
Look idiot all scientific empirical evidence lends itself to
inference. Your ignorance about this is appalling.
> And do try to communicate your thoughts in English.
>
I did or you wouldn't have responded. My use of English is not the
source of your ignorance. And 'their" above should be "there."
There.
>
>
> > So Lurk Landers evidence is more important than Adman's assertions,
> > opinions or ancient texts.
>
> According to whom?
Science you abject fool. Evidence drives science and in large part
structures its theories. Only religious dogmatic bloviators like you
pull your ideas from your nether regions.
> And why should anyone care about the ToE given that it's utterly useless?
Given that you are incompetent to make such a judgment, I don't care
what you think. But I do want the TO lurkers know you are
resoundingly wrong on about the nature of science and the ToE.
>
>
Boikat
> John Harshman wrote:
> > Ron O wrote:
> >> On Nov 9, 5:48 pm, Dave Fritzinger <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 9, 1:40 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Or am I just running out of patience?
> >>> You're running out of patience. They *can't* get any dumber...
> >>> 8^)
>
> >> I don't know if that is true. There are likely fewer creationists
> >> willing to support the latest scams. Abject failure for the last
> >> three decades has to have some effect.
>
> > Define "abject failure". Around half the population of the US thinks
> > that creationism is at least as good as evolution, if not better. Their
> > only failures are in logical argument, which doesn't matter, and in the
> > courts, which do.
>
> Well, when you can't convince people of your convictions, make a judge
> force it upon them.
As opposed to cretionist puppets attempting to get state laws passed
to teach the religious dogma of creationism/ID as science in the
public schools? Wait. Silly me! They do, and then they get taken to
court, and the court smacks them down. Funny how that works.
>
>
> >> The AIG is even putting out a
> >> list of arguments their supporters should no longer use.
>
> > Been there for years and years.
>
> >> We just saw
> >> a boob use 3 of them in one post.
>
> > Which should be a clue to you that we're not making much progress. They
> > aren't failures until they realize it.
>
> Ah, the pride thing.
> So Harshman can you elaborate on why creationists are failures when the
> ToE hasn't been behind any discovery in science that has been of any use
> to Man.
From Wiki.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Applications
... Though, I doubt you'll accept the article as a rebuttal to your
willful ignorance.
>
> Who's the failure, Harshman?
You and creationism.
>
>
>
> >> We are likely going to get more
> >> guys too stupid to breath supporting the junk because no one else
> >> will.
>
> > Or perhaps all the minimally competent creationists have fled to more
> > friendly venues.
>
> Oh we are certainly not as competent as Darwinists, who have contributed
> so much to the world of science and yet, the ToE remains useless.
See the Wiki, if you have the balls.
Boikat
Boikat
The Bible. Haven't you read Genesis?
>
> You're welcome
No problem. Now wipe the drool off your face.
Boikat
Boikat
In the catagory of "Open and shut brain"
>
> I disagree. Knowledge is not, imv, to be attained for its own sake.
> Resources are scarce and priorities should be allocated to feeding the
> world, curing disease and improving the everyday life of humans, just to
> mention a few.
Simply mind boiglin'!
Boikat
John Stockwell
wrote:
> Or am I just running out of patience?
Probably a bit of both. I believe that a person who engages in
creationist argumentation must operate through what might
be called "Denialism" (to quote the title of a new book).
The denialist is not interested in education beyond
learning one liners that will allow nay saying of a particular
aspect of science that the individual does not believe in.
Such individuals do not seek education, but rather seek to
de-educate themselves and those around them. The denialist
spreads stupidity creating a fog of denial of mainstream knowledge.
In our PC world, many people believe that all ideas deserve hearing,
so this expedites the propagation of denialism.
Consider the average Bible quoting apologist. Such an individual
may seek to become more knowledgeable about Scripture,
ancient history, and theology, aspiring to a certain level of
scholarship. Yet, if that same individual starts going the denialist
route, then their concentration is focused on nay-saying, and
collecting one liners involving phoney science. Such an
individual may actually become less knowledgeable about their
original scholarship topic (theology, or Biblical philosophy),
becoming
a dumbing down machine.
For example, or friend Madman largely quotes phoney science
articles. He doesn't really preach to us with Bible quotes anymore.
So, in many respects the creationist becomes less of a Bible-ist
and not more of one by going the creationist route of anti-scholarship
leading to the propagation of intellectual vandalism.
