There’s an odd phenomenon that crops up now and then. Every once in a while, an old thread is revived and the discussion gets lively again…and often it’s because yet another deluded fanatical creationist has been searching the web using the magic phrase “Kent Hovind” and found my site. And then they’re all offended because I point out that Hovind is a deeply ignorant fraud and tax cheat who was sentenced to 10 years in prison (currently serving his time in Florence, Colorado; expected release in 2015).
By the way, you should listen to his phone calls from jail. Criminal mastermind, he is not.
Anyway, it’s happened again. Some creationist dufus has hurled himself into a three-year old thread. So what I’m going to do is close that thread, and send the conversation here, where everyone can join in and have fun.
*lines up grog, swill, and popcornz for the participants*
But I expect it will be a very long time before the Director of the IRS is back on the Christmas card list of the Director of the Federal Prison Service …
Consider that creationist’s arguments take the form
Closing the three year old thread sounds like a good idea, but are you sure you want to encourage his posting more of the same?
Sure, fuck, whatever.
I mean, what else do you say to someone like this, other than there has got to be a local community college that teaches courses in remedial, uh, basic shit you can sign up for? Go pay them some money.
Please, Eric Hovind, join in.
I just couldn’t think of anything else that would make this thread more stupid.
Glen Davidson
@3 Good point. That sounds more like mental illness than creationism.
Although the two are hard to tell apart sometimes.
Perhaps in the future you need to misspell ol’ Kent’s name as “Hov1nd”, like the V1agra hucksters. Then again, perhaps it’s more entertaining to watch creationist get torn a new one.
I always thought the word was spelled “doofus.”
That old thread contains one of my longest, most thought-out posts ever. So out of character for me. Especially these days when I have a lot less time for that sort of stuff. Now I’m getting all nostalgic.
Thanks, Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls. Pass the pepper, please!
It’s not as bad as saying “Candleja
Hmmmmmm……
Ripped an torn to shreds within seven postings.
Not to shabby, Nige….
Thought I would just say hello for now, let you rip the old and create new “doesn’t make sense”
To PZ
If I am not welcome, I will stop….
To all, if I stay…..Please just keep your vitriol aimed at me.
TAT
Are they? Are they really hard to tell apart?
How long are you going to ignore people who’ve asked you not to use this over-the-top conflation of religiosity with mental illness or use mental illness as an insult, raven?
Vitriol? I think vitriol is better reserved for people who have committed evil deeds. Scorn and ridicule are more appropriate for dimbulbs. As far as I can see your biggest crime has been against yourself.
I was just reading an email from one of our Sales reps that I was sure would be the dumbest thing I’d read all day.
oh well.
Jesus, and I thought my mother had the guilt-complex thing down pat.
Kent Hovind
Kent Hovind
Kent Hovind
(well it worked for Beetlejuice)
danielhaven:
Saaaaayyy. That’s a mighty nice persecution complex you got there. Is that real hand-tooled leather? And it’s even in the shape of a cross, so you can climb right on up on it any time you like. That’s convenient!
Yeah, and there’s an odd phenomenon that’s entrenched on Freethought Blogs that constantly pisses me off: the “Comments” sidebar is both less accessible and comprehensive than the similar sidebar was on Scienceblogs.
Used to be that when ‘an old thread is revived and the discussion gets lively again’ you’d know it as soon as you logged into Pharyngula (or Dispatches or whatever.) Oh, looky — a big long line of regulars have just posted a mess of comments one after the other in one of the threads. Better go mosey on over and see what all the commotion is about.
But NOW … now you have to make a point of scrolling down way over on the right side and clicking a little button which eventually grudgingly shows you only the last 5 people who commented (and where they commented) — instead of the more generous 10 comments found top left side of the page on Science Blogs. If there’s a spate of activity over there, you’re unlikely to miss it. It grabs your attention right away.
Unlike over here.
Meaning that I missed something. Again. And now I’m grumpy. *sniff*
Can you please fix that somehow?
I can’t even…. how does someone wind up being this not even wrong?
Ok, now that I’ve posted there’s 15 comments on the sidebar, available automatically. Yes. But it doesn’t stay. It apparently plays hide and seek — and never, to my recollection, up on the front page. Odd phenomenon.
It is definately not a persecution problem and these are my words. The request is simply not to denegrate my parents, my family. With me, you can have as much fun as you like, pretty much the same I will have with you and only you…
danielhaven @ 12;
If you think that what you have encountered thus far amounts to ‘vitriol’, then you may want to grow a somewhat thicker skin. Pharyngula has always been a place where content is more important than tone, and if you come here to post nonsensical statements that are unsupported by evidence, then you will be mocked. If you can handle that, fine. If not, then it would be better if you left now. Creationists tend to have a short shelf life around here…
@ Ms. Daisy Cutter
Yeah, Candlejack is a notorious practitioner of woo. Wait, oh fu
danielhaven:
Did you think this was likely? Is this a common practice in Christian circles? If so, I think you can expect far more rational behavior from us.
Also: I’ve not seen much vitriol at all directed at you.
When I first read this, I thought “He’s in prison now, too?”
Ken/Kent … Ham/Hovind … I have to figure out some mnemonic to keep them straight.
Let’s see … one is a convicted criminal, the other is Australian.
Crap, I’ll never keep them straight.
My vitriol cannot possibly be constrained to one mere mortal vessel. Kent is a lying selfish myopic shit who crippled the minds of his and other children.
Likewise to you’ you have my sympathies as clearly your parents have hobbled you so much as to be akin to abuse. I’m sorry you had such shitty parents at one time you deserved better
What the hell have you heard about the horde? Geez, man! If YOU say ridiculous things, YOU will be mocked mercilessly for that. The cold, hard truth is more effective (and satisfying) than, “Your mamma’s so dumb….”.
danielhaven #12 wrote:
Hello, danielhaven. When you said “create new ‘doesn’t make sense'” did you mean you, or us?
In your opinion, what is the MAIN problem with evolution, the most significant aspect that “doesn’t make sense?”
Ahhhh thread necromancy! An ancient and misunderstood art.
So this new creationist thinks bestiality must have occurred for a frog and a bee to make a bird?
Well that’s my afternoon fucked. I mean, I’ve taken some hallucinogens before now but THAT, that’s the result of some good shit. I may have to watch how this one pans out.
Louis
Apparently, when a mommy bee and a daddy frog love each other very much…
This is a wonderful opportunity to bring up what the Bible has to say on the subject:
But wait—there’s more!
I love the smell of Biblical inconsistency in the morning. Smells like…victory!
But, as you were saying about the Theory of Evolution not making sense?
My friends nicknamed me Beetlejuice a few years back (because of my resemblance and personality – go figure) and use the three repeat name trick all the time. In Hovind’s case, a Candyman or Bloody Mary approach is more appropriate… actually, I shall take this up with the authorities. Gotta go look in the mirror.
Kent Hovind
Kent Hovind
Kent Hovind
Oh,Fuck,
Aaiiieeeeeeeeeeee….
Louis. Psst! Hey Louis! This shit is gonna be way too wack to watch straight. I brought a small joint with me. Wanna step out back and get fucked up?
Sorry everyone. That was rude of me.
[Passes dutchie to Louis on the left hand side.]
Pass it on.
Your mother is a
hamsterfrog, and your fathersmells of elderberriesis a bee.(Psst, Brownian: You got them backwards. Unless the mommy bee is wearing some kind of pollinating strap-on and the daddy frog is capable of having assbabies.)
Mr. (Ms.?) Haven asked for evidence that “we all came from something smaller than a dot on this page,” or somesuch, and the response was that he himself came from a zygote, which was the result of his (her?) parents having sex.
Haven took this as an insult to his parents.
There’s context for all of this at the old thread.
Ahum…that is exactly what DIKVEL means…’Thick-skinned’, ‘Water off a ducks back’, yea
I learnt very quickly the first time that some form of proof or evidence is required to prove God exists. I openly state to you that I cannot prove it, scientifically repeat it in a lab or demonstrate it to you. What I can say is that I believe in God, his Son and the Holy Spirit.
There is a major part in this debate that is absorbing. pre-conceptions such as being a creationist is anti-science. Bollocks. Science is always right? And the point that brings me here, Evolution is a Fact.
Seen we are on a new web-site, let’s start at the beginning (and no NOR, don’t ask me to prove[even if i could, you would still ridicule]).
So, seen as my comment came up quite frequently early on, let’s start from before that…or whatever….
Actually, the bee’s had to say ‘bird’ three times. Or maybe the bee’s saw the frogs bare ankle’s.
*whine* PZ! Did you have to do that while I was writing a long comment? There were supposed to be Gumbies and Comic Sans in it! Now I’ll have to preview to see if they’ll be lost…
Please explain what you mean. For instance, I don’t understand “split from rocks”.
Some of the original what?
What crop?
Research is, of course, being done on what the Earth was like four billion years ago.
Begin here.
You are. Even the city of Jericho is older than 6000 years.
Even the city walls of Jericho are older than 6000 years!
And what do you think happens when you drill into the ice of Antarctica where it’s thickest? The longest drill core that has been procured so far has 800,000 year-layers, and it does not reach to the bottom of the ice. Every summer and every winter is recorded in glaciers; you can put your finger on the layers and simply count them.
Go here and gaze in wonderment. And have a look at the references.
Liar. I provided mine in comment 855.
What is “it” here? It can’t be bestiality, can it?
Species aren’t boxes with hard edges. They’re more like clouds. They grade into their ancestors and (if they have any) their descendants. They aren’t an either-or thing.
There have never been only two humans. Otherwise we would be much more similar to each other genetically than we are.
Who exactly is “we”?
What?
Not really. All social animals have ways in which they generally behave and ways in which they generally don’t behave; our ancestors have been social for… at the very minimum 60 million years.
So what?
The argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.
“I can’t imagine it, therefore it can’t be true” is not valid.
No speck of dust that is older than 4.56 billion years has ever been found in this solar system. We can tell by radiometric dating, which is explained twice in comment 871.
As we already said: if you eat too many potatoes and too little other stuff…
Iron, you numbskull, isn’t a protein.
You know… sometimes scientists actually learn something over the years or decades.
Creationists, on the other hand, never learn.
(When they do learn anything, they stop being creationists.)
Please explain what you mean; I don’t understand it.
To discover what was a male?
You know what’s interesting about this?
Natural selection has been explained three times in this thread, in comments 362, 853 and 855.
In comment 856, dyhaven acknowledged the explanation from comment 853 and commented: “For once, a sound mind presenting a sound argument.”
By the time he wrote comment 918, he had apparently forgotten all of that.
dyhaven, if you can’t form long-term memories, you’ll never understand science, and you’ll never be able to participate in a conversation that takes longer than a few minutes. :-|
Slightly less similar species procreated. :-|
Do you want us to explain what’s known today about the origin of life? If so, please visit Wikipedia first.
That is simply not true.
Everything that scientists have claimed about potatoes was based on the evidence that was available at that particular time.
More and more evidence becomes available.
The more we learn, the more of our opinions we have to change.
That’s how science works.
When you write “science” with a capital letter, you refer to this weekly peer-reviewed journal.
Please do explain.
Alright. Now you’ve done it.
Now you’ve insulted – oh no, not just us! You’ve insulted the friends and relatives of all the 55 million people that died in WWII.
There can only be one big bang per universe.
The Big Bang was not an explosion of matter into space. “Fill up” is a misunderstanding. The Big Bang was the origin of space itself, and that of time, too. It is space itself that became bigger (and still becomes bigger, just more slowly).
It is not evolving – evolution means descent with heritable modification. Only entities that reproduce themselves with imperfect heredity – living beings, languages, cultures, some computer simulations, and the like – can evolve.
Will the expansion of the universe have an end? Apparently not, because it’s not slowing down – it’s been speeding up for the last 5 billion years or so.
Evolution does not mean “the origin of life”. Is that the reason for your confusion?
Evolution means descent with heritable modification. It can only start once there is something (for example an RNA molecule) that can reproduce itself.
Why don’t you browse it yourself?
Show me a textbook that says “millions”.
Go ahead, we’re waiting.
