Chez Watt Vote 03APR06
Ferrous Patella
actually a chance that the winner might so up in the archive.
Austrailian instant run-off rules (well, guidelines) apply.
==========
Nominated in the Beyond the Paley category
>> The whole thing is still meaningless though. So then there are
>> things that are "detectably designed" (like Mt. Rushmore) and things
>> which are "undetectably designed", which is pretty much everything
>> else, because nothing in the universe wasn't designed by the
>> intelligent designer, right? It's a meaningless defintion: "Ohh,
>> everything is designed, we can only detect some of it, but the rest
>> is too" ... why even make the distinction then? :-/
> Yup. So the classic watch on the beach argument reads like this in the
> creationist's mind: You, a watch, are walking along a beach made of
> watches. As the tide of watches rolls in on the clockwork breeze, you
> notice a watch on the beach and exclaim "Oh, look! A watch!"
==========
Make it so:
>> We have been assuming just one God. What happens when you add a
>> second omniscient, omnipotent God to the mix?
>You get some really stupid episodes of Star Trek.
==========
Creationists Maths Catagory:
> Two points:
> 1. Who paid for the research?
> 2. Cardiac arrests/illness is not the only illness that afflicts
> mankind, last time I looked.
> 3.Nobody, in his/her right mind should replace standard medical
> treatment with prayer alone.
==========
Equal Opportunity Nomination:
> There are no scientists who are young Earth creationists for
> scientific reasons.
==========
In the "What Bends Your Kink" Category:
>>> Men are so cute when they think they're in charge.
>> Like it or not, authority and respect, earned or not, goes to the
>> Male by default.
> You sound like one of those naughty boys who secretly wants to be
> spanked.
==========
In the Eostregen overdoes division:
> Happy Easter!!! And remember to have some fun. An Easter egg hunt is
> a great way to engage children on the real meaning of Easter.
==========
In the "non sequitur via implanted random-number generator"
category:
>> Decisions are made by minds, there is nothing magic in the mind.
>And thus can be explained the rise of racism and nazism on account of
>the Darwinist revolution.
==========
In the "Well, if you put it that way" category:
>> There's every possibility these two mental diseases could become
>> treated with creationist technology.
> And just how will this technology be able to help you
> with your own congenital illogic condition?
==========
In the Quantity, not Quality contest:
> I seem to remember getting into a disputation with [our resident
> phiolospher] over just this point. I can't remember who "won",
> except that I am sure he outworded me.
==========
> They don't have to tell you they are know-it-alls, you are just
> supposed to realize their natural superiority, they whitah than you.
> [And we're the uppity ones, we're the snooty ones.]
==========
"The Casanova Principle":
> Given sufficient levels of cluelessness in multiple fields,
> *no* question is too difficult to answer.
==========
In the "One syllable too many" Category:
> The Discovery Institute is all a twitter (the proper term, I think)
==========
Remember, ID really is a science...
> Scientifically, we see design all around us, it is very easy to spot.
[...]
> And of course, if you happen to be a Christian, this should be more than
> enough for you.
==========
Hi ho....:
> Nothing more irritates an evolutionist than what is called "quote
> mining." Every single quote that speaks against evolution is ... a
> quote mine. And of course ... evolutionists will ... limit it's
> damaging effect. Take for example the following:
>A letter is sent to Colin Patterson, ... trying to be sensitive to the
>evolutionist, and of course Patterson says he didn't know that
>there were creationists in the audience.
>We aren't told the exact contents of the letter...It was more or less
> a peer pressure tactic, but nonetheless a letter was sent. Sutherland
> wrote to Patterson and ... said that if he knew... he would have
> included them in his book.
>The evolutionist ...has solved the problem.
==========
You want some Freedom Fries with that?:
> You and your secularist friends are so obsessed with protecting
> yourselves from the religious right that you are blindly
> unconstitutionally forcing freedom from religion on everybody.
==========
In the "Whip me, beat me, I've made a pun" category:
> > Parasite less deadly without its whip
> > New Scientist Thursday March 9, 02:30 PM
> > http://uk.news.yahoo.com/09032006/12/parasite-deadly-its-whip.html
> Customer dissatisfaction on the rise at the Parasite City Club.
> One anonymous regular commented that the stars of the show are less
> exciting without their whips. "Are we supposed to self-flagellate now?"
==========
So that's where they get their scientists:
> They didn't laugh at
> Bozo the Clown because he was putting forth a scientific theory.
==========
>>> Casting all the things I know about how the world works aside, I
>>> hit upon what I am sure is the correct answer: Stuffed animals are
>>> leaving their feces under my bed! It is a fine hypothesis that
>>> explains what I see, and is marred only by the somewhat disquieting
>>> image of a teddy bear squatting and grunting under my bed in the
>>> small hours of the morning.
>>Excellent hypothesis. However, when we examine the would-be
>>teddy bear scat, we find that dust bunnies are built around a
>>matrix of true hair made of keratin. Teddy bears and other
>>plushies are built from various forms of polyester enclosing
>>cellulose stuffing. If the area under the bed is a truly midden
>>for stuffed animals, whence comes the hair?
> Well, what do you think stuffed animals *eat*?
Car keys and socks.
>>I remain skeptical. Perhaps it would be more scientific to
>>revive those theories about monsters lying in wait under the
>>bed...
==========
In the own petard category:
>> Half an ark, hmmm. Is it the port half or the starboard half?
> Of what use is half of an ark?
Re reports of images of Jesus and Mary in found objects:
==========
>I always am intrigued by how easy it is to recognize Jesus' face. No
>one ever seems to squint at their potato chip and say "Hmm... this is
>either Jesus or Mr. Lewis from down at the gas station, I can't quite
>decide."
>I suppose he got an early start in being distinctive by being a western
>European born to natives of the middle east.
==========
From the late 1960's "Put This In Your Pipe and Smoke It" Category:
> His reality could be distorted by peyote soaked in datura sprinkled
> with PCP, and he'd be clearer than you ever are.
==========
Nominated for the Salvadore Dali surrealist award...
> Dogs don't need to eat nuts with their paws.
==========
In the "anatomy wasn't in the orange covered school book" category:
>> Now let's see how evolutionists view a piece of reality in comparison
>> to how creationists view reality. In every basic science textbook
>> that I have seen there is to be found a certain page dealing with the
>> concept of homology. You will most certainly see a set of comparison
>> bones of humans with other mammals and maybe even a bird. You will
>> see the bones of a hand attached to the bones of a forearm linked to a
>> femur bone.
> Not every bone in the body is a femur. Not every bone in the leg is a
> pelvis.
==========
Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle:
>> One of the glaring errors resulting from evolutionist mentality
>> actually comes from their assertion that all living beings are related
>> to each other.
>I agree, 100%. While it takes an infinite number of examples to
>"prove" a hypothesis, it only takes one counter-example to disprove it.
>According to the theory of evolution, we are all related and should
>share common traits. You are apparently from the same portion of the
>evolutionary tree as everyone I know. You should share common traits
>with us.
>One of the most obvious common traits of humans is intelligence. Since
>you lack that trait, you are either the single counter-example needed
>to disprove evolution or you are not related to us. Either way,
>evolution and/or common-descent is disproven by your existence.
==========
Worst identity crisis ever?:
> There was about 5 days back in the 1990's, when every major news outlet
> ran the story of how science hadn't even known what species we are and
> it turned out that homo sapiens had been extinct for 60,000 years.
==========
In the category:
> > Some one stated a wiki for ID.
> > <http://www.researchid.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page>
> > There doesn't seem to be much content yet.
> The perfect ID website!
==========
For the DKNJ award:
> "Dembski came to give a talk in Berkeley. All I got was this designer
> t-shirt, but he wouldn't tell me who the designer was."
==========
>>>Natural selection that is amplified by human intervention still
>>>remains natural selection.
>> Once humans intervene, it is no longer "natural selection."
> Aren't humans part of nature according to your naturalistic views?
> Can you see that you people are forever tripping over your poor
> arguments?
==========
In the "Peer Reviewed Creationist Papers" category:
>> Well, let me stop here for the moment. There are bound to be
>> objections that I need to consider.
> The biggest objection is that your entire enterprise is an exercise in
> empty formalism, that imitates some of the surface features of real
> inquiry without any of the substance.
==========
In the "Let's be reasonable" category:
>>> There is actually no contradiction between the accounts of Genesis 1
>>> and Genesis 2. (snip)
>> What part of first - animals then man or second - man then animals is
>> giving you difficulty?
> So much for reasonable. Bye for now
==========
The protection of simplicity:
>> I have always posted under the premise that the ToE is a theory that
>> leaks like a basket.If you bothered to read any of my posts and
>> actually *understand* what was written, you wouldn't be trying to
>> belittle my opinions.