It takes only a one liner to commit intellectual vandalism. It might
take many pages to clean up that mess.
-John
Augray
<hdbqch$17c$2...@aioe.org> :
>RAM wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Better get out of the quicksand and return to something more solid
>> like empirical evidence. And of course when you do your case
>> dissolves in thin air.
>
>Their is hardly any empirical evidence for the ToE. it's all inference.
Absolutely false.
>And do try to communicate your thoughts in English.
>
>>
>> So Lurk Landers evidence is more important than Adman's assertions,
>> opinions or ancient texts.
>
>According to whom?
>And why should anyone care about the ToE given that it's utterly useless?
Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at
Harvard Medical School, disagrees.
Will in New Haven
Let's look at this argument as if it were sincere. How much does this
jerk think is SPEND on evolutionary biology, qua evolutionary biology,
in a given year. In terms of time and money, the amount spent is
miniscule. Sure, evolutionary thought is in the background of almost
all biological research but it isn't, as he would be the first to say,
the major thrust of the research. And it cannot be removed from this
background, as long as biologists are honest about the evidence for
evolution.
So what could be done, and what this argument would seem to lead to,
would be a great reduction, perhaps to zero, in the amount of research
directly concerned with evolution and a sort of brainwashing of
everyone in the sciences so that evolution would be ignored. Evolution
would be acknowledged to have ocurred, to do otherwise would be
massively dishonest, but then everyone would go about his or her
business, ignoring it.
And in the recesses of Nashton's dim little mind the hope would be
that the ToE and evolution itself would be forgotten.
Gonna happen/ain't gonna happen?
Ain't gonna happen.
Burkhard
Me, I think he is absolutely right, I just don't think he goes far
enough. I mean, how many things are there worth counting for instance?
Several trillion maybe, tops. So we should have a new type of
mathematics that has a "largest natural number" and do away with all
that infinity nonsense that is no good to anyone. Maybe we should
check what the largest number mentioned in the bible is - if it was
good enough for them, it should be sufficient for us.
John Harshman
So you're saying that creationism isn't a failure because it doesn't
even try. Is that it?
>> Or can you name a useful discovery, or any discovery for that matter,
>> that was based on creationism?
>>
>> Now I reject your criterion. Even if evolutionary biology had no
>> practical value, knowledge is valuable for its own sake.
>
> I disagree. Knowledge is not, imv, to be attained for its own sake.
> Resources are scarce and priorities should be allocated to feeding the
> world, curing disease and improving the everyday life of humans, just to
> mention a few.
Obviously we disagree. An understanding of the world is valuable, and it
need not distract us from other worthy efforts. And of course when you
begin basic research you can have no idea whether or not it will turn
out to be useful.
>> Ignorance, on
>> the other hand, is pernicious even if it has no obvious harmful effects.
>
> Agreed.
But that means knowledge is valuable for its own sake, because it
dispels ignorance.
>> Evolutionary biology does have uses, but that's beside the point.
>>
>>>>> We are likely going to get more
>>>>> guys too stupid to breath supporting the junk because no one else
>>>>> will.
>>>>
>>>> Or perhaps all the minimally competent creationists have fled to
>>>> more friendly venues.
>>>
>>> Oh we are certainly not as competent as Darwinists, who have
>>> contributed so much to the world of science and yet, the ToE remains
>>> useless.
>>
>> Why should practical utility be the judge of science?
>
> In the case of the ToE, given its long history and the fuss that has
> been created around it, one would expect something useful to have
> derived from it directly.
> As it stands, Mendel did a heck of a lot more for biology than the ToE
> can ever dream of doing.
You haven't answered the question. And you are factually wrong anyway.
One of the most powerful tools to understanding functional genetics is
comparative analysis, which requires an undersanding of the
relationships among species. That's much of the point behind primate
genome projects.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:f49edc82-fdb1-47d6...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 9:27 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
wrote:
> On Nov 9, 9:23 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 8:38 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:40:04 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven> > > Creationists are getting desperate; they have always been stupid.
> > > That was bound to happen, here in The Information Age.
>
> > I think that desperation is obvious in all right-wingers these days.
> > Their screeching is growing more frantic day by day. The things you
> > see these days from garbage grinders like WND and Fox is just
> > amazing. Since these wackjobs are associated with the Republican
> > party now, it's no wonder people are leaving the party in increasing
> > numbers.