About your seeming obsession with bestiality! Isn’t that obvious!?!
Why don’t you simply answer our questions?
It’s always there (but just on Pharyngula, not on the other Freethoughtblogs). It’s additional to the FtB-standard list of the last 5 comments, and it’s very far down in the right sidebar, below the big red A and the “Americans United” logo. (How far down that actually is depends on the ads!!! Install Adblock Plus if you haven’t already. Works only on Firefox.)
I agree that that’s a bad place.
And, of course, traffic over here is so high that I’ve missed thread resurrections because I can’t refresh every 5 seconds.
…And when has anybody done that?
Or do you seriously believe that mentioning the fact that your parents had sex to conceive you counts as denigrating them??? Because that would be… stupid. There’s just no other word that fits.
Generally drones don’t pollinate and both male and female frogs have cloacas (in which fertilisation usually takes place in females, yes).
Lay off; I know my bestiality, yo.
*puff*
*puff*
*pass*
*Cough* Thanks guys, next time I see you I’ll hit you back.
Brownian:
I hope we get another Chewbacca defense. That’d be the best. I mean, it would take me by complete surprise, and would be at a complete loss how to defend evolution. danielhaven wins!
I imagine it would take a form similar (but not identical to) this:
How can a cheetah make Cheetos? It has no fingers! If cheetahs were to make Cheetos, evolution says they’d have evolve the knowledge on standard oven usage. This has not happened. Therefore, evolution is false.
Also, where to cookies come from? Evolution tells us they come from elves living in trees. But science has never been able to detect these elves, even though the Keebler Large Hadron Collider has been on-line for several months already. So evolution says the elves must be operating the stoves for the cheetahs. But that is just ridiculous!
The only explanation that makes sense is that God makes both cookies and Cheetos.
Kent Hovind is a deceitful god-botherer with a following of feeble minded god-botherers. Not too surpising that I felt my IQ start to dip as I tried to read and process the morass of misquotes and misconceptions that were evident in this deluded moron’s posts. I do take pity on the poor idiot since he will never know the stimulation of having a creative thought of his own, the pleasure of giving him a reward for being correct about something and the intelligence to realize that an outhouse is not an all you can eat buffet.
I think perhaps he has a translation program on his computer that can translate his mouth flatulence of “Derp derp derp” into something that resembles human speech. And I do say mouth flatulence with the intent that he only has one orifce through which he both ingests and excretes. Makes intimate times with whatever thing that will have him well let us just say “Damn!’.
{Inhales}
{Coughs}
Smooooth!
Now then, where’s that creationist? I gots me a bee suit and I wants to get mah frog on!
Louis
Sastra – if you scroll down way further down the page, there is another section with a lot more recent comments (after the big red A). The problem I still have, though, is that there’s some kind of weird caching thing where a lot of the time those comments that show up are actually several days old.
Now, that’s just nasty. For all you know, the pastor and his/her mom could have been married at the time…
I’ve seen that movie…
That was stupid of me. Of course they’re lost. The question was whether anything else would be messed up in the process – fortunately it wasn’t.
Then what is a “dik-vel species”? It doesn’t make sense in context. ~:-|
Fine. Why do you believe? What, if any, evidence causes you to believe?
Am I missing something here, or did you just admit you know that you need some amount of proof in order for your belief to be justified, and that you don’t have any of that necessary proof? It is nice that you admit that you have no evidence and are just being intellectually dishonest. I wish more deluded believers in mythologies (like yourself) would be more open about the fact that it is irrational to believe…
christophepetroni:
Damn! I didn’t see that exchange. I’m still skimming the old thread. There were some really good posts in there.
danielhaven, your folks did have sex. It’s kind of a pre-requisite for humans to have a child.
Evolution predicts that bee’s pollinating frogs results in Venus Fly Traps. If that’s true, why are there still birds?
Everbody knows zygotes come from the birds and the bee’s by the stork. Take that, Darwin demons, motherfu*&>rrrrrrrrrrr!
The request is simply not to denegrate my parents, my family. – danielhaven
Well I’d hate to disappoint your longing for persecution, so: danielhaven, your father was a hamster, and your mother smelled of elderberries.
I have the shame to admit I was in it…
…I was young and needed the honey.
Louis
I’ve seen it too, but I still don’t get why the voyeur pool-boy was dressed as a praying mantis.
Man, evolution is weird stuff.
@ David M, carlie:
Thanks, I hadn’t noticed that. Interesting (though still less easy to spot I think than the old format.)
@danielhaven:
How much is riding on this issue for you?
If you became persuaded that the evidence supports the Theory of Evolution — would you question your previous way of how you understood God and religion and accept a version of Christianity (or theism) consistent with both? Or would you become an atheist?
And (for either answer) …. why?
If humans supposedly come from zygotes, and dogs also come from zygotes, how come they look different? Clearly this is impossible, therefore evilution is false. And therefore, my particular myth is true.
eat it evilution,
and logic.
Praise Jebus!
Lucky pool-boy. Imagine having to be the helper male*, the fluffer of the animal set.
Louis
*Think cichlids.
Brownian:
Now you’re saying that Dyhaven’s mom has a sewer where her vag should be, and that his dad is a drone. He’s going to get very upset.
(While drones don’t pollinate flowers, they do “pollinate” the queen bee. Drones are born from unfertilized eggs, but Apis ranina, let’s call it, relies on Kermit for fertilization. Hm, would it make Dyhaven unhappier to tell him he’s got no daddy than to tell him that he resulted from sexytiemz?)
Rev. BDC:
I think that was one of Isabella Rossellini’s clips, right?
Billygutter01:
That wasn’t the voyeur pool-boy; that was the voyeur preacher from the church down the road.
Isn’t it? The trick is to put an actual filter in the end, with just a pinch of nice pipe tobacco between it and the weed so you get a nice hit of tobacco smoke to let you know the joint’s done and don’t have to fuck around with the roach.
(Don’t worry about this one: I don’t use tobacco with joints rolled for sharing in case any non- or ex-tobacco smokers wish to partake.)
[Takes a hoot, holds out the joint.]
Anybody else? I totally feel danielhaven’s about to lay some heavy shit on Sastra.
This thread reminds me of why we need to figure out how to clone David M specifically.
So much awesome.
No. Most frogs have external fertilization: the female lays unfertilized eggs – oocytes – that are fertilized later.
In other words, she menstruates, and he wanks over it.
Wrong.
It even retains all five, though the thumb is a bit short. You know, the dewclaw?
ROTFL! Thread won.
Bigger or smaller than the frog?
Indisputably.
Not to difficult to answer
In my opinion, the MAIN problem with evolution, is the belief that you all believe this came from nothing, attach yourself to Science to pretend it is real to the people and then……. life just ends.
Oh wait, I hear it….the loud arguments from the middle, as witnessed in the above comments.
Oh wait, I hear it….mutation, natural selection and [I apologise for my ignorance on this one]….drift. We won’t see it but it will happen.
You know what, if it makes your day, insult us all. Just hope you can rely on someone else ’cause thats all you got….
Do not ever explain to me what a fluffer might be. :-)
Yeah. I need about three of myself to get all the work done.
{Takes the joint}
Tobacco in joints is bad, mkay? Just say no, mkay?
Although, Brownian, if I could think straight right now I would applaud your impressively technically crafted joint. Good workmanship. I think we should move onto a Camberwell Carrot, followed by trying to do the Withnail and I drinking game (including lighter fluid).*
Face it, the brain damage caused by that HAS to be less than what will occur if we try to read a creationist’s leavings.
Oh and can someone signal the waiter. I need to make an order for my favourite dish of “prawns cooked in their own business”.
Louis
*If I spike you, you’ll know you’ve been spoken to.
Not part of the theory of evolution.
Science is a methodology, not a thing that can be “real” or not. And science works quite well, do you have an alternative? This is an important question, if science is a poor methodology, I need to know what to use instead.
Again, this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
So let’s try this again, what is your main problem with the theory of evolution. Please reference something that the theory of evolution actually purports to be.
So your main problem with evolution is something that has nothing to do with evolution?
Evolution is not a theory of the origin of the universe or the origin of life.
Too early in the day for me.
I’m also worried–some of you actually seem to understand what danielhaven is writing here. Is that a side effect?
Is that what I’m saying? Man, I don’t know why any of you pay attention to me at all.
[Red-eyed, Brownian regards the back of his hands.]
You know, if you hold your hands all spread out like this and close your eyes, you can almost convince yourself you’re palming two basketballs. It’s…cool.
Hey, anybody feel like gettin’ some nachos?
That’s not evolution, that’s the Big Bang.
Yes, really: I’m sending you to Wikipedia again. Please learn how to click on a link.
But… anyway…
Suppose it’s all real. Suppose, just for the sake of the argument, that we really all come from nothing and that death really is The End™. Suppose, just for the sake of the argument, that reality really does suck.
What then?
You can’t change the truth by wishing it away.
Now let’s try to find out what the truth really is.
I’ve told you: I’ve seen mutation and selection with my own eyes. I’m not the only one.
So it’s the frogs and the bees now? And here I was planning this speech to my daughter about the extant feathered dinosaurs and the winged arthropods.
danielhaven:
But that’s just it. We do observe all those things. We see them happening all over the place.
Heh. I forgot to end the link.
Maybe this way danielhaven will actually see it. He seems to overlook every other link I’ve ever posted!
We do see all of those happening. Why so we don’t ? We know it is a lie, you should know it is a lie, so why do it ?
Hmm, I wonder if we could summon Santorum…
santorum
santorum
santorum
Oh shit… I forgot to capitalize!
Your problem with evolution is your belief that we believe that “this” came from nothing. Let’s start with that.
First, your belief is false. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t believe that the universe (I assume that’s what you meant by “this”) came from nothing. I have no belief about where the universe came from, because I simply don’t know. And I’m OK with that. Maybe someday I will. (Maybe not; it’s hard to find time to keep up with all the developments in science.)
Second, the problem you’re expressing is not related to evolution. Evolution, broadly, is change over time in living populations. There can be no evolution until living things exist to do the evolving. The field of science which studies the origin of life is called “abiogenesis.” (If that reminds you of the book of Genesis, it should. Both words have their origins in a Greek word meaning “origin” or something similar.)
Life probably just ends. Is that a frightening idea to you? Do you have any reason to believe differently? Note, too, that this doesn’t have anything to do with evolution either.
Oh, right. Thanks, man.
In return, a fluffer is a person on a porn set whose job it is to help keep the male performers ‘ready to perform’.
Shit. Sorry.
What do you even mean by that last thought?
We have seen it. We do see it. It is happening whether you want to accept it or not. By pretty reliable reasoning we can anticipate it will continue to happen.
That’s right Brownian, leave the science to David and you stay in your wheelhouse.
anticipate should be predict, but same dif.
By following these instructions I appear to have somehow created a frothy mixture stain on my shagpile carpet. Have you any idea how hard that is going to be to get out?
I’ll sue I tell you, I’ll bloody sue!
Louis
By the way, until we have something coherent from our creationist colleague, I am resolving to be remarkably unserious. My unseriosity will know no bounds. I shall be irreverent and possibly even…
…sarcastic.
You heard me. I’ll do it. I’m not afraid.
Louis
danielhaven:
Well, not for a very, very long time.
Oh! You mean your life. And my life. And the lives of individuals.
You’ll die. I’ll die. Life goes on. Even if we were to completely trash the environment, there’s an excellent possibility that life somewhere on earth will continue to live on. Yes, it’s a shame you’ll die, and I’ll die, and everyone we know will eventually die. But until then, you’ll continue to live. Isn’t that a wonderful prospect?
And if you need something awesome, something truly larger than yourself, think on this: a chemical reaction began almost four billion years ago. That chemical reaction has continued unabated ever since, branching at every reproduction, changing in the minutest fashion at every branch, combining and recombining, generally expanding and occasionally contracting. You are one tiny branch, all on your own. If you have a kid, they will be a branch off you. The bit of life that is you has been continuously and vigorously alive for almost four billion years in various forms.
That’s an idea that is far more beautiful than any story of any god I’ve ever heard.