> I don't believe your opinions *can* be belittled.
==========
>"Just give us a couple more hundred years." "Paleontology has just
>scratched the surface." "Fossilization isn't consistant throughout."
>"Just give us some time."
>Such words are common place in evolution books. Heck, I read points 2
>and 3 the other day in Haeckel's online book.
==========
In the Phrase Minting dept:
>>> Here is excellent proof of evolution. In between points 9 and 10,
>>> we see a mutation producing a change from slack to schlack, clearly
>>> an addition of information. All that's needed now is for one more
>>> mutation changing schlack to schlock, and we will have a fitting
>>> descriptive term for McCoy's rantings. Who says evolution doesn't
>>> produce adaptation?
> > Yeah, but I think this is Lamarckism.
> It's clearly more Malarckian than Lamarckian.
==========
Neoanalogy:
> I recently bought Norton Systemworks, and now my computer is as slow
> as a creationist trying to understand thermodynamics.
==========
From the Martial Arts and Crafts Dept.:
> [OP] is a Black Belt in Cognitive Jiu Jitsu. He uses his brain's own
> imbalance to overpower itself so he can believe anything, even things
> that he 'knows' are nonsense. All religious people do this, but
> antievolutionists rule at the Disfunction Dojo, and not many of them are
> as accomplished as [OP] the Flying Cerebrum.
==========
From the temporal agnostic division:
>>>>> Ten tips for the Conflicted Christian parent
>>>>> ============================================
>>> <snip>
>>>> Sigh. Those who _need_ to hear this will _not_ listen.
>>> Just my Saturday sermon. I'm a Seventh Day Agnostic.
>> What are you the other 6 days?
> I don't know.
==========
Is there a category of the "Obvious dept."?
>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0310.asp
> How sad.
> Who needs atheists when there are plenty of Christians to give
> Christianity a bad name?
==========
So to speak:
>> And here I was thinking he pulled it out of his ass...
> That type of quote mining stinks.
==========
In the "It helps to be prepared" category:
> Next time he hands you printouts, don't take them. Swing around
> violently with a blow torch and incinerate them. This works especially
> well if you lief ignorance afterwards; ask him why he's brought you a
> smoking pile of ash and complain that he's making a mess.
==========
In the stunning anachronism category:
> Lyell was even cogitating on Piltdown Man as a fact, in his footnote
> in "Antiquity of Man".
==========
which led to this:
> Lyell had access to Wells' machine? If we can find it can we
> send [unnamed poster] back to amuse himself playing tag with a
> velociraptor pack?
==========
Only bad is your English:
> "Resulting" does not mean "necessarily in all
> circumstances". In this case, it clearly says that development of new
> species occurs through a process of evolution. And 99.9999% of
> biologists would agree.
... and in our next exciting installment creationists attempt to
disprove gravity by spelling it aphosah
==========
Just in time for Eostre:
>> psssst buddy, you were supposed to wait until April 1st to post this.
> It's always April 1st at talk.origins.
==========
Dooood, totally!:
> > We also know the horse sequence is highly exaggerated in that
> > the actual amount of mounted skeletons is embarrassingly low
> True: mounted skeletons on fossil horses are practically nonexistent in
> the fossil record, although they would be _awesome_.
==========
In the low packing fraction category
>Each reply is a substanceless one liner = inability to refute.
==========
I'll take Al Gore in the seventh:
> I have no idea how they get from their irrelevant number of genes to
> 10^162 years, but the original assumptions are invalid. It's like me
> saying "there were 100,000,000 votes cast in the 2004 presidential
> election and the chance that the precise pattern of votes would be cast
> by those people in that order is 1 in 2^100,000,000 times 100,000,000!
> divided by 8! times this other expression I pulled from an obscure
> branch of set theory you've never heard of and I've misapplied, and the
> number of successive elections required to do it would be longer than
> the age of the known universe, therefore the universe is actually
> 1.62*10^981 years old, and nearly all of that was spent with the USA in
> limbo, waiting for the right election result, so the japanese got ahead
> of us while we were in limbo and we need more tax credits for ethanol."
==========
In the bald hair color race:
>>Why do some people call atheism a religion?
> Misery loves company...
==========
You try to be nice to *some* people:
>> 1. Don't worry about looking stupid, you're not, but you are
>> ignorant. You're only stupid when you are incapable of rational
>> thought.
> You are new here I see. Not to burst your bubble or anything,
> [unnamed poster] isn't just stupid. He's willfully stupid. Now
> please, don't think I engage in this kind of namecalling lightly, or
> on a regular basis. I hate thinking anyone is stupid. But [he] is a
> master gardener of stupid. He nurtures stupid, and encourages it to
> grow. [He] grows those 200-pound-pumpkins-of stupid that you see on TV
> around Hallowe'en. It is rumored that he emits a damping field that
> slows the diffusion of neurotransmitters across synaptic clefts,
> rendering everyone around him stupid, but every investigator who gets
> too close forgets what (s)he's looking for. It is known for certain
> that Acme will not ship Irony Meters to any address within 4 counties
> of his place of residence, not even the milspec jobs with the thorium
> cladding that keep that keep the District of Columbia from imploding
> and sinking into the Atlantic whenever the words "Halliburton" and
> "honest" appear in the same paragraph.
==========
Okay then, I'll nominate you for implying there are rules to Chez Watt:
> (don't nominate me for Chez What because I don't think purposeful pun
> auditions should be accepted)
==========
Chew Watt:
> I'm sure T-rex was merely helping the other herbivores by preparing
> vegetation for them.
>
> It slices, it dices...but wait, that's not all! With teeth like that
>
> you could make julienne french fries or a decorative garnish to
> complement any meal. Makes perfect sense.
> I like the little cute "arms" at the front of the T-Rex. Perfect for
> holding the handles of a wok.
==========
Just so you'll know you are reading TO:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the risk a masticating your pun, changing subject
>>>>>>>>>>>>> header for accounting purposes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> You cud have asked first.
>>>>>>>>>>> Gnaw, no reason to make it such a grind.
>>>>>>>>>>Only a perverted masticator would say such things.
>>>>>>>>> Hey! I masticate every day, sometimes even several times a
>>>>>>>>> day, and it hasn't done me any harm!
>>>>>>>> That's what you think! I am coming to believe all the
>>>>>>>> creationists are right: evolution makes you act like enamels.
>>>>>>> That's a very incisive comment.
>>>>>> Any astrologer will tell you it's because I was born on a cusp.
>>>>> Yeah, but astrologers are so convinced they're right that no amount
>>>>> of logic will make a dent ine their reasoning.
>>>> Sorry, my tongue was over my eye teeth and I couldn't see what I was
>>>> reading.
>>> This is unpalatable! Civilized people eschew pun cascades.
>> Bite me! Your post is leaving a bitter taste, bud. Let's settle this
>> mandible to mandible.
> Listen chomp, I can't even begin to digest this tripe! I just don't
> have munch else to say about this right now...
==========
In the minor second category:
> Let's say you are swimming in the ocean, and you see a grey dorsal fin
> approaching you, do you go "I wonder if that's a bat"?
==========
Raingodman:
> Maybe that's the next year's model of ID. School boards will want to
> teach the controversy and add ASD (the autistic savant designer) to the
> science curriculum.
==========
In the looking at itself in the mirror category:
> Man, I love using Google to collect these Chez Watts. The Add-bot
> informed me that I can get "Chez Watt" on eBay.
==========
Nominated in the category: Never play cards with anyone who's got 29
aces.:
>> You dare talk about frauds.Ever heard of Piltdown man?
> I see your "Piltdown man" and raise you:
> Paluxy "mantracks"
> Cardiff giant
> "The Shrinking Sun"
> Kent Hovind's fake degree
> Ica Stones
> "Darwin was a racist claims"
> "Moon Dust"
> "Noah's Ark in Turkey"
> Shroud of Turin
> Carl Baugh's fake degrees
> Malachite Man
> "Fossilized finger"
> Paluxy "Man" tooth
> RATE project
> Mt. St. Helens canyons
> Mokele Membe
> Japanese trawler "plesiosaur"
> New Guinea "ptersosaurs".
> Cytosome C claims
> Kent Hovind's "$250,000 offer".
> Moon recession claims
> "Bullfrog proteins".
> Dinosaurs as "just big lizards".
> "Vapor Canopy"
> "Haeckel convicted of fraud".
> Carbon dating of rocks
> "Flood Geology".
>
> And, the every popular creationist fraud:
> "No intermediate fossils"
=========
In the ghost of Douglas Adams award:
> If there are serious difficulties with Evolutionst dating then you
> would expect it show short spurts of unfeasibly frenetic activity, and
> long periods when all of a sudden, for no apparent reason, nothing
> happens.