>
> Fuck off with that right-winger stuff. The religious right has decreed
> that you have to leave your brain behind to be a Republican but some
> of us still believe in individual liberty and small government without
> being god-deluded.
The fight for individual liberty has ALWAYS formed from the left.
Tyranny, in the form of a more powerful, aristocratic, "clique" of those in
government, religon and business has ALWAYS come from the conservative
right - and has ALWAYS tried to supress and oppress the greater number of
middle class and poor JUST for the benefit of that clique.
The "Smaller government" (to the republicans) is just a meaningless catch
phrase. All they REALLY mean is "we want government spending to go to the
people and the direction WE want. They achieve this by taking away belifits
that affect the poor and middle class, and giving more to those who are
fellow conservative republicans.
History has recorded that (particularly in the past few decades) the largest
government growth .... AND the largest increases in government debt ... have
happened during REPUBLICAN regimes! (and, coincidentally, "the rich get
richer, and the poor get poorer" also has happened during these republican
controlled eras.)
IOW - IMHO you cannot believe in individual rights, and/or a smaller
goverment and still be a republican.
I'm NOT saying you must change to a Democrat - but don't believe the
hypocritical and false republican lies about what they REALLY stand for!
(Remember, they stood for "Christian Family Values" even as they were carted
off to jail for sexual misbehavior .... including child molestation.)
>
Understood, but in the public eye perception is everything. And
increasingly the perception is that the lunatic fringe (Limbaugh,
Beck, etc.) represent the Republican party. The moderates and old-
time Republicans are being drowned out by the wingnuts.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> "VoiceOfReason" <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
I've never been a Republican. I've voted for a few of them but I'm a
libertarian and generally voted "no." Of course, idiology goes by the
board in local elections. If you have a town clerk who has done an
efficient and honest job, I don't care if he calls himself a
monarchist. But generally I vote "no."
Eric Root
How about using some of the money blown on creationism, and spend it
on something useful?
(snip)
Eric Root
Eric Root
> On Nov 9, 8:04 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 7:51 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 9, 5:40 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Or am I just running out of patience?
>
> > > > Will in New Haven
>
> > > you did...., the paradigm shift in society today is toward the
> > > evolutionist being dumber then a rock. One who will fall for anything.
> > > This happens to be the main assumption which underpins a generally
> > > agreed upon world view today. The winds of change and all that.
>
> > > It must sux to be an Evolutionist in this modern world of people that
> > > think before they believe. The Internet is a wonderful thing even
> > > though Al Gore invented it.
>
> > > Because, after all, those that do not question everything will fall
> > > for anything like the evolutionist does.
>
> > I wasn't really asking you, you stupid shit. That you think that facts
> > can be settled by, or even influenced by, a vote shows that you are an
> > imbecile. In fact, compared to some of the creationists who used to
> > come here, you were my primary example of being an imbecile.
>
> > You've fallen for the oldest con in the world.
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Ladies and Gentlemen of Lurk Land, I rest my case.
That's not a case.
Eric Root
Eric Root
> RAM wrote:
>
> > Better get out of the quicksand and return to something more solid
> > like empirical evidence. And of course when you do your case
> > dissolves in thin air.
>
> Their is hardly any empirical evidence for the ToE. it's all inference.
>
>
>
> > So Lurk Landers evidence is more important than Adman's assertions,
> > opinions or ancient texts.
>
> According to whom?
> And why should anyone care about the ToE given that it's utterly useless?
>
Sure, you would be right, were it a given that the ToE is useless.
But, in the real world, the conceit that the ToE is useless is a
crackpot delusion. And nobody cares about the dictates of your
bizarre delusions.
Eric Root
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>RAM wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Better get out of the quicksand and return to something more solid
>> like empirical evidence. And of course when you do your case
>> dissolves in thin air.
>
>Their is hardly any empirical evidence for the ToE.
There is so much evidence that it takes a real moron like you to
ignore it.
> it's all inference.
>And do try to communicate your thoughts in English.
He did, and succeeded.
>
>>
>> So Lurk Landers evidence is more important than Adman's assertions,
>> opinions or ancient texts.
>
>According to whom?
>And why should anyone care about the ToE given that it's utterly useless?
You can't understand life without it.
--
Bob.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
Desertphile
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 9:23 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 8:38 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:40:04 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
> >
> > > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > > > Or am I just running out of patience?
> >
> > > Creationists are getting desperate; they have always been stupid.