Oh santorum… your forgot to capitalize!
Sounds harmless.
Brownian:
So, like a dialog coach?
Or perhaps danielhaven prefers the classical wording:
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
– end of the first edition of On the Origin of Species
danielhaven #62 wrote:
Keep in mind that every view on origins is going to terminate in some sort of dead end where we can reason no further. God came from nothing; the universe came from nothing. There is nothing that God came from; there is nothing that the universe came from. Some form of God has always existed; some form of the universe has always existed.
The only real difference between those views is how primary and important they make Mind. Did mind come from matter? Or did matter come from Mind? That’s where we separate — yes?
But maybe I misunderstand your objection. Did you mean instead to say that the MAIN problem that you have with evolution, is not a rational problem with the theory? It’s the sense that, if it’s true, then it’s depressing. You would not want to believe something so sad.
Is that closer to what you meant?
Yes, that is a reason for my confusion. Your meaning of evolution is that something can and had to reproduce itself in order for us to witness today. Again, where did that something come from????
And to the rest of you mindless P…., you are all Scientific proof evolution does not work.
Let;s start a new chapter…Chameleon licks a Cheetahs tail by mistake and the fall in love and …..guess…..I am born [the sack of potatoes].
Apparently quoting supposedly important holy literature –
So, wait – what? This omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnisubscribing deity maintains love to ‘thousands’? Only thousands? Wow. Some fail.
I have just read the original thread.
My brain is now doing this.
Louis
We don’t know yet.
Exactly like a dialogue coach. Very talented with their mouths.
That was so beautiful… This brought tears to my eyes.
Read on…
As I’ve rented several apartments over the course of my misspent life, this is an easy fix.
Tools required:
A sharp knife
A potted plant or piece of furniture slightly larger than the stain
The same kind of carpet in a closet, preferably in another tenant’s suite.
Step 1: Cut through the carpet around the stain and remove it, leaving a hole.
Step 2: Using the stained piece as a template as if you were tracing it with your knife, cut a similar piece out of the carpet in another tenant’s closet.
Step 3: Place the stained piece in the closet hole, and the piece from the closet in the hole where the stain used to be.
Step 4: Cover the now-replaced stained bit with the potted plant or piece of furniture.
Step 5: Tell visitors/your landlord that the La-Z-Boy in the middle of the hallway is meant to slow qi flow, according to some book you read.
Sometimes they use their mouths, if that’s what you mean.
Damn. Bloclquote fail at the end there.
You’re not suffering from confusion, you’re suffering from an acute case of proud willful ignorance.
You keep leaning into my box like that, Rev, my next pitch is gonna be a beanball.
christophepetroni
As far as I could work out he originally took offense when it was suggested that English wasn’t his first language. I may be wrong as actually trying to parse his posts is a fucking nightmare. The words make sense in isolation, but together? Gaaah.
With due conisderation towards the folks of a less extreme bent, there are a lot of fundamentalists in SA and church seems to be a pretty big part of Afrikaans culture. I can’t say that I’m surprised that one of them ended up discharging here…
Lessons from Brownian
This chapter: party clean up.
A strange brown frothy mixture has just erupted from my keyboard! Why am I still typing it’s getting everywhere
Khannn!! sorry I mean A.R!!!!!
@danielhaven:
You’re in the big leagues here. You’re speaking to a global audience here, not a South African audience. Try to cut down on the Afrikaans (e.g. dikvel), unless you’re deliberately trying to mislead and/or be obtuse.
And what’s the point of the other South Africanisms? E.g. “Not too shabby, Nige” – you and I know that’s from a South African TV commercial (for a tiling company, if anyone could possible care where he gets his second-hand coolness from), but everybody else probably thinks you’re addressing someone called Nigel. Seriously, Daniel – remember your audience here.
Your utter obliviousness regarding something as simple as evolution makes you an embarrassment to this compatriot of yours. I suggest you pay attention and learn something while you’re here, because this is probably the only time in your life that you’ll have the undivided attention of such a dazzling array of fine minds. It’s a golden opportunity, and you’d be an even greater fool to spurn it.
Ah, here we arrive at the crux of the problem.
danielhaven declares himself to be a sack of potatoes.
Well…maybe as bright as a sack of potatoes.
That is how frogs and bees do it, yes.
Loose lips sink you into a calm understanding of your role, I’m told.
Speaking of loose lips, is that doobie still floating around?
If you truly wish to understand Daniel watch this. I think this may be accurate.
I think there needs to be forfeits. If this Daniel Haven putz makes a valid point we all have to do Numa Numa videos and upload them to YouTube.
Brownian, good advice. One small problem…wooden floors.
Louis
David Marjanović @ 39;
I am beginnng to think that danielhaven has expanded Sheldon Cooper of Big Bang Theory‘s no Meemaws principle to encompass the entire family group…
While the Sheldon character is an atheist, I think the analogy still holds – if christianity and broader patriarchal society wasn’t so utterly sex-negative, this wouldn’t be a problem. It is ironically rather dehumanising that some people simply cannot deal with the fact that their parents and other close relatives are sexual beings, to the extent that they find the simple recognition that their parents must have had sex at some point to be grossly offensive.
Personally, I don’t find it stupid so much as a spectacle great in pathos – it must be difficult to live with such a massive frieght of hang-ups and denial about sex. It is just one more way in which a rigid religious upbringing really does mirror child abuse.
Louis:
How are you with drum sanders?
Dammit PZed. You had to go and throw this up when I was working. While I could have gone an additional decade or so without thinking about Kent Hovind, I won’t turn my nose up at an opportunity to rehash the past. Unfortunately I can’t get involved until later.
For now let me just say I owe him a considerable debt of gratitude. It was Mr. Hovind above all others that hastened the demise of my faith. I met him in the mid 90’s after he was invited to speak to the student body of my junior high school by none other than my biology 101 teacher.
I can’t remember the exact moment I realized he and the entire creationist movement were bullshit. I think it was somewhere between his assertion that Triceratops was actually a full grown horned chameleon and his insistence that the moon landing was a hoax. Ah the memories. Catch you later.
Did I forget the part about never having your name on the lease? If so, and this is very important: never have your name on the lease.
Nonetheless, Louis’ problem is only slightly more complexified.
That’s not evolution, as we’ve been telling you for days now.
Why don’t you read comment 39 and answer the questions in it?
Pharyngula Smackdowns = just start mainlining popcorn butter, it’s easier in the long term and you don’t have to keep getting up to use the microwave.
I’m waiting for the Large Hydrox Collider to come online.
Brownian, should I infer that “party clean up” may, in extremis, mean renting a U-Haul and moving out in the dead of night?
‘Cause that sounds like a grand adventure!
@ Gregory Greenwood #104:
It is a strange phenomenon. In a related note, I recently learned from no less an authority than Rush Limbaugh that my mother was a slut. She married my father in 1966 and from then until 1969 used hormonal birth control, that she bought and paid for every four weeks. I used to think she did it because she and my father wanted to wait to have kids until he was closer to finishing his PhD and they could afford a larger apartment, but according to Rush she was just a big slut.
So he’s a sack of potatoes now? What?
Oh, I get it. God made humans out of potatoes, right? Like Mister Potatohead, only bigger! And then… Uhm… Frogs had sex with Jesus! I think I’m starting to understand this creationism thing.
We can’t be sure – there are numerous hypotheses – all that is required is the spontaneous generation of a simple single self replicating entity and evolution logically follows.
With a reaction vessel the size of a planet is it so vastly unlikely that something, somewhere, started to self replicate after utterly random chemical reactions caused it to come into being (keep in mind we could be discussing something as simple as 20 nucleotides of RNA, or a particular crystalline structure in clay), and that variations in form increased its capacity to do so? (even if that seems so unlikely note that I restricted myself to the size of a planet – which vastly understates the available space for this to have ever happened – it logically follows that even if it only happened once and led to us that it’d have to have happened *here*)
How many times does it have to be pointed out that this line is weapons grade crazy before you drop it?
Not from your imaginary deity. Nothing comes from nonexistence, like your imaginary deity. But since life is chemicals, it can come from chemicals. Abiogenesis or panspermia.
FIFY Even you are proof of evolution working. Hint: you aren’t funny, just pathetic when you try humor.
Sure. Renting a U-Haul may cost money, but as an old family saying goes, “Sometimes you have to spend a little money to raise bail.”
Actually, I’m not excluding the possibility that that really is how this guy was born. Judging by the crazyness of his… uhm… ‘arguments’, he sure is something special.
Nigel, #105,
Dunno. Never met him.
{Badum tish}
Try the veal! Don’t forget to tip your waitress. I’m here all week.
{Divers alarums, business with bladder on stick, exeunt omnes}
Louis
Nooo!!! Don’t go! I just got fresh popcorn and a hit off somebody’s joint. dhaven is the wacky cartoon before the feature, right?
Erulóra Maikalambe:
Ah, hell. That’s a far better line.
I bow to you, Erulóra Maikalambe. Well-played. Well-played indeed.
I dunno
I seem to be stuck in the middle here. I would never argue with anyone that once life was created that there would be some form of evolution, natural selection, mutation, etc. In my hunble opinion, it is difficult to argue that theory.
But being stuck in the middle, growing up with two persistent thoughts, I have a problem with the age and ageing process. You profess that I belong in a cave, and if I drew on the wall, it would be dated millions of years ago even though it is your grand-daughter discovering it. One of my major problems is that in my short life-time, I have witnessed many fluctuations in the weather. When you go to millions and billions, I kind of get seriously suspicious of the numbers.
Asking me for proof is similar to asking a person 2 to 5 to 10 years later that they were assaulted. Sent to a Catholic boarding school so being on your side could have been easy.
No fan-fare, no drum roll….two guys sitting in an army dorm room was my proof. The guy prayed and I accepted. Have I done right since? Your answer, doesn’t matter. My answer, I have to stand and see.
Is there anything sad and depressing about this issue. Absolutely Not.
That something there, that niggle. The second thought pestering me, and only the second thought, was perpetual motion
which is taking a small side-step.
I support WEST HAM UNITED [who] so Hammer away
PS dhaven, it seems that a considerable number of people have pointed out to you a considerable number of times that the origin of life (abiogenesis) and the origin of the universe (big bang theory) are two issues that have precisely nothing to do with the theory of evolution. So since you’ve mentioned you want to make a fresh start, could you please at least get that very basic point straight? And decide which of the three you want to talk about, without getting them mixed up? Thank you so much!
Why?
Can you disprove the mountains of scientific evidence and research that says you’re fairly ridiculous for holding that ignorant stance?
Incredulity is not a redeeming quality.
How do educated fleas do it?
I was thinking sabre saws and Elmer’s Glue®.
Danielheaven, regarding the point that brings you here (“Evolution is a Fact”)
Your problem appears to be that term ‘evolution’ is commonly used to refer to two different and separate things: the fact of evolution (that evolution occurs in populations of living organisms) and theories of evolution ( detailed explanatory models describing how evolution acts and has acted to create biologically diverse living populations we observe.)
That evolution occurs (i.e., fact of evolution) is confirmed by direct observation. We’ve directly observed evolution to occur, in real time in populations of living organisms, both in controlled laboratory situations as well as uncontrolled in the wild. These observations include both microevolution, evolutionary changes occurring below the level of the species (e.g. industrial melanism in peppered moths or the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and fungi) and macroevolution, changes at or above the level of the species, such as speciation events or extinctions, (e.g., E. Capanna, et al “Chromosomes and speciation in Mus musculus domesticus”, Cytogenetic and Genome Research 105:375-384, 2004; Dobzhansky, et al. “An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila”, Nature 23:289-292, 1971)
It is idiotic claims like this that we mock you for. Dating methods are validated, meaning they have been tested and found to give consistent results. Unlike your illogical imagination. The results from that is nightmares.
Your suspicions are irrelevant. If you don’t like the numbers, you need to scientifically refute them. You haven’t done so. The numbers stand until you properly refute them. Which means citing the peer reviewed scientific literature.
Wrong. You can supply proof. Take it outside of yourself and cite the peer reviewed scientific literature…Your personal testament is irrelevant. As we have been saying all along. Get outside of yourself. Science does.