==========
Who say paleontolgy isn't sexy:
>>> Quality singles aged 21 to 80 worldwide.
>> What if I want to date someone older than 80 years old?
>I would conclude that you are either [a] Anna Nicole Smith, or [b] an
>octogenarian, or [c] a paleontologist. I would need to narrow the
>possibilities before giving you advice; it would be very unfortunate
>if, out of ignorance, I suggested that you perform K-Ar analysis on
>someone you meet at the local assisted-living center.
=========
Take Two or the In the Older Butt Wiser Category:
>>> Quality singles aged 21 to 80 worldwide.
>> What if I want to date someone older than 80 years old?
> You cut off their leg and count the rings.
==========
In the "Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel." dept.:
> After dismissing the majority of scientists as being *believers*, [Be]he
> then has the audacity to state about his usage of such a colored term:
> "Perhaps this will go a little way toward promoting the good
> will that this conference strives for."
> It is at this point where one might get the urge to just tell him to
> go fuck himself.
==========
> I have a question. How many mammals have mouths, jaws, chin and adam's
> apple? Need I state anymore of the obvious? And I have yet to find
> these appendages on fish,which is where you would expect them to be
> found.
[...]
> And do not all animals have mouths and jaws?
==========
In the "big words give your posts gravitavitavitas" category:
> your intellectual life would be a boundless joy, in stead of the
> narrowminded defensiveness, and the droning on and on and on about
> methodolodolodolalilogical naturalism that it is now.
==========
Nominated for the "Rhetorical Question Answered" award:
>> Is there a difference between a rock and a monkey?
> You can't shave a rock and call it a creationist.
==========
In the category of "Wish me luck":
> <girds loins, straightens helmet>
> OK, I'm going into the incoherence singularity. Somebody hold on to the
> other end of this rope.
==========
In the "democracy rules" category:
> How about a poll on quantum physics and stuff?
> "Do you believe that an electron can be a wave and a particle at the
> same time?"
> 76% said No, 13% said Yes, 11% had no opinion.
> "Do you believe that empty space is full of virtual particles?"
> 95% said No, 1% said Yes, 4% had no opinion.
> "Do you believe that reality is determined by the opinions of the
> American people?"
> 67% said Yes, 22% said No, 11% said what kind of an atheist terrorist
> commie would even dare to ask the question.
==========
Bottle in front of me category:
>>But don't tell anyone or it will be regarded
>>unconstitutional. We can't have that if we are to teach real science.
>>Did I tell you I was relieved?
> Apparently, Mr. Jacoby was "relieved" of part of his frontal lobes.
==========
In the Second Amendment category:
>>> Now we can tell our children, "You once were goo, and now you're
>>> you." Don't worry if they take guns to school and shoot each other
>>> because they're told they're animals.
>> "Animals" (the non-human kind) are not generally widely known for
>> carrying firearms.
> I support the right to arm bears.
==========
From the Heaven Wrestling Federation Dept.:
>>> My God can beat up your God.
>> I'll wager 1,000 quatloos on the scrappy challenger...
> The Flying Spaghetti Monster v. the Invisible Pink Unicorn! This won't
> be pretty, colorful yes, but not pretty.
==========
Nominated in the "poor choice of metaphor" category:
>This was a year of Oscars that were blantantly sold to the highest
>bidder.
>Of the ten top grossing pictures of 2005, none were even nominated for
>an Oscar.
==========
Nominated in the "Well You Can Prove Anything That's True If You Have
Enough Facts" category:
> I surmize that those "scientists" who cannot defend their claims have
> to pad their work with a lot of facts
==========
Well, one man's mode is another man's en passant...
>>>>> Remember; when it comes to historical revisionism, one man's Mede
>>>>> is another man's Persian.
>>>> If that is original, I am unable to strangle you for clapping. If
>>>> it's not, I am jealous that I didn't steal it first.
>>> Would you mind explaining it? I don't know who Mede is and Persian
>>> is an ethnicity ... is this another one of your puns?
>> Oh, you bet. The Medes and Persians were two ancient peoples from the
>> area that's Iran today. They were antagonists but eventually were
>> united in one kingdom by Cyrus the Great. This about 2500 ago. Since
>> in English 'Mede' sounds like 'meat' and 'Persian' sounds somewhat
>> like 'poison,' the saying becomes a pun on the saying 'One man's meat
>> is another man's poison.'
> Wow, I missed that pun on all levels. I've never heard of the Medes
> (and thus didn't know about their conflict with the Persians) and I've
> never heard the expression "One man's meat is another man's poison."
==========
n the intellectual capacity divizion
> But I don't think those lasy hindous have the intellectual
> capability to do such work
==========
Network Reality?:
> That psychopaths crave security I saw on TV more than once so... it
> must be true.
==========
Under the heading "Yes sir, I see that big foot crashing down just about
now":
>> The only real "evidence" for your evil lie is that it eliminates God
> Yes. Absolutely right. That's the ONLY evidence for evolution.
> Aside from the fossils. Right. Fossils and elimination of God. That's
> is. Fossils, no-God, and umm, the genetics stuff. OK. Just those.
> Fossils, no-God, genes. What? Right. Comparative anatomy. That's it,
> then. Fossils, no-God, gene-stuff, anatomy. There's your list. Fossils,
> no-God, genes, anatomy, and biogeography. WAIT. What's that about?
> Evidence? More evidence? Sigh. Are we done? Good. Fossils, no-God,
> genetics, anatomy, biogeography, biochemistry. STOP THAT! Fossils,
> no-God, anatomy, genes, biogeography, biochemistry, and nested
> hierarchies.
> Right. That's it, I've had it. Enough!
==========
From the Testudines dept.:
> Yep. It's Designers all the way up and morons all the way down.
==========
In the Creationists who don't know sh*t about evolution OR religion
category:
>> I'm not one of the sub-persons.
> "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
==========
Black = Hot Pink
> Majority is right reliance. IN the Bible the majority is always wrong.
> This is also a typological claim of truth, meaning the majority in any
> era will be the same (wrong). Therefore your undeniable fact (majority
> of scientists accept evolution) mean they are wrong and prove Biblical
> typology corrrect.
==========
Nomimated for the "Hole in one('s foot) award
> Creationists know facts get in the way.
==========
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
Å vite hva man ikke vet,
er også en slags allvitenhet.
Dan Luke
> ==========
> Make it so:
>
>>> We have been assuming just one God. What happens when you add a
>>> second omniscient, omnipotent God to the mix?
>
>>You get some really stupid episodes of Star Trek.
> ==========
...and this one:
> ==========
> In the Eostregen overdoes division:
>
>> Happy Easter!!! And remember to have some fun. An Easter egg hunt is
>> a great way to engage children on the real meaning of Easter.
> ==========
...and this one:
> ==========
> Just in time for Eostre:
>
>>> psssst buddy, you were supposed to wait until April 1st to post this.
>
>> It's always April 1st at talk.origins.
> ==========
Just one more, please?
> ==========
> Nominated for the "Rhetorical Question Answered" award:
>
>>> Is there a difference between a rock and a monkey?
>
>> You can't shave a rock and call it a creationist.
> ==========
Ok, I promise I'll stop after this one:
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>==========
>Neoanalogy:
>
>> I recently bought Norton Systemworks, and now my computer is as slow
>> as a creationist trying to understand thermodynamics.
>
>==========
Loved this one.
--
Bob.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Ferrous Patella
<mail1...@pop.net>:
>Hugh ballot
Wasn't he the bartender in "The Shootist"?
> this month. I guess people are motivated since there is
>actually a chance that the winner might so up in the archive.
Since I'm not *quite* tacky enough to vote for my own (even
if I thought they were the best, which I don't), I'll vote
for these. (Sorry, I can't narrow it any further):
>Re reports of images of Jesus and Mary in found objects:
>
>==========
>>I always am intrigued by how easy it is to recognize Jesus' face. No
>>one ever seems to squint at their potato chip and say "Hmm... this is
>>either Jesus or Mr. Lewis from down at the gas station, I can't quite
>>decide."
>
>>I suppose he got an early start in being distinctive by being a western
>>European born to natives of the middle east.
>
>==========
>=========
>Take Two or the In the Older Butt Wiser Category:
>
>>>> Quality singles aged 21 to 80 worldwide.
>
>>> What if I want to date someone older than 80 years old?
>
>> You cut off their leg and count the rings.
>
>==========
>==========
>In the category of "Wish me luck":
>
>> <girds loins, straightens helmet>
>
>> OK, I'm going into the incoherence singularity. Somebody hold on to the
>> other end of this rope.
>
>==========
>==========
>From the Testudines dept.:
>
>> Yep. It's Designers all the way up and morons all the way down.