> > > That was bound to happen, here in The Information Age.
> >
> > I think that desperation is obvious in all right-wingers these days.
> > Their screeching is growing more frantic day by day. The things you
> > see these days from garbage grinders like WND and Fox is just
> > amazing. Since these wackjobs are associated with the Republican
> > party now, it's no wonder people are leaving the party in increasing
> > numbers.
> Fuck off with that right-winger stuff. The religious right has decreed
> that you have to leave your brain behind to be a Republican but some
> of us still believe in individual liberty and small government without
> being god-deluded.
Yeah: but those are left-wing ideals.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 8:13 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>> I'll be the first to admit. There are some parts to evolution that are
>>> valid.
>>>
>>> But that fish-to-man and ape-to-man thingy has got to go.
>>
>> Since they are some of the valid parts, why would they have to go?
>>
>>> chop chop... get busy.
>>
>> Why not learn something about what you are trying to "chop"?
>>
>> DJT
>>
>
>Why not use your superior knowledge skills to get a University degree
>instead of pretending that a vocational college education can prepare
>you for the sort of analytical thinking that is required in science.
>
>Have you *ever* taken up a course in stats, for example?
Just because you failed science 101, even at the seventh attempt,
there are many of us out here that do understand science and have
learnt far more than you ever will.
--
Bob.
The truth is like ice water, it shocks you when it hits you, but no
one's ever died from it. Do yourself a favour and try it sometime.
Stuart
Its not an axiom douche bag. Apparently "axiom" is another word you
don't understand.
Big Bang is a conclusion based on abundant astrophysical evidence. And
in the west, was first
articulated by a Jesuit Priest no less.
Indeed, is there no depth of stupidity a creationist won't plumb?
Stuart
Stuart
> > Nashton wrote:
> >> John Harshman wrote:
> >>> Ron O wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 9, 5:48 pm, Dave Fritzinger <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 9, 1:40 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
>
> I disagree. Knowledge is not, imv, to be attained for its own sake.
> Resources are scarce and priorities should be allocated to feeding the
> world, curing disease and improving the everyday life of humans, just to
> mention a few.
If you're concerned about resources.. consider a retroactive abortion.
Stuart
Desertphile
> John Harshman wrote:
> > Ron O wrote:
> >> On Nov 9, 5:48 pm, Dave Fritzinger <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 9, 1:40 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Or am I just running out of patience?
> >>> You're running out of patience. They *can't* get any dumber...
> >>> 8^)
> >>
> >> I don't know if that is true. There are likely fewer creationists
> >> willing to support the latest scams. Abject failure for the last
> >> three decades has to have some effect.
> >
> > Define "abject failure". Around half the population of the US thinks
> > that creationism is at least as good as evolution, if not better. Their
> > only failures are in logical argument, which doesn't matter, and in the
> > courts, which do.
> Well, when you can't convince people of your convictions, make a judge
> force it upon them.
Yes, we already know that's what Creationists do.
Nobody gives a turd about CONVICTIONS when it comes to science:
the issue is the evidence. Damn shame Creationists try to use
judges in the USA legal system to foist their occult CONVICTIONS
into the public school system.
Desertphile
> Will in New Haven wrote:
> > Or am I just running out of patience?
> How's this for dumb, stupid:
> 1. All modern drugs are derived from the ToE.
> 2. Science is not a human invention.
> Sound familiar?
How's this for even dumber, stupid:
1. The gods made modern drugs derived from Creationism.
2. The gods gave us knowledge of how the universe works.
Golly, sure looks like science wins and Creationism sucks limes.
Desertphile
Creationist oppose and fight against those goals. Left to
Creationists, nobody would eat, no diseases would be cured, and
everyday human life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and
short.
Rat poison has done more for humanity than every Creationist who
has ever existed in the past fifty years.
> Simply mind boiglin'!
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>Will in New Haven wrote:
>> Or am I just running out of patience?
>>
>> --
>> Will in New Haven
>>
>
>
>How's this for dumb, stupid:
>
>1. All modern drugs are derived from the ToE.
Then why did you say it?
>
>2. Science is not a human invention.
>
>Sound familiar?
bpuharic
>John Harshman wrote:
>> Ron O wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 5:48 pm, Dave Fritzinger <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 9, 1:40 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Or am I just running out of patience?
>>>> You're running out of patience. They *can't* get any dumber...