Someone has to I suppose.
Louis
Could you please clarify whether you are saying you would never argue against natural selection (um, you have been … I think. Reading you, it’s actually difficult to impossible to work out what you are trying to say) or that you would never argue for it (well, no, you certainly don’t seem to have been arguing for natural selection)
Wow. Just wow. Is that three, four or five completely unrelated and unconnected sentence fragments on completely separate, different topics? Ageing process? Cave drawings? My grand-daughter? The weather???? What is this I don’t even.
Please, please, try to pick one topic at a time – one topic per sentence, even – and stick to it?
Abiogenesis is a fascinating venue of research…there are any number of hypothesiseseses on what is possible and what did happen to start life. I wish I could get my old biochem prof ro share his notes as it was a wonderful lecture. That said we know organic matter self assembles in the right conditions…we know it can even self replicate…we have numerous possible ways the first psuedocells could have arrisen and it may not even be one origin but severl different phenomina that merged (my prof explained that we could have had replicating chemicals and reproducing cells independently for example). If your actually curious its one of the coolest feilds to look into because of how open the posabilities are.
danielhaven
What the fuck are you trying to say? It’s all english, yet I don’t understand anything you’re saying. I mean really:
Seriously, what the fuck is this?
Damn, it’s like the Jabberwocky thread all over again.
danielhaven #121 wrote:
Ok. Back at #65 I was backing us both away from the specific theory of evolution (which doesn’t seem to be where you see the MAIN problem) and trying instead to figure out where you think the problem with ‘evolution’ really begins. Let’s take you out of the middle.
Which is the bigger problem? That you don’t see how anything could exist unless a mind exists first? Or that the implications of evolution are depressing?
Louis #128
You’re a Milton Keynes Dons fan?
Just received the call, I got it all wrong….
My Dad was a cockroach and my Mum was a mesquito.
Sorry about the confusion with bees, frogs, potatoes and all.
I’ll make this simple, Daniel:
1. Evolution of multicellular life is not centered on wildly different species reproducing together. Microorganisms are pretty much the only things that can get away with that. Frogs mate with similar frogs to produce new frogs that are slightly different from their parents. They never cease being frogs, but a part of the frog population may become a new subtype of frog over the course of generations. If the differences between that one population and the rest of the frog population become big enough, they’ll be reclassified as separate species.
2. Species is a transitory grouping. There is no perfect frog floating out there in the ether, of which earthly frogs are only imperfect reflections. “Frog” is a human-invented label, not a foundational truth to the universe. When different groups of frogs become different enough to prevent inter-group breeding, we have to make new genus, species, sub-species, etcetera labels to describe the new groups.
3. Evolution is about living things that replicate themselves imperfectly, and how those changes can add up. Abiogenesis is the term for hypotheses that attempt to explain the origin of life on Earth. The Big Bang is the theory about the rapid expansion of space and time that started the universe as we know it.
4. Evolution is a well-established theory and the best explanation for what we see in biology. It has predictive power. Scientists knew what Tiktallik would look like, where it could be found, and in what layer of rock it would be in, all before they dug one up. We can use genetic algorithms that mimic evolution to develop useful solutions to problems.
5. Abiogenesis hypotheses haven’t been proven to the same degree as evolution, so we humbly admit we don’t know exactly how life started, yet. Scientists have some educated guesses based on the evidence so far, and they’ll keep testing and examining new evidence. Looking for the answer is better than just making one up.
6. The Big Bang happened. Scientists predicted the cosmic microwave background radiation based on the theory, and when they looked for it, it was so accurate the error bars on the graph were barely visible. Cosmologists are working on ideas, but we still don’t know what, if anything, caused the Big Bang. We humbly admit we don’t know. It’s more honest than making up an answer out of nothing.
7. Admitting that you don’t know something is not a defeat. It’s honest. Creationism is dishonest because it pretends to have answers despite the lack of evidence. Some Creationist answers aren’t even falsifiable, which is worse than being wrong. As we say, it’s “not even wrong”: If you can test something and it fails the test, at least you’ll know it was wrong, so you can start looking for new answers. If something can’t conceivably fail a test, you’ll never be able to know the truth.
Are you sure they weren’t both made of straw?
Nigel
Thank you. And you can just call me Erulóra if you like. I just include the surname to distinguish me from all the other Erulóras out there.
What the fuck are you talking about? Stop saying shit like this. You’re not making any sense! What are you trying to say?
unlikely as mosquitoes and roaches are fairly distant from eachother. Ignoring even the incompatable genetalia, and courtship roaches are closer to termites and mantids than flies.
But insects are great for seeing evolution because they all are very clearly variations on an ancestrial bodyplan. You can see how modifications in each segment added up to the big differences.
Actually I think I might have just got what dhaven meant with one of those disjointed fragments … maybe, just maybe, he was trying to say that if he executed a fake imitation of an ancient cave-painting it would fool everybody. Well, a) no it wouldn’t (hint: it’s not just the superficial appearance of the painting that has to pass muster) and b) even if it did, so what? By making a good fake (as if you could), you think you would change history? Oh dear oh dear oh dear …
PS the oldest cave-paintings are tens of thousands of years old (maybe 42 thousand), not millions. Please at least try to get the right ball-park.
Who professes this? I dunno that anyone here thinks you belong in a cave. Nobody in their right mind is going to assert that something you draw and is discovered 2 generations later would be dated as millions of years old (unless you’ve travelled in time, or for some reason either me, my son/daughter, or their daughter were cryogenically frozen for 2 million years).
Is this from the same school of thought that claims “Tide goes in, tide goes out – can’t explain that?” – I mean what the everloving fuck are you jabbering about? What does witnessing fluctuations in the weather have to do with evolutionary theory? Bugger all.
So if I say I’m 1.82 meters tall you’ll totally buy it, if I claim 1820 millimeters you’re all for it, if I state that I am 1.82 million micrometers you’ll start getting skeptical and if I claim to be 1.82 billion nanometers you’ll scream about me tricking you? (If I managed an order of magnitude or two error in there hopefully you can correct in your head, the point stands even if my math fails)
Easy solution – work in Megayears, or Gigayears, whatever floats your boat. To believe the world is 6000 years old is insane and flies in the face of multiple lines of evidence.
Seriously, Daniel, evolution isn’t about widely different species mating and producing freaky hybrid offspring that becomes a new species. That is just crazy.
Insects are also one of the ways we see evolution in everyday life. Mutations in protein production or metabolism or behavoir make some members more reistant to pesticides…when we use pesticides it creates a pressure that causes the mutqation to become a dominating trait. Simple random mutation and selection pressure. Insects are great at demonstrating this because of their short generation time and high reproductive rate.
I’ve seen that movie…
OK One sentence at a time….
What the F… is this,,,,,it is the night-time show and opposite to evrything you want to read [in your case, even be bothered with]
And in insects knowlegde of evolution and how it works is amazingly useful. It has literally saved entire agricultural industries and may have prevented famines.
We know not to randomly use pesticides if we want them to be effective…we know that by keeping untreated bumper crops we can preserve nonimmune varients to breed with immune mutants to keep the resistance trait diluted and the pesticide effective.
are you drunk?
@daniel
Ugh…no offense but are you using a translation program? What is your primary language? Cause you’re not making even the slightest bit of sense on our end. Its comming out as gibberish even with your ignorance of the issue aside.
I’ll just emphasize a point yet again:
The basic unit of animal evolution involves an animal mating with a similar animal and producing a slightly different offspring. Being able to produce a fertile child requires that the parents be genetically close enough to each other. Or, in human terms, the same species.
@bronzedog
Except that you do get hybridization between species either with microorganisms or organisms with low interbreeding barriers (plants can hybridize through cross polination in some instances) and in seperate animal species that are closely related but normally seperated from breeding for geographic or behavoral reasons.
A tiger and lion can make a hybridized fertile offspring. Its very rare that such things can happen though.
Agh. Why did I read through that original thread? Seriously, I think my brain just broke.
I think we broke this one.
‘Tis, #133,
A gentleman does not follow football teams. We prefer rugby and cricket.
Louis
Er…
+++Out Of Cheese Error, Redo From Start+++Please Reboot Universe+++
…has Hex discovered theology?
Though his confusion is baffling…speciation is when two groups CEASE interbreeding
Damn, my comment got eaten. That’ll teach me to type in the comment box instead of a Word file.
And I was so looking forward to making my fangs sniny. Oh well, this creationist is hardly coherent enough to bother anyway.
OK, aside from the fact that this has NOTHING to do with evolution…
Let’s rewrite that:
Turn about is fair play, don’t you think, Daniel?
Daniel, in all seriousness, consult a medical professional if you have not already done so; your comments are so disjointed they suggest the possibility that you are suffering from some form of brain damage.
The hilarious thing is that 6000 years is already long enough to be virtually unimaginable on the scale of a human life time. We’re talking 300 plus generations here. There are no extant civilizations that stretch back, unbroken, that far. No continuous set of records that go back that far. No one alive can credibly claim to trace a family tree that reaches that far back. Even the biblical text itself is ludricrously vague on the timescales.
So why is 6000 years so more easily believable than 4.5 billion? Why is the arithmetic of a 15th century bishop (who didn’t even have a calculator) so much more trustworthy than radiometric dating? (And when archeology investigates things in the period of 6000 years ago, they have to resort to C14 dating).
Not forever. The maximum limit is the heat death of the universe.
Or in the words of princess Leia: ‘Do the rebel butt dance!’
Generally only when breeding animals for their skills in magic.
As can polar bears and grizzly (brown) bears. And it is no longer that rare a thing.
If your dad was a cockroach and your mom was a mosquito, that would disprove the theory of evolution.
You think you’re trying to make some compelling point by making a joke, but you’re merely demonstrating an appalling lack of education on what the biological theory of evolution says … and what it most definitely does not say.
However, given the fact that you’ve displayed the intellect of a cockroach and the persistence of a mosquito, I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Would you be willing to submit to DNA testing? We’d only take a small amount of blood. Maybe a slice of liver…or spleen will do.
If I could only put your name in GOLDEN LIGHTS
TO BRONZE DOG
Thank you.
As much as all appears to be so clear to some, the validity in an answer remains your personal faith. There is no clear reason not to search for the truth and as is human nature, some just despise an opposing opinion. Some just insult to show their superiority. I still have to deal with the age issue but, believe it or not, this has been a worthy exercise.
You have actually re-ignited a passion in me that I cannot even leave one lasting insult to the rest.
Danielhaven @121
Obviously someone like you would have to support West Ham – your postings here (not to mention a simple glance at the Championship table) show that Reading is clearly beneath you.
(geddit?)
Daniel,
You’re mother told me to tell you that it’s time to stop pretending to be a creationist on the internet and let the good people get back to serious business.
Love,
Kent
It is, in fact, very possible in many cases to find evidence for and “proof” of an assault several years later.
‘K, CapeTownJunk wins the thread, for the heroic achievement of being able to wring a correctly contextual joke out of two football teams… *applause*
*uggh
The question of Danielhaven’s language capacities were brought up in the Sb thread. He has insisted, rather indignantly, that english is, really, his first language.
CapeTownJack, #166,
You, sir, win one internet!
Louis
Well capetownJUNK
I stand up for what I believe in put my colours out there.
You go ‘chirp,chirp,chirp’ and pretend that it means anything at all.
You go, girl
danielhaven,
If I have a personal faith that the earth is flat, or that 2+2=5, those beliefs are all valid?
Fuck that, evidence matters.
Don’t kid yourself.
Yes, use a gendered term as a put-down. That will be sure to make the insults stop.
Where, oh where did that come from? The validity of a theory is its consistency with and ability to predict the evidence we get from the universe in the form of rigorous observations and experiments. That’s what I was talking about.
Why did you deliberately and maliciously choose to lie about what I said, Daniel?
A creationist AND a sexist! Oh this is almost too good to be true. I wonder what our South African chum’s views on race are. Dare I cross my fingers and hope for the trifecta?