>
>==========
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Gary Bohn
news:Xns979A72D30B46A...@199.45.49.11:
This one please
> ==========
> In the Quantity, not Quality contest:
>
>> I seem to remember getting into a disputation with [our resident
>> phiolospher] over just this point. I can't remember who "won",
>> except that I am sure he outworded me.
>
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.
Stile4aly
> Take Two or the In the Older Butt Wiser Category:
>
> >>> Quality singles aged 21 to 80 worldwide.
>
> >> What if I want to date someone older than 80 years old?
>
> > You cut off their leg and count the rings.
The best freudian slip (2nd place):
> Nomimated for the "Hole in one('s foot) award
>
> > Creationists know facts get in the way.
and a sentimental favorite (3rd place):
> In the "Whip me, beat me, I've made a pun" category:
>
>
> > > Parasite less deadly without its whip
> > > New Scientist Thursday March 9, 02:30 PM
> > > http://uk.news.yahoo.com/09032006/12/parasite-deadly-its-whip.html
>
> > Customer dissatisfaction on the rise at the Parasite City Club.
> > One anonymous regular commented that the stars of the show are less
> > exciting without their whips. "Are we supposed to self-flagellate now?"
Stile4aly
VoiceOfReason
> Hugh ballot this month.
Hugh Ballot? I did a Google search on him and found a sex offender in
Arkansas. Yup - definitely Cretinist raw material.
.
.
.
Huh? Oh, yeah, my choices are:
====== First ======
In the category of "Wish me luck":
> <girds loins, straightens helmet>
> OK, I'm going into the incoherence singularity. Somebody hold on to the
> other end of this rope.
====== Second ======
====== Third ======
Victor Eijkhout
> For the DKNJ award:
>
> > "Dembski came to give a talk in Berkeley. All I got was this designer
> > t-shirt, but he wouldn't tell me who the designer was."
I love this.
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
ph: 512 471 5809
Desertphile
(Very large trim here)
Good Goddess it was hard to decide between so many fine choices. I
managed to narrow down my favorites to two:
> >> Decisions are made by minds, there is nothing magic in the mind.
> >And thus can be explained the rise of racism and nazism on account of
> >the Darwinist revolution.
==========
>>>> My God can beat up your God.
>>> I'll wager 1,000 quatloos on the scrappy challenger...
>> The Flying Spaghetti Monster v. the Invisible Pink Unicorn! This won't
>> be pretty, colorful yes, but not pretty.
==========
After further consideration, please put me down for voting on the
latter of the two. Thank you.
Cheezits
[etc.]
> You want some Freedom Fries with that?:
>
>> You and your secularist friends are so obsessed with protecting
>> yourselves from the religious right that you are blindly
>> unconstitutionally forcing freedom from religion on everybody.
ROFL!
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Tracy P. Hamilton
Ferrous Patella wrote:
> Hugh ballot this month.
My vote:
Geoff
news:Xns979A72D30B46A...@199.45.49.11...
I have seven. Is that OK? Man, that was a bumper crop!
> ==========
>>I always am intrigued by how easy it is to recognize Jesus' face. No
>>one ever seems to squint at their potato chip and say "Hmm... this is
>>either Jesus or Mr. Lewis from down at the gas station, I can't quite
>>decide."
>
>>I suppose he got an early start in being distinctive by being a western
>>European born to natives of the middle east.
>
> ==========
> Worst identity crisis ever?:
>
>> There was about 5 days back in the 1990's, when every major news outlet
>> ran the story of how science hadn't even known what species we are and
>> it turned out that homo sapiens had been extinct for 60,000 years.
>
> ==========
> In the Phrase Minting dept:
>
>>>> Here is excellent proof of evolution. In between points 9 and 10,
>>>> we see a mutation producing a change from slack to schlack, clearly
>>>> an addition of information. All that's needed now is for one more
>>>> mutation changing schlack to schlock, and we will have a fitting
>>>> descriptive term for McCoy's rantings. Who says evolution doesn't
>>>> produce adaptation?
>
>> > Yeah, but I think this is Lamarckism.
>
>> It's clearly more Malarckian than Lamarckian.
>
> ==========
> From the temporal agnostic division:
>
>>>>>> Ten tips for the Conflicted Christian parent
>>>>>> ============================================
>>>> <snip>
>
>>>>> Sigh. Those who _need_ to hear this will _not_ listen.
>
>>>> Just my Saturday sermon. I'm a Seventh Day Agnostic.
>
>>> What are you the other 6 days?
>
>> I don't know.
>
> ==========
> I'll take Al Gore in the seventh:
>
>> I have no idea how they get from their irrelevant number of genes to
>> 10^162 years, but the original assumptions are invalid. It's like me
>> saying "there were 100,000,000 votes cast in the 2004 presidential
>> election and the chance that the precise pattern of votes would be cast
>> by those people in that order is 1 in 2^100,000,000 times 100,000,000!
>> divided by 8! times this other expression I pulled from an obscure
>> branch of set theory you've never heard of and I've misapplied, and the
>> number of successive elections required to do it would be longer than
>> the age of the known universe, therefore the universe is actually
>> 1.62*10^981 years old, and nearly all of that was spent with the USA in
>> limbo, waiting for the right election result, so the japanese got ahead
>> of us while we were in limbo and we need more tax credits for ethanol."
>
> ==========
> In the bald hair color race:
>
>>>Why do some people call atheism a religion?
>
>> Misery loves company...
>
> ==========
John Wilkins
> Hugh ballot this month. I guess people are motivated since there is
> actually a chance that the winner might so up in the archive.
>
> Austrailian instant run-off rules (well, guidelines) apply.
Equal share for the following:
>
> ==========
> Make it so:
>
>>> We have been assuming just one God. What happens when you add a
>>> second omniscient, omnipotent God to the mix?
>
>> You get some really stupid episodes of Star Trek.
>
> ==========
> In the Quantity, not Quality contest:
>
>> I seem to remember getting into a disputation with [our resident
>> phiolospher] over just this point. I can't remember who "won",
>> except that I am sure he outworded me.
>
> ==========
> "The Casanova Principle":
>
>> Given sufficient levels of cluelessness in multiple fields,
>> *no* question is too difficult to answer.
>
> ==========
> In the "One syllable too many" Category:
>
>> The Discovery Institute is all a twitter (the proper term, I think)
>
> In the Phrase Minting dept:
>
>>>> Here is excellent proof of evolution. In between points 9 and 10,
>>>> we see a mutation producing a change from slack to schlack, clearly
>>>> an addition of information. All that's needed now is for one more
>>>> mutation changing schlack to schlock, and we will have a fitting
>>>> descriptive term for McCoy's rantings. Who says evolution doesn't
>>>> produce adaptation?
>
>>> Yeah, but I think this is Lamarckism.
>
>> It's clearly more Malarckian than Lamarckian.
>
> ==========
> From the temporal agnostic division:
>
>>>>>> Ten tips for the Conflicted Christian parent
>>>>>> ============================================
>>>> <snip>
>
>>>>> Sigh. Those who _need_ to hear this will _not_ listen.
>
>>>> Just my Saturday sermon. I'm a Seventh Day Agnostic.
>
>>> What are you the other 6 days?
>
>> I don't know.
>
> ==========
> Nominated for the "Rhetorical Question Answered" award:
>
>>> Is there a difference between a rock and a monkey?
>
>> You can't shave a rock and call it a creationist.
>
> ==========
> In the category of "Wish me luck":
>
>> <girds loins, straightens helmet>
>
>> OK, I'm going into the incoherence singularity. Somebody hold on to the
>> other end of this rope.
Yes, some of these are mine. I'm not too proud to be arrogant enough to vote
for myself.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own eyes?
NashtOn
You poor soul. Still unemployed?
--
Nicolas
"The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is
the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn
that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more
about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the
product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural
selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture,
and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a
purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that
these claims go far beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson,
The Church Of Darwin
Pithecanthropus Erectus
Of what use is half a vote?
R. Baldwin
> actually a chance that the winner might so up in the archive.
>
> Austrailian instant run-off rules (well, guidelines) apply.
>
#1
> ==========
> In the "What Bends Your Kink" Category:
>
> >>> Men are so cute when they think they're in charge.
>
> >> Like it or not, authority and respect, earned or not, goes to the
> >> Male by default.
>
> > You sound like one of those naughty boys who secretly wants to be
> > spanked.
>
#3
> ==========
> From the temporal agnostic division:
>
> >>>>> Ten tips for the Conflicted Christian parent
> >>>>> ============================================
> >>> <snip>
>
> >>>> Sigh. Those who _need_ to hear this will _not_ listen.
>
> >>> Just my Saturday sermon. I'm a Seventh Day Agnostic.