>>>> 8^)
>>>
>>> I don't know if that is true. There are likely fewer creationists
>>> willing to support the latest scams. Abject failure for the last
>>> three decades has to have some effect.
>>
>> Define "abject failure". Around half the population of the US thinks
>> that creationism is at least as good as evolution, if not better. Their
>> only failures are in logical argument, which doesn't matter, and in the
>> courts, which do.
>
>Well, when you can't convince people of your convictions, make a judge
>force it upon them.
yeah. imagine the goddamn niggers trying to get into schools where
only white creationist christians could go! goddamn courts let the
niggers in...
white schools for white creationists!!
>>
>> Or perhaps all the minimally competent creationists have fled to more
>> friendly venues.
>>
>
>
>Oh we are certainly not as competent as Darwinists, who have contributed
>so much to the world of science and yet, the ToE remains useless.
useless?
you mean like the 2000 year failure of creationism?
nashton kinda forgot about glass houses.
bpuharic
>> don't know what "n" means.
>
>Oh, the irony.
>You don't know what "n" means when analyzing research?
>If all scientific research had adequate methodology, there would be many
>orders of magnitude more peer reviewed, scientific papers than there are
>at the moment. Most research gets a failing grade because of methodology.
>
>Do you know *anything* about science?
says the guy who thinks the wizard of oz is a documentary
heekster
>On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:57:24 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
><ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>On Nov 9, 8:04�pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
>>wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 7:51�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Nov 9, 5:40�pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> > > Or am I just running out of patience?
>>>
>>> > > --
>>> > > Will in New Haven
>>>
>>> > Actually Will,. umm... I was not going to bring this up, but, since
>>> > you did...., the paradigm shift in society today is toward the
>>> > evolutionist being dumber then a rock. One who will fall for anything.
>>> > This happens to be the main assumption which underpins a generally
>>> > agreed upon world view today. The winds of change and all that.
>>>
>>> > It must sux to be an Evolutionist in this modern world of people that
>>> > think before they believe. The Internet is a wonderful thing even
>>> > though Al Gore invented it.
>>>
>>> > Because, after all, those that do not question everything will fall
>>> > for anything like the evolutionist does.
>>>
>>> I wasn't really asking you, you stupid shit. That you think that facts
>>> can be settled by, or even influenced by, a vote shows that you are an
>>> imbecile. In fact, compared to some of the creationists who used to
>>> come here, you were my primary example of being an imbecile.
>>>
>>> You've fallen for the oldest con in the world.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>Ladies and Gentlemen of Lurk Land, I rest my case.
>
>You don't have a case.
Oh, yes he does.
He has a terminal case of dumb-ass.
bpuharic
>>
>
>What's hilarious is that the Darwinists also rely on a sort of consensus
>to promulgate their useless theory.
says teh creationist who relies on what church leaders tell him is
truth to promulgate his 2000 year old failed idea
>
>The consensus in their case happens to be legal.
it also happens to be science
creationism? wizard of oz magic
bpuharic
>RAM wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Better get out of the quicksand and return to something more solid
>> like empirical evidence. And of course when you do your case
>> dissolves in thin air.
>
>Their is hardly any empirical evidence for the ToE. it's all inference.
not a single scientist agrees with this. of course, if you're a
taliban wannabee, like nasht, then this lie makes sense
and evidence for god?
creationists, after 2000 years, have to pin their hopes on a lie
>And do try to communicate your thoughts in English.
>
>>
>> So Lurk Landers evidence is more important than Adman's assertions,
>> opinions or ancient texts.
>
>According to whom?
>And why should anyone care about the ToE given that it's utterly useless?
says the creationist who kinda forgot creationism has a 2000 year
history of uselessness...as does his view of god
>
>>
bpuharic
>
>Creationism isn't a science unless you endow it with the same axioms as
>non creationism.
>The one thing that comes to mind is the axiom of the Big Bang. this
>fairy tale is as valid as any conjecture imagined in the minds of
>materialists.
gee i used to work for bell labs. in the lobby of bell's HQ in murray
hill, nj, they used to have arno penzias's notebook, opened to a page
where he did tests on discovering the microwave background
of course, to creatinists, EVIDENCE and SCIENCE are irrelevant. after
all, in 2000 years, creationism came up with precisely
NO ideas about how the unverse developed....except ideas based on
magic
>>
>> Now I reject your criterion. Even if evolutionary biology had no
>> practical value, knowledge is valuable for its own sake.