Louis
KG #157 wrote:
My own guess is cut ‘n’ paste, but I’m also willing to entertain RevBigDumbChimp’s hypothesis, too. But … not enough info, and a lot of possibilities. I sit, I wait. He may return to addressing me directly, which could help with the focus. People are being silly; he might be trying to ‘fit in’ as well as he can. The most charitable interpretation.
Ok anyone who writes like this is either a child, mentally deficient or trolling…either way not fun
I’d say, a la The Monkey’s Paw – be careful what you wish for…
*erects the anti-bigot screen* Come on guys, there’s plenty of room behind here and we might well need it.
Sastra, #178,
*
Stop that, it’s silly.
Louis
*Heyyyyyy! I resemble that remark!
I have rum, beer and recreational pharmaceuticals. Is there room for me and my mildly intoxicated entourage*?
Louis
*The Bolivian women’s gymnastics team. Because some things can only be accomplished with a truly world class group of gymnasts.
Despite all the rules set out in evolutionary theory and biology in general, some things have happened that definitively prove God exists:
* Roaches and mosquitoes occasionally, despite all this talk of “species barriers”, produce human babies together, which are them delivered to a random address by a representative member of Ciconiidae
* On flights past Iceland, naked humans can be witness dancing around at 35,000 feet
* Roger E. Blumenthal, a beggar who inhabits Central Park in New York, seems by all accounts to be a human, but is in fact a large bubble of spirit-animated ink
On Tuesdays until sundown, these all turn into claims that science makes, at which point they become ridiculous and show just how wrong science is.
@danielhaven #62, who says, “In my opinion, the MAIN problem with evolution, is the belief that you all believe this came from nothing, attach yourself to Science to pretend it is real to the people and then……. life just ends.”
Bravo. You’re opinion somehow manages to arrive at the correct deduction…despite the fact that you erroneously require it to be a “problem” and a “pretense”. Not to mention that you have a PROBLEM with your implied BELIEF that “you all believe”.
That error alone was awesome enough to make me laugh.
Time to grow up, and maybe learn how to communicate in writing without making an even bigger jackass out of yourself than people may intuit merely from what you are TRYING to say.
Louis #153
What does that have to do with the discussion? So, are you a Milton Keynes Dons fan or not?
You’re an Australian?
And having just read all the glowing comments, you will be more than pleased [in fact, you may have to hunt for the joints and popcorn] to know that this part of your entertainment has ended.
By the way, go down green street and blow some bubbles.
‘Tis,
Rarely have I been so insulted! Everyone knows Australians are not Gentlemen.
And no, for the record, I do not support the Dons.
Louis
Bronze Dog #176 wrote:
I’m not sure, but daniel’s reference to “personal faith” might have been in response to your post at #135 — especially “we humbly admit we don’t know exactly how life started…” and “we still don’t know what, if anything, caused the Big Bang. We humbly admit we don’t know.” The rest of your post — and the problem with “making stuff up” — may not have been as noticeable. At least, not enough to make your name light up in GOLDEN LIGHTS.
…but will he stick the flounce?
If I wished to have oral sex with a personage of Greek extraction I would not have to travel that far.
Or have I misunderstood?
Louis
{Shakes magic 8-ball}
The outlook is not good.
Louis
Gathering by his earlier interest in ‘beastiality'(sic) and inter-species relations, I think he may have meant the chimp.
@danielhaven #62, who says, “…Oh wait, I hear it….mutation, natural selection and [I apologise for my ignorance on this one]….drift. We won’t see it but it will happen. You know what, if it makes your day, insult us all. Just hope you can rely on someone else ’cause thats all you got….”
No, actually, you do not apologize for your ignorance, you consummate liar. You wear it proudly like a badge of honor. Nobody needs to insult you. You insult yourselves and human-kind every time you speak. Pointing it out isn’t unsolicited insult. It’s a demonstrable and self-evident fact which bears repeating if only to discourage the ignominious tactic of bearing false witness.
Bestiality? I know a song about that!
Crap, I played far too much rugby didn’t I?
{wanders off humming Bestiality’s best boys…}
Louis
danielhaven #186 wrote:
Good bye, daniel; sleep well.
@danielhaven:
Out of all the things you believe in, supporting West Ham is a) about the most sensible thing you’ve said here, and b) the least relevant thing you’ve said to anyone here at Pharyngula. (My colours are the blue and white quarters of Bristol Rovers, but I’m not going to pretend that anyone here will care.)
You keep harping on about all sorts of different animals hypothetically being able to interbreed, as if that makes some kind of Hovindian point for you. Daniel, I’ll dumb this down for your benefit: if they could, they would – but they can’t, so they don’t. So what you see in the natural world is a result of that which is currently possible in terms of the same (or similar) species being able to produce offspring.
Lions and tigers are a great example to use for this. From a layman’s perspective, we regard them as different species. But clearly they can interbreed and produce ligers and tigrons. But what about lions and leopards? They’re also fairly similar animals, but they cannot breed and produce fertile offspring.
Lions, tigers and leopards have a common ancestor (you have to agree, since you claim to accept evolution as fact). But at what point did these divergent species (say, lions and leipards) start losing the ability to interbreed with each other? It doesn’t have to be at a particular moment in time. It could, for argument’s sake, be at any time in a thousand year period when lions and leopards only interacted with each other as rivals/enemies, not as potential breeding partners. At some point in that millennium, the accumulated genetic differences between lions and leopards would have rendered interbreeding impossible.
Evolution is simple. It’s just a bunch of observed facts that, when considered as a whole, make perfectly good sense on their own and without the need for any magical sky-fairy to wave his omnipotent wand to make it all work. The simple explanatory power of evolution is the exact reason why opponents of evolution (like Kent Hovind) need to be expert liars and masters of deviousness – because they can’t win by fighting fairly and squarely.
So when you stroll in here in support of someone like Kent Hovind, you’ll either get your ass handed to you, or you’ll get an expert education handed to you. You’d do well to drop the suurbek attitude, put your religious hangups to one side, and pay closer attention to what’s being explained to you with a lot more patience and politeness than you deserve.
Man, I feel like a momma bird who has delivered an especially squirmy worm to her nestlings.
Oh, don’t. de Botton will be harping on about Atheist Communion again, it’ll be such a bore.
I’m relieved to see that I’m not the only one having trouble understanding what danielhaven is trying to say.
–
Okay, the bestiality thing is just confusing, but I see 2 possibilities:
1) “Bestiality” is being defined as, “any sex involving animals, including non-human on non-human”; and necessarily including “proto-humans” as well.
2) Evolution is an individual, rather than a team sport, and it’s every organism for itself, with the first “human” therefore required to mate outside its “species”, because there were no others.
–
*snortle*
–
Even better, know a guy who owns a flat-bed truck. No paper trail.
–
Near as I can tell, it’s another argument from personal incredulity; he has trouble with “feeling” the scope of large time-scales, can only “feel” the short time-scale he has personally experienced, and if he can’t “feel” it, then it can’t be real.
–
As the story develops, I’m pretty sure that this guy is just trolling us, and is not interested at all in learning anything. My verdict: arrogant, self-righteous ignorance.
–
We know what happens to rugby players.
Apologies to Bronze Dog
I summarised the issue too hastily. I am profoundly sorry and in no way was I trying to connect anything. I had no malicious intent and I respect your view. I was simply trying to state that were the first person to explain “evolution” in an understandable way that conflicts with perceptions.
The rest were derogatory but even they are not dissimilar. It is not just Science that can teach you something new each day, there are many lessons to be learnt till the d-day.
I seriously wish you all the best and I am really sorry.
I can only hope that you can accept this with the good heart it is offered from.
Bee? Frog? Wha?
Anyway, I thought it was a lion with the bee.
Gathering by his earlier interest in ‘beastiality'(sic) and inter-species relations, I think he may have meant the chimp.
All HAIL THE CHIMPY CHILD!
Thank You SASTRA
Just wish the rest would take note ’cause now it is boring
@danielhaven #86, who says, “Your meaning of evolution is that something can and had to reproduce itself in order for us to witness today. Again, where did that something come from????”
A lack of education is a terrible thing (as in, you know, along the lines of, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”
If you can summon the energy and time to disagree with what science – a pan-human enterprise devoted to understanding the nature of reality – has extracted from what religion insists is the Creative Product of your God Almighty, then you should be expressing your wonderment and thankfulness over His putative Creation and have more than enough energy and time left over to devote to educating yourself as to the details. Why is it you can’t accept what you require your God has having created? Are you pissed off at Him for preferentially revealing His Secrets to scientists over the last several centuries that which religious divination and fervor hasn’t been able to reveal an iota of over several millennia?
Think they could manage a tigradoodle? I’m looking for a new pet.
—
Practicing to be a US politician?
Aw, Ichthyic, you upstart colonies have deemed this video unsuitable to be watched in the Motherland…
I actually think he might stick the flounce. I’ll give it to him. He managed to stay almost perfectly incoherent. That is not easy to do.
You know, this little interlude reminds me. Is it just me, or is the move to FtB correlated with a decrease in both quantity and quality of chew toys?
—–
PZ that worm was very squirmy. But it was hard to share such a small morsel amongst us all.
And then Louis started passing that joint around and it gets a little hazy after that.
Still, the coats around here haven’t been this sniny in ages. Thanks.
Louis @177:
Daniel mentioned being in the army up-thread, so (like me) he would have grown up as a white male in 1970s-1980s apartheid South Africa, and been subject to two years’ National Service as an apartheid-era conscript. It would not surprise me to learn that he shared the prevailing attitudes of the time, even though things have improved greatly in the past two decades of relative peace. Race remains a particularly sensitive topic in South Africa, so anyone who tries to hold on to apartheid-era racist views would find themselves being laughed at or frowned upon (or worse).
I bet he knows he was brought up in a racist environment, but he’s probably doing his best to get along with a normal life in post-apartheid South Africa – and in post-apartheid South Africa, being racist is (at very least) not a smart or successful strategy.
Okay, I was wrong. That is quite a surprise. Well, I mean surprise in the the sense of “pretty much expected by everyone but me.”
Aw, Ichthyic, you upstart colonies have deemed this video unsuitable to be watched in the Motherland…
HA!
bout time the shoe was on the other foot.
hmm.
well, best I can do for you then is the lyrics:
It’s not opposing opinions I despise. It’s opinions offered by people who are so pig-headedly ignorant of what they’re opining on that they can’t tell their ass from their elbow. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about and your response to people who do is “Well, that’s just…like…your opinion, man!” There’s a difference between an informed opinion and an egregiously ignorant opinion. That difference is made manifest every time you try to make some lame joke about how you think evolution works or what you think we believe.
The reality is your head is so far up your ass you couldn’t tell an atheist from a tapeworm, but you seem too broke to fix. Not losing any sleep over it. Just don’t have any kids, OK? Last thing this world needs is little kids raised by someone as proudly willfully ignorant as you are.
oh man, I just realized what a bad set of lyrics that was.
needs fixin’.
here:
Perhaps if they’d given it a few million, er, billion, er, million, years, they’d have just got used to him.
But apt – look at all the loving, decent, turn-the-other-cheek, normal folks getting along. Isn’t that inspiring?
Isn’t that inspiring?
It sure inspired the fuck out of me.
…to leave the US.
There is no need to insult the potatoes. Did you ever hear a potato spout this kind of nonsense?
It’s like listening to a Insane Clown Pose record.
It’s been my experience with creationists that you can explain to them the evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang are all separate theories until you’re blue in the face and they will still mix and match ideas from all three in order to keep moving the goalposts around. For them, the world is neatly divided between those who accept the “truth” that gawd created the universe and those who are part of the satanic plot to deceive everyone. It doesn’t matter whether you’re coming at the issue as a biologist or a cosmologist, if you’re not in the former camp, then you’re all part of one big conspiracy called “evilotion” to them.
Is danielhaven using creationist refrigerator poetry magnets plus odds and ends from other sets in order to compose his missives?
Well, we had “evolution is wrong because FAD DIETS!”, which was odd.
—
Oh my! *giddy* I was just cited by a Proper Biologist™!
Oh.
—
At one point DH wondered aloud if global warming might be caused by the Earth’s orbit contracting, bringing us closer to the sun.