>
> >> What are you the other 6 days?
>
> > I don't know.
>
#2
Wakboth
Ferrous Patella kirjoitti:
> In the "Let's be reasonable" category:
>
> >>> There is actually no contradiction between the accounts of Genesis 1
> >>> and Genesis 2. (snip)
>
> >> What part of first - animals then man or second - man then animals is
> >> giving you difficulty?
>
> > So much for reasonable. Bye for now
My vote's on this, because of the way it illuminates the creationist
behavior.
-- Wakboth
Marc
NashtOn wrote:
> Nociferous Spatula wrote:
>
>
> You poor soul. Still unemployed?
No, you fool. This is not where you try to make a Chez Watt,
this is where you _vote_ for them.
Plus you have made so many that you shouldn't really try
any more - it's not fair to the other loons.
(Oh... - get a new sig!)
(signed) marc
.
Roland Anderson
Marc
<<<<<<<<<TOP-POST WARNING>>>>
ARE YOU trying to have the "chez watt" vote posting get another
nomination itself?
"Hugh"? _Huge_!!
and then "chance the winner might so up in the archive"?
Austrailians?
(Somebody who would try to vote 22 times? That sort of Austrailian?)
>>>>>>>> end top posting <<<<<<<<<
Ferrous Patella wrote:
> Hugh ballot this month. I guess people are motivated since there is
> actually a chance that the winner might so up in the archive.
>
> Austrailian instant run-off rules (well, guidelines) apply.
>
*************************************************
SO MANY!! ?? - good ones all - lots of very good ones.
I'll whittle the selection down to a final 20 or so, then I'll vote
later.
(How many can I vote for again?)
(signed) marc
**********************************
# 1:
> ==========
> Equal Opportunity Nomination:
>
> > There are no scientists who are young Earth creationists for
> > scientific reasons.
>
> ==========
# 2:
> ==========
> In the "Well, if you put it that way" category:
>
> >> There's every possibility these two mental diseases could become
> >> treated with creationist technology.
>
> > And just how will this technology be able to help you
> > with your own congenital illogic condition?
>
> ==========
#3 and #4:
> ==========
> From the late 1960's "Put This In Your Pipe and Smoke It" Category:
>
> > His reality could be distorted by peyote soaked in datura sprinkled
> > with PCP, and he'd be clearer than you ever are.
>
> ==========
> Nominated for the Salvadore Dali surrealist award...
>
> > Dogs don't need to eat nuts with their paws.
>
> ==========
# 5 and # 6:
> ==========
> In the category:
>
> > > Some one stated a wiki for ID.
> > > <http://www.researchid.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page>
> > > There doesn't seem to be much content yet.
>
> > The perfect ID website!
>
> ==========
> For the DKNJ award:
>
> > "Dembski came to give a talk in Berkeley. All I got was this designer
> > t-shirt, but he wouldn't tell me who the designer was."
>
> ==========
# 7 and # 8
> ==========
> From the Martial Arts and Crafts Dept.:
>
> > [OP] is a Black Belt in Cognitive Jiu Jitsu. He uses his brain's own
> > imbalance to overpower itself so he can believe anything, even things
> > that he 'knows' are nonsense. All religious people do this, but
> > antievolutionists rule at the Disfunction Dojo, and not many of them are
> > as accomplished as [OP] the Flying Cerebrum.
>
> ==========
# 10:
> ==========
> You try to be nice to *some* people:
>
> >> 1. Don't worry about looking stupid, you're not, but you are
> >> ignorant. You're only stupid when you are incapable of rational
> >> thought.
>
> > You are new here I see. Not to burst your bubble or anything,
> > [unnamed poster] isn't just stupid. He's willfully stupid. Now
> > please, don't think I engage in this kind of namecalling lightly, or
> > on a regular basis. I hate thinking anyone is stupid. But [he] is a
> > master gardener of stupid. He nurtures stupid, and encourages it to
> > grow. [He] grows those 200-pound-pumpkins-of stupid that you see on TV
> > around Hallowe'en. It is rumored that he emits a damping field that
> > slows the diffusion of neurotransmitters across synaptic clefts,
> > rendering everyone around him stupid, but every investigator who gets
> > too close forgets what (s)he's looking for. It is known for certain
> > that Acme will not ship Irony Meters to any address within 4 counties
> > of his place of residence, not even the milspec jobs with the thorium
> > cladding that keep that keep the District of Columbia from imploding
> > and sinking into the Atlantic whenever the words "Halliburton" and
> > "honest" appear in the same paragraph.
>
> ==========
# 11:
> ==========
> In the minor second category:
>
> > Let's say you are swimming in the ocean, and you see a grey dorsal fin
> > approaching you, do you go "I wonder if that's a bat"?
>
> ==========
# 12, # 13 and # 14:
Ok... how many votes does austrailians get?)
# 15, # 16 and #17:
> =========
> Take Two or the In the Older Butt Wiser Category:
>
> >>> Quality singles aged 21 to 80 worldwide.
>
> >> What if I want to date someone older than 80 years old?
>
> > You cut off their leg and count the rings.
>
> ==========
> In the "Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel." dept.:
>
> > After dismissing the majority of scientists as being *believers*, [Be]he
> > then has the audacity to state about his usage of such a colored term:
>
> > "Perhaps this will go a little way toward promoting the good
> > will that this conference strives for."
>
> > It is at this point where one might get the urge to just tell him to
> > go fuck himself.
>
> ==========
> > I have a question. How many mammals have mouths, jaws, chin and adam's
> > apple? Need I state anymore of the obvious? And I have yet to find
> > these appendages on fish,which is where you would expect them to be
> > found.
> [...]
> > And do not all animals have mouths and jaws?
>
> ==========
# 18 to # 22:
> ==========
> In the category of "Wish me luck":
>
> > <girds loins, straightens helmet>
>
> > OK, I'm going into the incoherence singularity. Somebody hold on to the
> > other end of this rope.
>
> ==========
> ==========
> In the Second Amendment category:
>
> >>> Now we can tell our children, "You once were goo, and now you're
> >>> you." Don't worry if they take guns to school and shoot each other
> >>> because they're told they're animals.
>
> >> "Animals" (the non-human kind) are not generally widely known for
> >> carrying firearms.
>
> > I support the right to arm bears.
>
> ==========
> ==========
> Nominated in the "Well You Can Prove Anything That's True If You Have
> Enough Facts" category:
>
> > I surmize that those "scientists" who cannot defend their claims have
> > to pad their work with a lot of facts
>
> ==========
> ==========
> Under the heading "Yes sir, I see that big foot crashing down just about
> now":
>
> >> The only real "evidence" for your evil lie is that it eliminates God
>
> > Yes. Absolutely right. That's the ONLY evidence for evolution.
>
> > Aside from the fossils. Right. Fossils and elimination of God. That's
> > is. Fossils, no-God, and umm, the genetics stuff. OK. Just those.
> > Fossils, no-God, genes. What? Right. Comparative anatomy. That's it,
> > then. Fossils, no-God, gene-stuff, anatomy. There's your list. Fossils,
> > no-God, genes, anatomy, and biogeography. WAIT. What's that about?
> > Evidence? More evidence? Sigh. Are we done? Good. Fossils, no-God,
> > genetics, anatomy, biogeography, biochemistry. STOP THAT! Fossils,
> > no-God, anatomy, genes, biogeography, biochemistry, and nested
> > hierarchies.
>
> > Right. That's it, I've had it. Enough!
>
> ==========
> ==========
SeppoP
> Nociferous Spatula wrote:
>
>
> You poor soul. Still unemployed?
>
>
>
Doesn't it ever worry you even a teeny weeny bit that you *never* get it right?
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Geoff
news:1144136604.4...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ferrous Patella
> ARE YOU trying to have the "chez watt" vote posting get another
> nomination itself?
>
> "Hugh"? _Huge_!!
>
> and then "chance the winner might so up in the archive"?
>
> Austrailians?
> (Somebody who would try to vote 22 times? That sort of Austrailian?)
¿roolz has inkish
Ferrous Patella
> I have seven. Is that OK?
Are you trying to get a Chez Watt youself by implying there are rules?
neverbetter
> Chew Watt:
>
> > I'm sure T-rex was merely helping the other herbivores by preparing
> > vegetation for them.
> >
> > It slices, it dices...but wait, that's not all! With teeth like that
> >
> > you could make julienne french fries or a decorative garnish to
> > complement any meal. Makes perfect sense.
>
> > I like the little cute "arms" at the front of the T-Rex. Perfect for
> > holding the handles of a wok.
Any left over votes are to distributed among the following:
> ==========
> "The Casanova Principle":
>
> > Given sufficient levels of cluelessness in multiple fields,
> > *no* question is too difficult to answer.