>
>I disagree. Knowledge is not, imv, to be attained for its own sake.
yeah i know. to a creationist, a useless idea like creationism is
useful, and science is useless
welcome to 1984
>Resources are scarce and priorities should be allocated to feeding the
>world, curing disease and improving the everyday life of humans, just to
>mention a few.
if that's what you spend money on
then creationism gets ZERO dollars
>
> Ignorance, on
>> the other hand, is pernicious even if it has no obvious harmful effects.
>
>Agreed.
then creationism should die. it's ignorance in spades
>
>In the case of the ToE, given its long history and the fuss that has
>been created around it, one would expect something useful to have
>derived from it directly.
says the guy who just forgot creationism has been around for
TWO THOUSAND YEARS
and failed every single day to say ANYTHING about the universe
>As it stands, Mendel did a heck of a lot more for biology than the ToE
>can ever dream of doing.
and millions live wihtout god every day.
guess god's useless, too, isn't he?
bpuharic
>>
>
>Why not use your superior knowledge skills to get a University degree
>instead of pretending that a vocational college education can prepare
>you for the sort of analytical thinking that is required in science.
>
gee. if you have a science degree (and i know you don't), it hasn't
done you much good. you have no analytical skills
Frank J
wrote:
> Or am I just running out of patience?
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
The short answer: Yes.
The long answer: Depends on what you mean by "creationists."
IMO, anti-evolution activists are getting slicker at misleading those
who are not already hopeless. They know which sound bites to spin, and
which questions to evade. They know how to bait critics into keeping
the focus on "Darwinism" instead of the mutually-contradictory
thoroughly falsified creationist alternatives and the unfalsifiable
"don't ask, don't tell" ID. I also think that, compared to the
"scientific creationist" activists of 3-5 decades ago they're getting
*less* dumb about the science. With the big caveat that it's almost
impossible to tell deliberate misrepresentation from genuine
cluelessness.
If you mean the rank-and-file, I haven't seen much change in 40 years.
If you mean TO regulars, most of the real creationists have given up.
What remains are the truly disturbed (Ray, Pagano) and trolls. So I
guess they are less knowledgeable of science and less skilled at
debating than the ones from ~10 years ago.
All-Seeing-I
> On Nov 10, 7:36 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > All-seeing-I wrote:
> > > On Nov 9, 8:04 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>> > >>> On Nov 9, 5:40 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> Or am I just running out of patience?
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Will in New Haven
> > >>> you did...., the paradigm shift in society today is toward the
> > >>> evolutionist being dumber then a rock. One who will fall for anything.
> > >>> This happens to be the main assumption which underpins a generally
> > >>> agreed upon world view today. The winds of change and all that.
> > >>> It must sux to be an Evolutionist in this modern world of people that
> > >>> think before they believe. The Internet is a wonderful thing even
> > >>> though Al Gore invented it.
> > >>> Because, after all, those that do not question everything will fall
> > >>> for anything like the evolutionist does.
> > >> I wasn't really asking you, you stupid shit. That you think that facts
> > >> can be settled by, or even influenced by, a vote shows that you are an
> > >> imbecile. In fact, compared to some of the creationists who used to
> > >> come here, you were my primary example of being an imbecile.
>
> > >> You've fallen for the oldest con in the world.
>
> > >> --
> > >> Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Ladies and Gentlemen of Lurk Land, I rest my case.
>
> > to promulgate their useless theory.
>
>
> theories in particular reveal a bone-headedness that verges on the
> ludicrous. All scientific theories are in part a function of
> consensus. Get over yourself, you have almost nothing to offer
> science.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, the "consensus"s today is evolution is a dead stick. It cannot
get of the ground.
Will in New Haven
The consensus among biological scientists, whose opinions really _are_
the only ones that matter, is that evolution happened. You can't vote
against evolution, you can't petition against it, it is totally immune
to the influence of democracy.
Whether this means that you will snuff out like a candle when you die,
with no memory and no self, is a moot point. It certainly doesn't
prove you will. That's a mystery. Evolution is a fact.
You don't have to like it.
heekster
Judging from the replies that you get everytime you post in here,
there is every indication that the overwhelming consensus here is that
you are an idiot.
To paraphrase William McAdoo, your posts resemble an army of pompous
imbecilities, moving over the landscape in search of a clue.