—
To be fair, chimps aren’t particularly nice to strangers either.
@danielhaven #121, who says, “I dunno”
Bingo.
danielhaven: “When you go to millions and billions, I kind of get seriously suspicious of the numbers.”
Well, innumeracy a common symptom of ignorance.
danielhaven: “No fan-fare, no drum roll….two guys sitting in an army dorm room was my proof. The guy prayed and I accepted. Have I done right since? Your answer, doesn’t matter. My answer, I have to stand and see.”
Any answer doesn’t matter to you. Fine. But anyone who accepts ANYTHING, let alone as a “proof”, under the circumstances you describe (“two guys sitting in an army dorm room was my proof. The guy prayed and I accepted.”) is a serious case of stupidity.
danielhaven: “Is there anything sad and depressing about this issue. Absolutely Not.”
“Absolutely”? That’s precisely what’s so sad and depressing about it: how easily you censure any possibility of self reflection and revel in a certitude which has no independent support OTHER than what a vague, arbitrary and wholly specious allegiance to a pre-packaged mountain of horseshit has given you. By all means: go figure…except you will not.
danielhaven: “That something there, that niggle. The second thought pestering me, and only the second thought, was perpetual motion which is taking a small side-step.”
Would the fact that the “niggle” of perpetual motion which pesters you so (presumably on the question of evolution or the emergence of life out of chemical processes) comes about from a spectacular ignorance of the science? If people happen to point out you are wrong and ignorant (a fact) do you suppose you would be justified in complaining that it is impolite and insulting to do so?
truthspeaker @ 112;
Whatever happened to ‘marriage is a blessed estate’? I would have thought that even a fundie like Limbaugh would have been hard pressed to denounce a married woman having sex with her husband as a ‘slut’, but that is because I don’t think like a xian – to the true fundamentalists, sex is for procreation, and procreation alone. As a result, sex performed for any other reason, especially oh-so immoral carnal gratification, even within the bounds of marriage, is an affront to their delusional pseudo-morality. Unless the dirty, horrid secks results in the woman suffering the ‘just punishment’ of pregnancy and child birth, then it is just wrong in the eyes of these misogynist cretins. It is the same mentality that is leading them to try to get abortion and contraception outlawed.
Sounds to me like Rush, in his bid to be the most sex negative figure on the public stage, is trying to squeeze out Santorum*…
—————————————————————-
* Sorry about that. I just wasn’t strong enough to resist the terrible allure of a bad pun.
cicely @199:
I wonder if ‘bestiality created the human race’ is better than the biblical ‘incest created the human race’ (there’s only so many times Eve could have sex with Adam, Cain, and Abel…)
So it was buggery.
I’m not sure what a mesquito is though. A small, flying insect high on fermented, distilled agave juice?
I, too, have long wondered whether danielhaven is actually very young. However, that doesn’t fit with his claim to have been born in 1963.
So, the other option is that he urgently needs professional help. :-/ Comment 195 is probably the best way to handle him.
LOL! This day is getting better and better!
Panspermia = outsourcing of abiogenesis.
Indeed, the termites are just one subgroup of the cockroaches.
Your math is flawless.
No, why? Evolution works just fine in asexually reproducing organisms.
Seconded.
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you first have to invent the universe.
– Carl Sagan
Word? I simply press Ctrl+A and Ctrl+C before submitting.
Well, the way the expansion of the universe keeps accelerating, the entire universe will never have one common heat death.
And if the expansion keeps accelerating all the way to the Big Rip, that’s all moot anyway! *Lovecraftian giggling madness*
Or, usually, both! :-)
ROTFL!
:-)
:-) :-) :-)
It’s often hard to break a Creationist out of their straw man conception of evolution and other theories. A dishonest Creationist tells a lie about what evolution is, the lie becomes famous, and other Creationists repeat the lie amongst themselves without bothering to find out the truth from someone who actually knows about evolution. They’ve repeated the lies their distant ancestors made up so many times and for so many generations, they now believe their lies are the truth. They can’t even conceive of us as we really are, because that would mean questioning the honesty of their whole community.
Oh, that was just the standard “science has been wrong before, so it’s always wrong” defense.
^_^
I linked to the Wikipedia article on Milanković cycles. He didn’t pursue the topic any further.
There may or may not be any causal connection between the preceding two sentences.
Yeah. Warfare isn’t unique to humans.
Oh well, you know what SC says about stopped clocks.
“Fuck you, stopped clock”
(obscure, but it might make an anarchist crack a grin)
Daniel,
Starting with comment #37 and meandering through #121, if I understand you correctly, you indicate a few things you believe in that aren’t consistent:
You seem quick to say to accept some facts of evolution (but reject others), and then dance away to say that this is perfectly acceptable and fits well with creationism (specifically, Judeo-Christian accounts). But you fail completely to make any arguments to support that claim. You neither offer nor accept any evidence or correction on your non-analysis.
NEWSFLASH: Science ONLY operates by collecting & analyzing evidence. So you can be incredulous all you want about the billions of years during which the Earth formed & the millions of years that evolution happened…but that’s what the best evidence assembled by the best minds says. You don’t like it? Tough, discover better evidence and/or generate better models. It’s pitiful that you live in such a dark mental hole that you fail to understand this.
And/or gullibility.
–
That email in the old post is so hilarious it might as well be a parody.
What, prayer alone isn’t enough? …huh. How about that.
CapeTownJunk, #209,
Amen to that! Apologies if I accidentally insinuated ALL SA-ans were anything like that.
1) I agree with your 209 in its entirety, my SA-an relatives and friends say basically the same things.
2) Daniel is a creationist. Creationism and reality do not map well.
3) Differing types of lunacy cluster in the phenomenon well described as “crank magnetism”.
Based on 2 and 3 and Daniel’s already demonstrated joyful forays into mild to moderate sexism, I was merely speculating that certain attributes might cluster…but then I’m a romantic!
Is that the right word?
Louis
And, since the question “how big was the the Big Bang” made me look up “observable universe”, I have to link this, just because it’s awesome (sensu stricto):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Earth%27s_Location_in_the_Universe_%28JPEG%29.jpg
@danielhaven #121, who says, “Just received the call, I got it all wrong….My Dad was a cockroach and my Mum was a mesquito. Sorry about the confusion with bees, frogs, potatoes and all.”
No, your dad and mum were humans and you have inherited their human succeptability of getting things wrong…for example, cockroaches and “mesquitos” never lie or attempt to characterize the world according to their preconceptions, and although they may evolve an intelligence capable of dazzling feats of conceptual model-making prone to error (and that is probably a feature of “intelligence” wherever it may emerge in the universe) one CAN give them a little more slack than one might give critters like us who have achieved the potential capacity to recognize wonky models of reality yet choose not to. The exercise of the full complement of our inherited intelligence is something which religion systematically seeks to inhibit.
The “confusion with bees, frogs and potatoes and all” — Indeed? What you may be confused over is no indication that the tentative conclusions of science – and decent, morally upstanding, and genuinely curious people who make an effort to educate themselves and listen to the evidence supplied by scientists garnered from an intensely detailed observational program to understand what’s actually going on in the world we all live in – is wrong. If you think it is, then you must forthwith consider the Product of your Creator to be a Big Lie.
@danielhaven #145, who says, “What the F… is this,,,,,it is the night-time show and opposite to evrything you want to read [in your case, even be bothered with]”
Well, friend, that’s what happens when a person promotes erroneous information and exposes his ignorance to people who are far more educated and better informed: it’s gonna be an ‘opposite’ thang. Opposition has that quality.
What a fun thread!
I’m sorry I missed most of the action.
I will say that on my netbook, PZ’s comments are no longer red but rather the colour of day-old scabs.
Just sayin’.
I’m summarizing Christian mythology here.
Yes, some days you check on Pharyngula, and find someone who is apparently unable to grasp what my 10 year old son is more than capable of understanding. It really is a bit sad. I mean, I KNOW that people can blind themselves to reality in favor of an invisible best friend, but it’s still sad to see it in action. One would hope that you are, in fact, capable of becoming something more than a foolish old man trumpeting his ignorance to the world, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
Geez, this is a fun thread!
It feels like a new dance:
Facepalm, spit-take, eyeroll, laugh
Scroll up, re-read, what a gaffe!
Look out, Hokey-Pokey! There’s a new kid in town…
You guys must all be seriously bored or you just wanna have fun?
To CapeTownJunk
You do not care…it matches your kind.
Chuck the insults at me because of my biblical beliefs but to insinuate racism is the lowest, most despicable form of dealing with anything. Your hot-shot chums, who you are trying to impress and that doesn’t take much, are standing and applauding you at this very moment. Take a bow. Now kiss your ass.
To those who could just not let it go..feel that itch
I got the gist of your magical story you all tell. Everything that God created evolves and Science proves this. Once there is one that can replicate or two that can reproduce and the breath of life is administered, then we evolve over millions of years. All you have to do is say “See, it works”. There is no God therefor we are gods. Abiogenesis … Big Bang (secretly not part of evolution) but added as a fact. Dig up a few bones that only took ‘Millions of years’ to just sit there for us to find, oh so conveniently. Soil erosion/No change/Soil expansion?????
I love the bunch that are copying Kent by saying the willfully ignorant. Wait, let me guess. You will show that those are not his words but adopted words to fit the Bible passage. Or Not. Either way you still use them and that alone should make you all sick to your stomach.
Guess what…You are all going to have a field day right now.
My cards are on the table, leave your so-called evolution behind you and explain the beginning. As Nerd of Redhead said,
prove it or shut the F…. up.
I don’t have to guess, pissed of all of you in one foul swoop.
Last laugh, dumbhead, this is our site and we can do as we please. We can denigrate you, every or any word you said and when we’re finished,,,,we gonna rub your nose in the dirt.
Send it!!!
Not quite pygmies+dwarfs. I give it 3 Crocoducks.
Daniel… I’m being dead serious here. I think you may need medical help.
The request is simply not to denegrate my parents, my family.
If your parents had educated you properly, you wouldn’t be such a moron.
If your family was educated properly, they wouldn’t let you keep being such a moron.
They’re as much of fair game as you are, bub, for letting you spew your stupid so far and wide. Why should they be beyond criticism for it?
Well, technically, a thousand million is a billion.
1,000 × 1,000,000 == 1,000,000,000So the earth is about 4,500 million years old, because that’s the same as 4.5 billion years.
That’s maths for you.
Since you admit by lack of solid and conclusive physical evidence your imaginary deity doesn’t exist, it created nothing. You fail logic 101.
Where did you pull that shit out of your ass. God doesn’t exist, and there is no need for a replacement. Except in the minds of delusional fools like yourself.
Both happened and evidence you presented to refute the science: Zip, zero, zilch, nada, nil. Nothing! Just your lying and bullshitting testament, worthless noise.
If you deity is imaginary, which you acknowledge by failure to provide conclusive physical evidence, why isn’t the babble a book of mythology/fiction. That’s only logical, so citing it is meaningless.
We’ve done that. You haven’t proved anything, including a possible alternative to evolution. You provided nothing. Ergo, you have nothing. What a liar and bullshitter.
We have, you haven’t. And you have shown you can’t judge scientific evidence, being a delusional fool who believes in imaginary deities. So shut the fuck up…
Nope, your idiocy, presupposition, lack of intelligence, illogical thoughts, and sheer buffonery makes us laugh at you. BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA. You aren’t worth getting mad over, as you show the world you are nothing but a bombastic and evidenceless liar and bullshitter. Care to play some more? I’m barely started…
You must be itchy.
CapeTownJunk did not insinuate racism. Or at least, not about you.
You’re getting mad — again — because you don’t read carefully and for comprehension (again).
No. You continue to be confused.
1) You keep lamenting the insults thrown at you, but seriously, you have no idea how patient people here are being with you right now. If you’re gonna keep up spouting crazy shit like this, though, you are gonna get ridiculed.
2) The Big Bang hasn’t got anything to do with evolution. The only people who throw the big bang in when discussing evolution are creationists.
3) Abiogenesis hasn’t got anything to do with evolution.