>
> ==========
>
> ==========
> For the DKNJ award:
>
> > "Dembski came to give a talk in Berkeley. All I got was this designer
> > t-shirt, but he wouldn't tell me who the designer was."
> =========
> Take Two or the In the Older Butt Wiser Category:
>
> >>> Quality singles aged 21 to 80 worldwide.
>
> >> What if I want to date someone older than 80 years old?
>
> > You cut off their leg and count the rings.
> ==========
> Nominated for the "Rhetorical Question Answered" award:
>
> >> Is there a difference between a rock and a monkey?
>
> > You can't shave a rock and call it a creationist.
rthe...@hotmail.com
Ferrous Patella wrote:
> Hugh ballot this month. I guess people are motivated since there is
> actually a chance that the winner might so up in the archive.
>
> Austrailian instant run-off rules (well, guidelines) apply.
Don't they only apply to 1-day matches?
Lots of good ones this time - 1 vote each (ha!) for these:
> ==========
> Nominated in the Beyond the Paley category
>
> >> The whole thing is still meaningless though. So then there are
> >> things that are "detectably designed" (like Mt. Rushmore) and things
> >> which are "undetectably designed", which is pretty much everything
> >> else, because nothing in the universe wasn't designed by the
> >> intelligent designer, right? It's a meaningless defintion: "Ohh,
> >> everything is designed, we can only detect some of it, but the rest
> >> is too" ... why even make the distinction then? :-/
>
> > Yup. So the classic watch on the beach argument reads like this in the
> > creationist's mind: You, a watch, are walking along a beach made of
> > watches. As the tide of watches rolls in on the clockwork breeze, you
> > notice a watch on the beach and exclaim "Oh, look! A watch!"
>
> ==========
> Make it so:
>
> >> We have been assuming just one God. What happens when you add a
> >> second omniscient, omnipotent God to the mix?
>
> >You get some really stupid episodes of Star Trek.
>
> ==========
> In the Eostregen overdoes division:
>
> > Happy Easter!!! And remember to have some fun. An Easter egg hunt is
> > a great way to engage children on the real meaning of Easter.
>
> ==========
> > Well, what do you think stuffed animals *eat*?
>
> Car keys and socks.
> ==========
> Worst identity crisis ever?:
>
> > There was about 5 days back in the 1990's, when every major news outlet
> > ran the story of how science hadn't even known what species we are and
> > it turned out that homo sapiens had been extinct for 60,000 years.
> ==========
> Chew Watt:
>
> > I'm sure T-rex was merely helping the other herbivores by preparing
> > vegetation for them.
> >
> > It slices, it dices...but wait, that's not all! With teeth like that
> >
> > you could make julienne french fries or a decorative garnish to
> > complement any meal. Makes perfect sense.
>
> > I like the little cute "arms" at the front of the T-Rex. Perfect for
> > holding the handles of a wok.
>
> ==========
Roy
AC
>==========
> For the DKNJ award:
>
>> "Dembski came to give a talk in Berkeley. All I got was this designer
>> t-shirt, but he wouldn't tell me who the designer was."
#2
>==========
> In the "What Bends Your Kink" Category:
>
>>>> Men are so cute when they think they're in charge.
>
>>> Like it or not, authority and respect, earned or not, goes to the
>>> Male by default.
>
>> You sound like one of those naughty boys who secretly wants to be
>> spanked.
#3
>==========
> In the "Let's be reasonable" category:
>
>>>> There is actually no contradiction between the accounts of Genesis 1
>>>> and Genesis 2. (snip)
>
>>> What part of first - animals then man or second - man then animals is
>>> giving you difficulty?
>
>> So much for reasonable. Bye for now
And an honorable mention...
>
>==========
> In the looking at itself in the mirror category:
>
>> Man, I love using Google to collect these Chez Watts. The Add-bot
>> informed me that I can get "Chez Watt" on eBay.
>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Ferrous Patella
> And an honorable mention...
>
>>
>>==========
>> In the looking at itself in the mirror category:
>>
>>> Man, I love using Google to collect these Chez Watts. The Add-bot
>>> informed me that I can get "Chez Watt" on eBay.
I may have to chech with the co-Chez Watt doorman but I am sure there are
no rules against giving 10X votes to honorable mentions.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by NashtOn <na...@na.ca>:
....essentially nothing...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Robert Carnegie
> ==========
> In the own petard category:
>
> >> Half an ark, hmmm. Is it the port half or the starboard half?
>
> > Of what use is half of an ark?
> Re reports of images of Jesus and Mary in found objects:
>
> ==========
> >I always am intrigued by how easy it is to recognize Jesus' face. No
> >one ever seems to squint at their potato chip and say "Hmm... this is
> >either Jesus or Mr. Lewis from down at the gas station, I can't quite
> >decide."
>
> >I suppose he got an early start in being distinctive by being a western
> >European born to natives of the middle east.
His movie career didn't hurt. You know he has blue eyes just like
Robert Powell.
> ==========
> For the DKNJ award:
>
> > "Dembski came to give a talk in Berkeley. All I got was this designer
> > t-shirt, but he wouldn't tell me who the designer was."
Hey! Eyes up here!
> ==========
> In the "Let's be reasonable" category:
>
> >>> There is actually no contradiction between the accounts of Genesis 1
> >>> and Genesis 2. (snip)
>
> >> What part of first - animals then man or second - man then animals is
> >> giving you difficulty?
>
> > So much for reasonable. Bye for now
Yeah, Dorothy Parker saw a newspaper report of an evolutionist marrying
a creationist and she said "I give it six seconds."
> ==========
> The protection of simplicity:
>
> >> I have always posted under the premise that the ToE is a theory that
> >> leaks like a basket.If you bothered to read any of my posts and
> >> actually *understand* what was written, you wouldn't be trying to
> >> belittle my opinions.
>
> > I don't believe your opinions *can* be belittled.
Actually I just want to suggest we do "He's not as stupid as he seems"
next.
> ==========
> From the temporal agnostic division:
>
> >>>>> Ten tips for the Conflicted Christian parent
> >>>>> ============================================
> >>> <snip>
>
> >>>> Sigh. Those who _need_ to hear this will _not_ listen.
>
> >>> Just my Saturday sermon. I'm a Seventh Day Agnostic.
>
> >> What are you the other 6 days?
>
> > I don't know.
Beautifully done.
> ==========
> Raingodman:
>
> > Maybe that's the next year's model of ID. School boards will want to
> > teach the controversy and add ASD (the autistic savant designer) to the
> > science curriculum.
>
> ==========
> In the category of "Wish me luck":
>
> > <girds loins, straightens helmet>
>
> > OK, I'm going into the incoherence singularity. Somebody hold on to the
> > other end of this rope.
...Anybody? Whoops. ;-)
Windy
These, in no apparent order:
> =========
> In the ghost of Douglas Adams award:
>
> > If there are serious difficulties with Evolutionst dating then you
> > would expect it show short spurts of unfeasibly frenetic activity, and
> > long periods when all of a sudden, for no apparent reason, nothing
> > happens.
>
Here I must add, that these are exactly the kind of difficulties I have
had with dating. Is the creationist dating scene any better?
> ==========
> ==========
> Nominated in the Beyond the Paley category
>
> >> The whole thing is still meaningless though. So then there are
> >> things that are "detectably designed" (like Mt. Rushmore) and things
> >> which are "undetectably designed", which is pretty much everything
> >> else, because nothing in the universe wasn't designed by the
> >> intelligent designer, right? It's a meaningless defintion: "Ohh,
> >> everything is designed, we can only detect some of it, but the rest
> >> is too" ... why even make the distinction then? :-/
>
> > Yup. So the classic watch on the beach argument reads like this in the
> > creationist's mind: You, a watch, are walking along a beach made of
> > watches. As the tide of watches rolls in on the clockwork breeze, you
> > notice a watch on the beach and exclaim "Oh, look! A watch!"
>
> ==========
> Make it so:
>
> >> We have been assuming just one God. What happens when you add a
> >> second omniscient, omnipotent God to the mix?
>
> >You get some really stupid episodes of Star Trek.
>
> ==========
> ==========
> In the Eostregen overdoes division:
>
> > Happy Easter!!! And remember to have some fun. An Easter egg hunt is
> > a great way to engage children on the real meaning of Easter.
>
> ==========
> ==========
> For the DKNJ award:
>
> > "Dembski came to give a talk in Berkeley. All I got was this designer
> > t-shirt, but he wouldn't tell me who the designer was."
>
> ==========
Greg G.