Oh, and you are wrong, as usual.
http://www.britishcouncil.org/new/press-office/press-releases/Darwin-survey-shows-international-consensus-on-acceptance-of-evolution/
Tim DeLaney
>
> - Show quoted text -
More wishful thinking. Yes, you *wish*
that the concensus views evolution as a
"dead stick" (Whatever that might mean),
but that isn't the case. The overwhelming
majority of university biology departments
accept evolution as the theory of choice.
The overwhelming majority of scientists
everywhere in the world accept evolution.
Now, this does *NOT* make evolution true.
If you wish to make an argument against ToE,
then by all means do so. Such an argument
will stand on its own merits. But don't come
before this group and tell us that you have
already won the argument. You have not. You
have, in fact, lost the argument, at least up
to this point.
Tim
bpuharic
>
>get of the ground.
>
>
im a scientist. you're wrong.
Steven L.
> On Nov 9, 8:38 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:40:04 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
>> That was bound to happen, here in The Information Age.
>
> I think that desperation is obvious in all right-wingers these days.
I'm very much a right-winger--been one most of my life,
but I'm also a strong supporter of the ToE.
I wish you would shove your gratuitious political insults
up your ass.
What purpose is served in driving someone like me away?
Is the ToE only for leftists?
Given that the most recent Gallup polls show that self-described
conservatives outnumber self-described liberals in America,
for liberals to claim the ToE as their own would doom it in this country.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
> "Will in New Haven" <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
> news:f637c6f2-f78d-4a59...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> Or am I just running out of patience?
>>
>> Will in New Haven
>>
>
> Creationists cannot get any dumber.
> If you are impatient, it is no different than the impatience the rest of the
> world had against Hitler.
>
>
> (Caveat to the Second amendment:
> The only legally justified reason to own a gun is to protect yourself from
> creationists and Jehovah's Witnesses)
In the American system of law,
you don't need a "justification" to own a gun.
Any more than you need a "justification" to own a car.
Just a license.
And as long as we right-wingers are armed and you left-wingers eschew
guns on principle,
the balance of power in this country will ALWAYS be with us (despite
temporary aberrations like the Obama administration).
VoiceOfReason
Steven L. wrote:
> VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 8:38 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:40:04 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
> >>
> >> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> >>> Or am I just running out of patience?
> >> Creationists are getting desperate; they have always been stupid.
> >> That was bound to happen, here in The Information Age.
> >
> > I think that desperation is obvious in all right-wingers these days.
>
> I'm very much a right-winger--been one most of my life,
> but I'm also a strong supporter of the ToE.
>
> I wish you would shove your gratuitious political insults
> up your ass.
Perhaps a poor choice of words. When I refer to "right wing," I mean
the far-right lunatic fringe who have managed to make a hash out of
the Republican party. I voted Republican most of my life, but after
Bush f*cked things up so badly -- and especially after McCain picked a
mindless bimbo as a running mate, that was the straw that broke the
camel's back for me. If the party some day gets back to representing
all Americans and not just the far right, they may get my vote back.
But I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future.
> What purpose is served in driving someone like me away?
That's what I say to atheists who bad-mouth all theists, including
those who accept reality.
> Is the ToE only for leftists?
> Given that the most recent Gallup polls show that self-described
> conservatives outnumber self-described liberals in America,
> for liberals to claim the ToE as their own would doom it in this country.
The polls also show that self-described Republicans are a shrinking
minority.
Steven L.
> On Nov 9, 4:40 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
> wrote:
>> Or am I just running out of patience?
>
> creationist argumentation must operate through what might
> be called "Denialism" (to quote the title of a new book).
> The denialist is not interested in education beyond
> learning one liners that will allow nay saying of a particular
> aspect of science that the individual does not believe in.
I cannot put someone like Dr. Michael Behe in that category. These ID
proponents are way more sophisticated than our poor "All-Seeing-I".
Dr. Behe has a Ph.D., which I do not have. He's more educated than I am.
He's a scientist; I was an engineer. If I took courses with Behe at
Lehigh, I could probably learn a lot of mainstream biochemistry--as long
as we both stayed away from origin questions.
Behe's tragic flaw is to allow his religious beliefs to distort his
scientific reasoning--and even worse, to distort his professional
integrity. Those aren't intellectual failings. Those are *moral* failings.
VoiceOfReason
> PepsiFr...@teranews.com wrote:
> > "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
> >news:f637c6f2-f78d-4a59...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >> Or am I just running out of patience?