4)Of course there’s soil erosion and stuff going on. That’s why fossils are relatively rare and are often in poor condition.
5) I know reading (and writing for that matter) isn’t your thing, but honestly, try reading up on the subject. Read the Wikipedia page, go to Talk.origins, read a biology text book, hell, you might even want to read the replies you’ve received here, for starters.
Please. Those must be worth acouple more crocoducks!
HAHAHAHAHA
where did you learn English Composition? your writing is incoherent. Answering is incredibly difficult when it’s near impossible to parse what you are trying to say. Anyway, that things come from nothing is not actually a belief. particles pop into existence from “nothing” all the time, that’s documented now. that has nothing to do with evolution though, since it’s particle physics not biology. Also, your problem with the fact that “life just ends” is not actually an argument against evolution, it’s simply wishful thinking. Whatever the rest of that sentence was supposed to mean, I can’t answer because it’s incomprehensible. Learn to write clearer.
we do see it and it does happen. plenty of people have watched evolution happen with their very eyes, you know?
1)not relevant to the Theory of Evolution
2)why aren’t you following David’s links that explain to you the work currently being done on uncovering the Origins of Life?
that was a pathetic insult and an even more pathetic insult (especially since a number of us have reproduced, thus refuting you)
more incoherence. what the fuck is this supposed to mean?
as someone for whom English isn’t the first language, I take offense at the doofus taking offense; there’s nothing insulting about not being a native English speaker (his abuse of the language on the other hand…)
ah, that’s where that comes from. and now, could you explain WTF doofus means by it?
why? what reason do you have to hold this “opinion”?
incoherent.
irrelevant.
on what basis, and what the fuck does this have to do with caves or weather?
you do know that forensic evidence doesn’t disappear, right? someone needs to watch some “Cold Case” :-p
you don’t know what the word “proof” means.
there’s something seriously wrong with you, dude.
no.
that would be you.
whose perceptions?
um. False Dichotomy?
don’t project. you’re the one who believes in magic. Also, I very much doubt you got anything even close to the “gist” of anything said here. you simply do not have the reading comprehension for that.
no, you have to demonstrate it. which has been done.
incoherent.
nothing secret about it. the big band is astrophysics, evolution is biology. they’re not even the same fields of science, nevermind being part of the same theory.
there are no fossils in “soil”. soil is weathered rock, with some plant material and other organics. fossils sometimes get exposed by the process of rock erosion, but that has fuck all to do with soil erosion and expansion.
Hovind doesn’t own the English language, honeybunch.
don’t ever play poker for money. just a tip.
confused and entertained maybe. you’re not coherent enough to produce stronger emotions in anyone.
—
I was going to complain that no one linked to The Relativity of Wrong when doofus made the “scientists sometimes change their mind” argument. But now I’m thinking doofus doesn’t have the brainpower and reading comprehension to understand it O.o
I seriously wish you all the best and I am really sorry.
I can only hope that you can accept this with the good heart it is offered from.
Stupid, passive aggressive and dishonest.
The creatard trifecta!
A couple? I think that pyrotechnics display of stupidity deserves a couple a crocoducks and one of Ray Comfort’s eyeless dogs.
Do you lot ever even take the time out to listen to yourselves?
Like a pack of wolves or a pack of chihuahua’s [I know], you attack whatever weaknesses you pretend to find. It is quite ridiculous that only ‘singular’ parts are isolated in order to distort what is being said and then famously claiming…’YOU ARE INCOHERENT’. Yup, Yup, Yup. You lie that you can speak english (my typing may not be the hottest), you lie to everyone [finger wavering] including the children, I cannot read this so you lie, you lie, you lie.
And yet EVERYTHING you all say is … ALWAYS right.
You are really an IDJIT- actually, just plain dumb works – ton
dhaven has not understood that logging in with a FaceBook ID reveals a lot of personal information:
Or:
your writing is not coherent enough to be distorted.
that’s because you are incoherent.
ROTFLMAO
For the lurkers, the Null Hypothesis, due to the overwhelming evidence for the ToE, is that the ToE is correct until another full and complete scientific theory is presented to supplant the present ToE. Now, let’s look at what poor Daniel has presented to supplant the ToE.
Reading between the lines, Daniel is ineptly attempting to make a case for creationism. Now, in order to do that, Daniel has lay out the theory in detail, preferably someplace in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Did he do so? Nope, failure 1.
Daniel presupposes a deity. Evidence for said deity:
He acknowledges he has no evidence, evidence required by science and logic, but he can’t give up on the already failed idea. A deity is required for creation, and if there is no evidence, it doesn’t exist. Failure two.
Now, without his deity, his holy book is relegated to mythology/fiction category, and everything inside of it is suspected lies. Failure three. Total failure so far.
Now, if one has a valid scientific theory, then one talks up their theory showing how it is superior, and ignores the competing theory. Daniel couldn’t talk up his theory since it doesn’t exist, ergo all he had to vain and foolish attempts to ridicule evolution. And he never succeeded in even one citation to the peer reviewed literature to refute the science, which is only refuted by more science. Failure four.
Failure appears to be Daniels by-word, as he committed sound and fury, meaning nothing but he is a delusional fool.
how?
@chigau: “Those must be worth a couple more crocoducks!”
Oh yeah. This is a Burgess Shale of paleo-crocoducks.
Life evolves. There’s no evidence that God exists, or created anything.
There’s no evidence for anything like a “breath of life”, let alone that it was administered. But if that phrase is struck, the sentence is correct
We have evidence that it has occurred, and is still occurring.
That’s complete nonsense that you made up.
Not exactly.
The Big Bang is not part of evolution, but it is consistent with evolution. It doesn’t contradict evolution, and it does explain how the universe arose in the form that we see it now, such that evolution could occur.
Abiogenesis — the origin of life — is a hypothesis. It is hypothesized as being consistent with evolution, because it certainly would not make sense if it were inconsistent with evolution.
Well, fossilization is not that common. And not all fossils are millions of years old. Some are only hundreds of thousands of years old. And not all fossils are bones. Some fossils are called “trace” fossils. They are the remains of an event that left a clear and obvious mark in some soil or mud or something, which then dried out and was covered over. The Laetoli footprints are a famous example.
I have no idea what you’re trying to ask here. Soil (and other minerals) can erode, but are also deposited. There’s also uplift and subsidence.
If you have a specific question about geology, you’ll need to express it more clearly.
I agree that Kent Hovind is wilfully ignorant.
Why? We already said that the Big Bang is what we know about so far. We don’t know what happened before, or even if there was a before. But so what?
There’s no evidence that the Big Bang was caused by an invisible person with magical superpowers.
Louis #232 re: South Africans & racism:
No apology necessary. It’s not like the racist white South African stereotype is a fictional caricature, it’s a real reminder of how things used to be back in the bad old days. Today’s youngsters have grown up largely free of that stigma, but those of us old enough to remember those times need to free ourselves from that stigma through our actions and words.
As for Squirmy Dan’s entering all 36 chambers of the woo-thang clan: I imagine he’d be sensitive towards being perceived as racist, and would consciously try to tone down any insinuations of racism. But you (and Woo_Monkey just before you) were right to have pointed out his sexism. That “You go, girl” comment of his was aimed at me, and I ought to have called him out on it. It didn’t offend me at the time because his whole comeback was laughably pathetic, like being head-butted by a “mesquito”.
Of course, if Squirmy Dan’s favourite book happens to be the Bronze Age Goatherder’s Guide to the Galaxy, then it’s no surprise where many of his flawed character traits come from.
Actually, “See, it works” comes after the explanation. You can’t just say “See, it works” without demonstrating the “See” part. This is done through the scientific process, of making observations and hypothesis, of making predictions and calculating possibilities. Evolutionary theory has had over 150 years of this, it’s very solid science. “See” is looking at over 150 years of well-trained people who have spent the time theorising, observing, and running experiments. And “it works” is the only reasonable position one can take away from looking at the evidence.
That you don’t understand how evolution works, or the evidence behind it, doesn’t reflect at all on the empirical and conceptual success of modern evolutionary theory. It just means you don’t understand it. Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne, and Evolution by Don Prothero are two very good starting points if you would care to try to rectify your ignorance on the matter and worked to putting out an informed opinion.
The “therefore” does not follow.
It’s no secret, neither of them are a part of evolutionary theory. The Big Bang is a theory about the origins of the universe, about the formation of matter and the structure of spacetime. Abiogenesis is about the origin of life, not about the complexity and diversity of life. The Big Bang has some very solid science behind it, from the cosmological background radiation to the ratio of matter in empty space. Abiogenesis is a logical necessity (the process of life doesn’t go back infinitely) though how it happened is as yet unknown.
When someone is in the game for years, and they have the chance to actually read up on the science they are talking about, it’s wilful ignorance to make up your own version of what evolution is and attack that. There are critics of evolutionary theory who at least have taken the time to understand what the scientists are saying and attempt to rebut that. Kent Hovind, however, has not done this.
@Jadehawk: delusion.
On Sb, I was playing nice. Here, not so much.
OK, so am I really alone in not being able to make heads or tails of what this guy is saying? It’s like word salad.
I mean,
What do the first two even mean? For the third, is he ascribing to us some mutant kind of pantheism or a belief in deistic evolution? I want to go get the popcorn and join in, I feel a bit like I went to go see Jaws and accidentally wandered into Begotten instead.
octopod
Don’t worry, you’re not alone.
Do you ever take the time out to listen to your self?
We are not pretending to find weaknesses. We do find terrible, terrible weakness in your ability to write in the English language, and weakness in your ability to read and understand English, and weakness in your ability to think.
If what is said is distorted, it’s because it came out distorted from your mind.
You are indeed often incoherent.
Maybe you think you know what you mean, but we are not mind-readers.
No, you lie that you can write English.
It’s not just the typing. Other people make mistakes in writing, but at least they put their thoughts clearly in grammatical sentences, where each thought follows from the next.
Your writing is often a terrible mishmash of words.
Well, while we do make mistakes, we are right more often than you are. Sometimes you’re not just wrong, you’re so wrong that there is nothing right.
That’s worth 5 points for Gryffindor. You’re Gryffindor, right?
Jadehawk #249:
Dikvel means “thick skin” in Afrikaans. From his context he appears to be referring to one or other species of non-Homo sapiens ape. He’s probably imagining something that’s part Neandertal, part chimpanzee and part gorilla. With a thick skin, and probably a thick skull too.
Why this image immediately brings to his mind thoughts of bestiality is a question best left unanswered.
Does anyone know who, exactly, danielhaven is addressing?
Is it a collective you or just one person?
(I’ve always thought myself more of a Hufflepuff, FWIW.)
No, I am not being serious.
Is it just me, or can these creationist ignoramuses be spotted immediately by their ability to use the term “Dr. Kent Hovind” with a straight face..
Far be it from me to nitpick … oh, wait, I love to nitpick. Nitpicking gives me great joy.
PZ, I prefer “doofus” to “dufus”. O, and another O. You can even use “doofus” for cartoons in which the two O’s become googly eyes.
And doofuses is a delight. Hold those O’s. There’s built in disdain mixed with comedy.
[/my meaningless contribution]
thanks CapeTownJunk. that… doesn’t really help, but I suppose that’s par for the course here. This is worse than the Bad Translator.
which gives me an idea…
huh. That actually makes more sense.
(also, why bing? what happened to the google bad translator?)
Yeah, you’re not alone. I feel like my brain is melting.
Daniel, seriously, maybe get someone to come sit with you and read what you’re saying out loud to them, straight through, with no added explanation. I’d love to tear apart your no doubt idiotic arguments, but unfortunately I have no idea what they are because you write so poorly.
[meta]
cicely,
Heh. Didn’t start out that way — if you check out the original thread back at SB, you’ll see it came in to defend Hovind, segued to defending its goddishness, and devolved into creationist mantras.
(As to who is trolling who, do you not realise this very post is troll-baiting, and that the specimen has indeed taken the bait? :) )
some screwing around with google translate produces the following:
“I think my understanding of the development of mankind was some kind of cruelty, and many other skin thickness”
see? also more coherent.