A vote for this:
> ==========
> From the Martial Arts and Crafts Dept.:
>
> > [OP] is a Black Belt in Cognitive Jiu Jitsu. He uses his brain's own
> > imbalance to overpower itself so he can believe anything, even things
> > that he 'knows' are nonsense. All religious people do this, but
> > antievolutionists rule at the Disfunction Dojo, and not many of them are
> > as accomplished as [OP] the Flying Cerebrum.
>
> ==========
A vote for this for the last sentence:
> ==========
> You try to be nice to *some* people:
>
> >> 1. Don't worry about looking stupid, you're not, but you are
> >> ignorant. You're only stupid when you are incapable of rational
> >> thought.
>
> > You are new here I see. Not to burst your bubble or anything,
> > [unnamed poster] isn't just stupid. He's willfully stupid. Now
> > please, don't think I engage in this kind of namecalling lightly, or
> > on a regular basis. I hate thinking anyone is stupid. But [he] is a
> > master gardener of stupid. He nurtures stupid, and encourages it to
> > grow. [He] grows those 200-pound-pumpkins-of stupid that you see on TV
> > around Hallowe'en. It is rumored that he emits a damping field that
> > slows the diffusion of neurotransmitters across synaptic clefts,
> > rendering everyone around him stupid, but every investigator who gets
> > too close forgets what (s)he's looking for. It is known for certain
> > that Acme will not ship Irony Meters to any address within 4 counties
> > of his place of residence, not even the milspec jobs with the thorium
> > cladding that keep that keep the District of Columbia from imploding
> > and sinking into the Atlantic whenever the words "Halliburton" and
> > "honest" appear in the same paragraph.
>
> ==========
And a vote for this for Best Mental Imagery:
> ==========
> From the Heaven Wrestling Federation Dept.:
> >>> My God can beat up your God.
>
> >> I'll wager 1,000 quatloos on the scrappy challenger...
>
> > The Flying Spaghetti Monster v. the Invisible Pink Unicorn! This won't
> > be pretty, colorful yes, but not pretty.
>
> ==========
--
Greg G.
Q: What did the fish monger say to the magician?
A: Take a cod, any cod.
Tom McDonald
Ferrous Patella wrote:
This one is first place, because it got me excited. Oh. I've said too
much.
> ==========
> In the "What Bends Your Kink" Category:
>
> >>> Men are so cute when they think they're in charge.
>
> >> Like it or not, authority and respect, earned or not, goes to the
> >> Male by default.
>
> > You sound like one of those naughty boys who secretly wants to be
> > spanked.
>
> ==========
This is the best one. Forcing freedom on me--I *hate* when that
happens:
> ==========
> You want some Freedom Fries with that?:
>
> > You and your secularist friends are so obsessed with protecting
> > yourselves from the religious right that you are blindly
> > unconstitutionally forcing freedom from religion on everybody.
>
> ==========
No one in the history of Chez Watt, or the world really, has ever
written a better Chez Watt than this one. The man's a genius:
> ==========
> From the late 1960's "Put This In Your Pipe and Smoke It" Category:
>
> > His reality could be distorted by peyote soaked in datura sprinkled
> > with PCP, and he'd be clearer than you ever are.
>
> ==========
This is just deep-down satisfying:
> ==========
> In the "It helps to be prepared" category:
>
> > Next time he hands you printouts, don't take them. Swing around
> > violently with a blow torch and incinerate them. This works especially
> > well if you lief ignorance afterwards; ask him why he's brought you a
> > smoking pile of ash and complain that he's making a mess.
>
> ==========
Last, but certainly not first, this one:
Mark Isaak
wrote:
Overall winner, in the truest sense of "Say what?":
>Worst identity crisis ever?:
>
>> There was about 5 days back in the 1990's, when every major news outlet
>> ran the story of how science hadn't even known what species we are and
>> it turned out that homo sapiens had been extinct for 60,000 years.
>==========
Overall winner, Original research category:
>Take Two or the In the Older Butt Wiser Category:
>
>>>> Quality singles aged 21 to 80 worldwide.
>
>>> What if I want to date someone older than 80 years old?
>
>> You cut off their leg and count the rings.
>==========
Overall winner, Getting real category:
>Just in time for Eostre:
>
>>> psssst buddy, you were supposed to wait until April 1st to post this.
>
>> It's always April 1st at talk.origins.
>==========
With the background information that this comes from a creationist, it
is a winner; without that background, it is a runner-up:
>In the Eostregen overdoes division:
>
>> Happy Easter!!! And remember to have some fun. An Easter egg hunt is
>> a great way to engage children on the real meaning of Easter.
>==========
Ditto for this one:
>Nomimated for the "Hole in one('s foot) award
>
>> Creationists know facts get in the way.
>
>==========
Runner-up, pun category:
>In the Phrase Minting dept:
>
>>>> Here is excellent proof of evolution. In between points 9 and 10,
>>>> we see a mutation producing a change from slack to schlack, clearly
>>>> an addition of information. All that's needed now is for one more
>>>> mutation changing schlack to schlock, and we will have a fitting
>>>> descriptive term for McCoy's rantings. Who says evolution doesn't
>>>> produce adaptation?
>
>> > Yeah, but I think this is Lamarckism.
>
>> It's clearly more Malarckian than Lamarckian.
>==========
Runner-up, uncategorizable:
>From the temporal agnostic division:
>
>>>>>> Ten tips for the Conflicted Christian parent
>>>>>> ============================================
>>>> <snip>
>
>>>>> Sigh. Those who _need_ to hear this will _not_ listen.
>
>>>> Just my Saturday sermon. I'm a Seventh Day Agnostic.
>
>>> What are you the other 6 days?
>
>> I don't know.
>==========
Runner-up, Getting real category:
>"The Casanova Principle":
>
>> Given sufficient levels of cluelessness in multiple fields,
>> *no* question is too difficult to answer.
>==========
Runner-up, Put-down category:
>You try to be nice to *some* people:
>
>>> 1. Don't worry about looking stupid, you're not, but you are
>>> ignorant. You're only stupid when you are incapable of rational
>>> thought.
>
>> You are new here I see. Not to burst your bubble or anything,
>> [unnamed poster] isn't just stupid. He's willfully stupid. Now
>> please, don't think I engage in this kind of namecalling lightly, or
>> on a regular basis. I hate thinking anyone is stupid. But [he] is a
>> master gardener of stupid. He nurtures stupid, and encourages it to
>> grow. [He] grows those 200-pound-pumpkins-of stupid that you see on TV
>> around Hallowe'en. It is rumored that he emits a damping field that
>> slows the diffusion of neurotransmitters across synaptic clefts,
>> rendering everyone around him stupid, but every investigator who gets
>> too close forgets what (s)he's looking for. It is known for certain
>> that Acme will not ship Irony Meters to any address within 4 counties
>> of his place of residence, not even the milspec jobs with the thorium
>> cladding that keep that keep the District of Columbia from imploding
>> and sinking into the Atlantic whenever the words "Halliburton" and
>> "honest" appear in the same paragraph.
>=========
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Marc
There should be a special award for the _first_ chez watt
each month. <grin>
(signed) marc
Geoff
Sorry, but Nashie would beat you to the punch without much
of an effort.
Harvest Dancer
> You try to be nice to *some* people:
>
> >> 1. Don't worry about looking stupid, you're not, but you are
> >> ignorant. You're only stupid when you are incapable of rational
> >> thought.
>
> > You are new here I see. Not to burst your bubble or anything,
> > [unnamed poster] isn't just stupid. He's willfully stupid. Now
> > please, don't think I engage in this kind of namecalling lightly, or
> > on a regular basis. I hate thinking anyone is stupid. But [he] is a
> > master gardener of stupid. He nurtures stupid, and encourages it to
> > grow. [He] grows those 200-pound-pumpkins-of stupid that you see on TV
> > around Hallowe'en. It is rumored that he emits a damping field that
> > slows the diffusion of neurotransmitters across synaptic clefts,
> > rendering everyone around him stupid, but every investigator who gets
> > too close forgets what (s)he's looking for. It is known for certain
> > that Acme will not ship Irony Meters to any address within 4 counties
> > of his place of residence, not even the milspec jobs with the thorium
> > cladding that keep that keep the District of Columbia from imploding
> > and sinking into the Atlantic whenever the words "Halliburton" and
> > "honest" appear in the same paragraph.
First Runner Up
> Under the heading "Yes sir, I see that big foot crashing down just about
> now":
>
> >> The only real "evidence" for your evil lie is that it eliminates God
>
> > Yes. Absolutely right. That's the ONLY evidence for evolution.
>
> > Aside from the fossils. Right. Fossils and elimination of God. That's
> > is. Fossils, no-God, and umm, the genetics stuff. OK. Just those.
> > Fossils, no-God, genes. What? Right. Comparative anatomy. That's it,
> > then. Fossils, no-God, gene-stuff, anatomy. There's your list. Fossils,
> > no-God, genes, anatomy, and biogeography. WAIT. What's that about?