>
> >> --
> >> Will in New Haven
>
> > Neither.
> > Creationists cannot get any dumber.
> > If you are impatient, it is no different than the impatience the rest of the
> > world had against Hitler.
>
> > (Caveat to the Second amendment:
> > The only legally justified reason to own a gun is to protect yourself from
> > creationists and Jehovah's Witnesses)
>
> In the American system of law,
> you don't need a "justification" to own a gun.
>
> Any more than you need a "justification" to own a car.
>
> Just a license.
>
> And as long as we right-wingers are armed and you left-wingers eschew
> guns on principle,
>
> the balance of power in this country will ALWAYS be with us (despite
> temporary aberrations like the Obama administration).
Trying to get yourself onto an FBI watch list? And BTW, that
"temporary aberration" is called democracy.
Will in New Haven
I can agree with most of that but your vicious prejudice against
mindless bimbos is offensive to me and several generations of women
who have gone home with me from bars.
Will in New Haven
I don't think Behe is influenced by religious beliefs, any more than
Gene Scott was. Unless those religious beliefs are the worship of
Mammon. In both cases.
Will in New Haven
The Second Amendment IS about armed insurrection. Anyone who thinks
the current administration would justify such a thing is a loon. But
one is ALLOWED to think this administration is an aberration. And even
to say it.
RAM
That is also stupid. A consensus among the ignorant is useless to
understanding the world. We know your desire for people to remain
ignorant of evolution. This is the anti-science value that leads to
the dark ages of yesteryear. Your compulsive fight against
scientific knowledge is despicable. And I know you don't understand
science, its methods and research strategies anywhere near as well as
you claim. You are even less informed than Nashton. It is time to
reflect what your life is about.
Tim Norfolk
My favourite quote on the subject: 'It doesn't matter if you believe
in evolution. Evolution believes in you."
Tim Norfolk
> > "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
> >news:f637c6f2-f78d-4a59...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >> Or am I just running out of patience?
>
> >> --
> >> Will in New Haven
>
> > Neither.
> > Creationists cannot get any dumber.
> > If you are impatient, it is no different than the impatience the rest of the
> > world had against Hitler.
>
> > (Caveat to the Second amendment:
> > The only legally justified reason to own a gun is to protect yourself from
> > creationists and Jehovah's Witnesses)
>
> In the American system of law,
> you don't need a "justification" to own a gun.
>
> Any more than you need a "justification" to own a car.
>
> Just a license.
>
> And as long as we right-wingers are armed and you left-wingers eschew
> guns on principle,
>
> the balance of power in this country will ALWAYS be with us (despite
> temporary aberrations like the Obama administration).
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Depending on the subject, I am very left wing, very right wing, or
moderate. I give money to the ACLU. I also eat meat, and own guns.
What does that make me?
Ray Martinez
> On Nov 9, 8:13 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 7:51 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Or am I just running out of patience?
>
> > > > --
> > > > Will in New Haven
>
> > > you did...., the paradigm shift in society today is toward the
> > > evolutionist being dumber then a rock. One who will fall for anything.
> > > This happens to be the main assumption which underpins a generally
> > > agreed upon world view today. The winds of change and all that.
>
> > > It must sux to be an Evolutionist in this modern world of people that
> > > think before they believe. The Internet is a wonderful thing even
> > > though Al Gore invented it.
>
> > > Because, after all, those that do not question everything will fall
> > > for anything like the evolutionist does.
>
> > wishful thinking. Even though the vast majority of
> > the scientific community accepts evolution as the
> > best explanation of workings of the biological world,
> > you continue to pretend that ToE is on the decline.
>
> > It is not. You are simply wrong to believe otherwise.
> > You are engaged in wishful thinking. Maybe it comforts
> > you to delude yourself into thinking that "Darwinism"
> > is on the verge of being consigned to the dustbin of
> > history. Nothing could be further from the truth.
>
> > ToE is robust, and has remarkable explanatory power.
> > There is no school of thought that comes close to
> > replacing it. People here have offered you example
> > after example of evidence for evolution, and yet you
> > pretend that it cannot be valid. You you offer
> > nothing in the way of an alternative explanation,
> > except the lame "Goddidit".
>
> > Tim
>
> I'll be the first to admit. There are some parts to evolution that are
> valid.
>
Could we expect an evolutionist to say anything else?
Ray
SNIP....