> > Evidence? More evidence? Sigh. Are we done? Good. Fossils, no-God,
> > genetics, anatomy, biogeography, biochemistry. STOP THAT! Fossils,
> > no-God, anatomy, genes, biogeography, biochemistry, and nested
> > hierarchies.
>
> > Right. That's it, I've had it. Enough!
Second Runner Up
> From the Martial Arts and Crafts Dept.:
>
> > [OP] is a Black Belt in Cognitive Jiu Jitsu. He uses his brain's own
> > imbalance to overpower itself so he can believe anything, even things
> > that he 'knows' are nonsense. All religious people do this, but
> > antievolutionists rule at the Disfunction Dojo, and not many of them are
> > as accomplished as [OP] the Flying Cerebrum.
Third Runner Up
> In the "It helps to be prepared" category:
>
> > Next time he hands you printouts, don't take them. Swing around
> > violently with a blow torch and incinerate them. This works especially
> > well if you lief ignorance afterwards; ask him why he's brought you a
> > smoking pile of ash and complain that he's making a mess.
Miss Congeniality
> In the looking at itself in the mirror category:
>
> > Man, I love using Google to collect these Chez Watts. The Add-bot
> > informed me that I can get "Chez Watt" on eBay.
Best in Show
> Make it so:
>
> >> We have been assuming just one God. What happens when you add a
> >> second omniscient, omnipotent God to the mix?
>
> >You get some really stupid episodes of Star Trek.
Other Honorable Mentions
> In the own petard category:
>
> >> Half an ark, hmmm. Is it the port half or the starboard half?
>
> > Of what use is half of an ark?
> Re reports of images of Jesus and Mary in found objects:
>
> >I always am intrigued by how easy it is to recognize Jesus' face. No
> >one ever seems to squint at their potato chip and say "Hmm... this is
> >either Jesus or Mr. Lewis from down at the gas station, I can't quite
> >decide."
>
> >I suppose he got an early start in being distinctive by being a western
> >European born to natives of the middle east.
> From the late 1960's "Put This In Your Pipe and Smoke It" Category:
>
> > His reality could be distorted by peyote soaked in datura sprinkled
> > with PCP, and he'd be clearer than you ever are.
> The protection of simplicity:
>
> >> I have always posted under the premise that the ToE is a theory that
> >> leaks like a basket.If you bothered to read any of my posts and
> >> actually *understand* what was written, you wouldn't be trying to
> >> belittle my opinions.
>
> > I don't believe your opinions *can* be belittled.
And a dishonorable mention in honor of next month's ballot:
Ferrous Patella
Dancer:
Don't you mean something more like this?
> A brazillion votes for this for first place
>
[...]
>> In the looking at itself in the mirror category:
>>
>> > Man, I love using Google to collect these Chez Watts. The Add-bot
>> > informed me that I can get "Chez Watt" on eBay.
>
Also, you said:
> Best in Show
>
So are you one of those people who think nothing of using the word "bitch"
or are you just a fan of Eugene Levy?
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
Marc
> Ferrous Patella wrote:
> > Hugh ballot this month. I guess people are motivated since there is
> > actually a chance that the winner might so up in the archive.
> >
> > Austrailian instant run-off rules (well, guidelines) apply.
My vote is partly for this:
> > ==========
> > In the "Well, if you put it that way" category:
> >
> > >> There's every possibility these two mental diseases could become
> > >> treated with creationist technology.
> >
> > > And just how will this technology be able to help you
> > > with your own congenital illogic condition?
> >
> > ==========
This:
> > ==========
> > You try to be nice to *some* people:
> >
> > >> 1. Don't worry about looking stupid, you're not, but you are
> > >> ignorant. You're only stupid when you are incapable of rational
> > >> thought.
> >
> > > You are new here I see. Not to burst your bubble or anything,
> > > [unnamed poster] isn't just stupid. He's willfully stupid. Now
> > > please, don't think I engage in this kind of namecalling lightly, or
> > > on a regular basis. I hate thinking anyone is stupid. But [he] is a
> > > master gardener of stupid. He nurtures stupid, and encourages it to
> > > grow. [He] grows those 200-pound-pumpkins-of stupid that you see on TV
> > > around Hallowe'en. It is rumored that he emits a damping field that
> > > slows the diffusion of neurotransmitters across synaptic clefts,
> > > rendering everyone around him stupid, but every investigator who gets
> > > too close forgets what (s)he's looking for. It is known for certain
> > > that Acme will not ship Irony Meters to any address within 4 counties
> > > of his place of residence, not even the milspec jobs with the thorium
> > > cladding that keep that keep the District of Columbia from imploding
> > > and sinking into the Atlantic whenever the words "Halliburton" and
> > > "honest" appear in the same paragraph.
> >
> > ==========
and these:
> > ==========
> > In the category of "Wish me luck":
> >
> > > <girds loins, straightens helmet>
> >
> > > OK, I'm going into the incoherence singularity. Somebody hold on to the
> > > other end of this rope.
> >
> > ==========
> > ==========
> > Nominated in the "Well You Can Prove Anything That's True If You Have
> > Enough Facts" category:
> >
> > > I surmize that those "scientists" who cannot defend their claims have
> > > to pad their work with a lot of facts
> >
> > ==========
> > ==========
> > Under the heading "Yes sir, I see that big foot crashing down just about
> > now":
> >
> > >> The only real "evidence" for your evil lie is that it eliminates God
> >
> > > Yes. Absolutely right. That's the ONLY evidence for evolution.
> >
> > > Aside from the fossils. Right. Fossils and elimination of God. That's
> > > is. Fossils, no-God, and umm, the genetics stuff. OK. Just those.
> > > Fossils, no-God, genes. What? Right. Comparative anatomy. That's it,
> > > then. Fossils, no-God, gene-stuff, anatomy. There's your list. Fossils,
> > > no-God, genes, anatomy, and biogeography. WAIT. What's that about?
> > > Evidence? More evidence? Sigh. Are we done? Good. Fossils, no-God,
> > > genetics, anatomy, biogeography, biochemistry. STOP THAT! Fossils,
> > > no-God, anatomy, genes, biogeography, biochemistry, and nested
> > > hierarchies.
> >
> > > Right. That's it, I've had it. Enough!
> >
> > ==========
(signed) marc
Ferrous Patella
>> Ferrous Patella wrote:
>> > Hugh ballot this month. I guess people are motivated since there is
>> > actually a chance that the winner might so up in the archive.
>> >
>> > Austrailian instant run-off rules (well, guidelines) apply.
>
>
> My vote is partly for this:
I thought for sure you were going to vote for # 9.
chris.li...@gmail.com
Ferrous Patella wrote:
> Hugh ballot this month.
Tell me that's not a nom de plume for Hugh Hefner.
4.75 votes for each of these please:
> Under the heading "Yes sir, I see that big foot crashing down just about
> now":
>
> >> The only real "evidence" for your evil lie is that it eliminates God
>
> > Yes. Absolutely right. That's the ONLY evidence for evolution.
>
> > Aside from the fossils. Right. Fossils and elimination of God. That's
> > is. Fossils, no-God, and umm, the genetics stuff. OK. Just those.
> > Fossils, no-God, genes. What? Right. Comparative anatomy. That's it,
> > then. Fossils, no-God, gene-stuff, anatomy. There's your list. Fossils,
> > no-God, genes, anatomy, and biogeography. WAIT. What's that about?
> > Evidence? More evidence? Sigh. Are we done? Good. Fossils, no-God,
> > genetics, anatomy, biogeography, biochemistry. STOP THAT! Fossils,
> > no-God, anatomy, genes, biogeography, biochemistry, and nested
> > hierarchies.
>
> > Right. That's it, I've had it. Enough!
>
> ==========
Chris
Marc
Ferrous Patella wrote:
> news:1144416710.9...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by Marc:
>
> >> Ferrous Patella wrote:
> >> > Hugh ballot this month. I guess people are motivated since there is
> >> > actually a chance that the winner might so up in the archive.
> >> >
> >> > Austrailian instant run-off rules (well, guidelines) apply.
> >
> >
> > My vote is partly for this:
>
> I thought for sure you were going to vote for # 9.
D'oh.
Now I've got to go back through that huge list again to
figure out which one that would have been.
(signed) marc
.
Ferrous Patella
have easily swung the results with my own vote. However, I did not, not
due to any moral aversion but simply indecision. So here is this month's
winner"
> "Dembski came to give a talk in Berkeley. All I got was this designer
> t-shirt, but he wouldn't tell me who the designer was."
Also, I should point out that the last item on the ballot was *NOT* a Chez
Watt nomination but my sig.