This needs to be repeated again and again until they get it. Complaining that evolution theory doesn’t explain the origin of life is like complaining that economic theory doesn’t explain the origin of civilization. Or that chess theory doesn’t explain how the game was invented.
“You’re really smart, sodomy itself in any other manner, the development of species, like many other species of elephant penis”
In the US. SA once having been a British colony, most likely one would speak of “millions of years,” presumably “thousands of millions of years” rather than of billions of years.
Their billion is our trillion.
Glen Davidson
Maybe Daniel is some kind of performance artist?
Just don’t get it…
One of the many brain-waves…divide a billion by a thousand and then the text books are correct. Conclusive proof in manipulating figures all the time. Can do it any which way, similar to major corporations or banks do all the time. The best is to explain situations in percentages,
Second brain-wave…consistently criticising, begging for proof, bragging about his theory and never backing it up. You dude, could not even register for the course.
Third….BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA – crying or laughing, either way?
You, for all your BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA, haven’t proved anything either. Just go to the beginning…..
Fourth comment from the wise ones – “DON’T PROJECT”
This really is in a class of its own. A huge proportion of what I have written has been ‘butchered’. Two easy terms, Incomprehensible and Huh! Good joke the ‘Reading’ one although as the English would pronounce it ‘redding’, falls a bit flat.
Big high fives for all who fell for it – ton
@danielhaven #165, who says, “As much as all appears to be so clear to some, the validity in an answer remains your personal faith.”
Oh come off it. If you really believed that, you would accept the truth of Islam or any other religion. Or do you doubt the fervency of those who do not believe in what you do?
danielhaven: “There is no clear reason not to search for the truth and as is human nature, some just despise an opposing opinion”
Clearly? This offered as a reflection of somebody like you? Who respects opposing opinion? Are you just naturally obtuse – a gift from the supernatural Governorator – or does that questionable skill come with practice?
danielhaven: “Some just insult to show their superiority.”
No, there is no insult involved. You harbor a demonstrably erronious conceptual model for how the world is SUPPOSED to work, and people are disagreeing with that attitude. Its an attitude – A WORLDVIEW – which you’ve chosen to be personally identified with. When somebody disputes the WORLDVIEW you happen to have personally identified with, you get all hot and bothered over having been personally insulted.
If you had a truly scientific attitude, you would not harbor that pathetic personal identification with an unwavering allegiance toward a completely static and adamantine belief . ou would be amenable to updating and improving and otherwise refining your worldview to
danielhaven: “I still have to deal with the age issue but, believe it or not, this has been a worthy exercise.”
Why should anyone disbelieve “it has been a worthy exercise” or not? Plenty of respondents have offered their time to give you the time of day. Why should anyone disbelieve you “still have to deal with the age issue”? You are sucking on a straw that has a major constriction. Don’t pass out trying to get anything out of it.
danielhaven: “You have actually re-ignited a passion in me that I cannot even leave one lasting insult to the rest.”
Ah, you have a passion. You are passionate, presumably, about your belief. It has been “re-ignited”. That must mean that, instead of reexamining your own point of view, you must flare back in defense of what you personally identify with.
What a horrible means of establishing what you claim is so important, namely, the truth.
BTW: No superiority of any kind is proffered by anybody: the claims of an ignorant person do not require any such attention.
Citation, not allegation needed. Y
Glen
Silly as this may sound, is your evolution different to the former British colony or Britain?
danielhaven #239:
Daniel, as your compatriot, I stand a slightly better chance of making sense of some of your more obtuse ramblings. But there you’ve lost even me. At best, you come across as either a lousy thinker or a lousy communicator.
I reckon the South African version of Godwin’s Law is to mention Eugene Terre’blanche in an internet discussion. His racist beliefs were largely based on (and wholly justified by) his biblical beliefs. If that’s too right-wing for you, then let’s talk about the government we grew up under. Their biblical beliefs were also used to justify their policies of racial discrimination. It is not unreasonable for me to point out the historical link between biblical beliefs and racism in South Africa.
I would happily believe you if you were to tell me that you do your best every day to not be racist. It’s generally accepted as the moral thing to do – along with not being sexist, not lying, and living by the golden rule. So the outrage you’re expressing towards anyone who may have accused you of racism – that’s pretty much the same way the people here feel about being lied to, when the likes of you saunter in here spewing your Hovind-flavoured bullshit.
That’s you. We provided links to evidence. You provided…..NOTHING. Typical of liars and bullshitters.
I did prove something. And you didn’t refute it with peer reviewed scientific literature. You just scoffed, like a liar and bullshitter for Jebus would do. Not making your case, but showing the lurkers your idiocy and desperation to be taken as anything other than an evidenceless delusional fool
The truth. All delusional fools are incomprehensible. Where is your solid and conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity????
Still not one iota of evidence other than its lying and bullshitting testament. Total and utter failure to make its point…typical specimen…
Wha… Huh? Uhm… Daniel, let me adress this in your own language, so that we might understand each other:
Floppy dishwasher is also in banana costume at melon dinosaur party. I say, sir Percival, you must restrain yourself because God is a lemon cheese cake!
“Man, I feel like a momma bird who has delivered an especially squirmy worm to her nestlings.”
They are yummy. MORE WORM
No, no. You are so confused that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
You can divide by a thousand if you also multiply by a thousand. That’s multiplying by one, which gives the same number you started with, just in a different form.
More maths for you!
I’m sorry that maths is hard for you.
You are 100% confused.
How’s that?
Are you talking about yourself again?
What you have written has indeed been butchered by yourself.
you still haven’t provided any examples of textbooks with incorrect dates for the aforementioned ages.
not conclusive, and not proof. not even evidence, since you haven’t shown that textbooks say something other than the dates people have been using here.
how the living hell does one state age in percentage…?
this I think was targeted at Nerd; which is hilarious, considering.
not being a math prof, I’m not here to “prove” anything. I’m just here to refute your inane babbling. read the link to “Relativity of Wrong” yet?
not possible. learn to write, then there might be something to butcher. also, why the scarequotes?
no, the word “billion” describes a different number in the US and elsewhere. the so-called “long billion” is a million millions, a one with 12 zeros; the so-called “short billion” is a thousand millions, a one with 9 zeros.
it’s just a matter of a word being used for two different numerical values. nothing to do with evolution.
[OT @ Glen Davidson #278]
In South Africa, we regard one billion as a thousand million. It seems to me that’s the definition the world is settling on.
(We regard one trillion as the number of Zim dollars it used to take to buy a loaf of bread in Zimbabwe.)
Amphiox wailed, with cause, somewhere above –
Because The Bible dummy! The ol’bish added up *facts* found in said holy tome and did honest-to-god ‘rithmetic and found the *true answer*. All that science stuff is just liberal trash made up to discredit the church. The real church, that is, not one of them other ones.
Speak english damn it!
Just now it occurs to you to consider that your comments might not make sense?!
[meta]
CapeTownJunk, you’re impressing the hell outta me!
(If you hang around, you’re in line for a Molly)
Anchor, you must have an allegiance to a pre-packaged mountain of horseshit because only you know about it.
CapeTownJunk, I got the ‘redding’ attempt of a joke and like I said before about the fence left me with little choice but to be a bit [obviously not] witty back. Now I am a racist and a sexist.
For the obviously not so witty attempt at a comeback – I apologise. Barry, Trevor and more could work with it.
For the next bunch, I will say moustache….ta da
You do realize that sexism is what you were originally called out for, when you made the comment ‘you go, girl’. (or something along those lines, anyway)
You are a proven liar and and bullshitter since you can’t back up any allegation with a link to some scientific literature. So why should we take your word for anything? Citation needed, showing you aren’t racist and and sexist….
Typical non-sequitor from a proven liar and bullshitter…Citation needed….
This worm is no longer fresh. May we have another?
at this point i’d be ok if he picked any human language, as long as he uses is better than the “English” so far
Thanks, good to know.
Glen Davidson
http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luol3tGhKi1qdewwao1_500.png
Perhaps Daniel is nothing more than a WordSaladBot with a programmed personality like that of Marvin in The Hitchhiker’s Guide.
Or maybe it’s one of those “Darmok and Jilad at Tanagra” things.
I’ve been following this thread all day, and I have no idea what’s going on.
It’s like some weird mad-lib or something…wait, is he accusing us of doing math?
I’m confused. Just…confused.
[meta [meta: what JM said]]
How do we fix this?
To CapeTownJunk
I really did use this platform to learn and I have.
Knowing that now is too late and the price I will have to pay on false accusations and false assumptions is a price I hope will only affect me and not my family, children or grand-children.
I am not a racist, sexist or any ‘ist. I have beliefs, different from this platform as everyone on this platform has different beliefs.
I will be told – Next time think, we don’t care?
Truth be told..
did we ever resolve your fascination with bestiality?
You and the truth are strangers, as truth requires solid and conclusive physical evidence. You have no evidence, and your word (testament) is worthless, as it isn’t based on reality.
Speak english damn it!
ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER! Do you speak it?
Yes, anyone dealing with Danielsan would feel just like Samuel Jackson in that scene, in even less time.
If only this were true!
Really? Why?
Or you could try not making false accusations.
You’re not a creationist?
Do you care if those beliefs are not true?
If only.
danielhaven:
Liar. You’re a self-admitted goddist and a creationist.
My belief is that GOD created the universe and all we know. I believe +/- 2000 years ago my God died on the cross and shed his blood for my sins.
I say, sir Percival, you must restrain yourself because God is a lemon cheese cake!
Tinny, very tinny.
‘Fraid I don’t quite grasp your banter, old boy.
The Internet Is Serious Business?
Icthyic, that link should come with a trigger warning. Possibly three (one for each gun).
That’s so friggin’ Magritte.
Says the clown who to this day didn’t come up with a single halfway coherent statement ( be it true or not ) to support his silly fairytales. Probably doesn’t even understand the concept ( neither ‘support’ nor ‘coherent’ )
If you want to be taken more seriously come up with something less idiotic.
“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides (all sides)”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsvCuGaTvgk&t=145
(Big C’s Break Of Dawn Mix)
What?
One of the laughable things about this is no one (not even me) accused this fuckwit of being racist. What started this latest bit of Persecution Pumping from Deluded Daniel was me wondering “out loud” if his combo of sexist rhetoric (“girl” as insult? Bra-fuckety-vo!) and incoherent creationism was combined with even more joyous views on the topic of race, thereby achieving one special holy trinity of fuckbaggery.
The fact that this dribbling goon cannot parse the difference between inquiry and accusation is not a surprise given that he writes at a “freshly buggered tree sloth” level and demonstrates comprehension that would cause a house plant to wince.
This is a weak chew toy. It came pre-broken.
{claps hands}
Make with fresh chew toys, chop chop, toot-dur-sweet!
Louis
Again, who cares.
I am now a Goddist? With my dumb, pathetic first language…HUH!
You are not a creationist? Um, no.
LIAR. – NOT
Plain and sinple : If I believe in Science, am I a Scientist?
Don’t all shout at once.
Those tirades of ridiculous accusations is acceptable from any moron, so long as it nails the obnoxious potato-head.
Add value to that.
Bloody Mary, Bloody Mary, Bloody Mary.
will a vodka and tomato juice cocktail appear in my hand?
Candyman, Candyman, Candyman!
No, no boy-toys …
maybe it only works with creationist nutjobs.
The one thing everyone else most assuredly believes is that your train has quite definitely left its station.
I got this far and then, well really. He’s not even trying to make sense. I mean this is one sad dude. Going to go do something else, as it will be more productive than reading this … this … it’s not even good enough to call shit.
Did enjoy the exchanges with David M and others, clarifying technical terminology for the betterment of all. Thanks guys!
Oh look! It still squeaks! :)
danielhaven:
Sad thing is I can’t even claim you’re equivocating, since you’re so obviously incompetent at English.
FWIW: Suffix -ist
the dumbfuckery is painful
danielhaven:
I care.
I really, really hope we’re talking about puppies.
I had to signup here just to comment on the laughter this thread has given me today. I spent 45 minutes reading today and another 20 tonight. I just couldn’t wait to see where danielhaven was going with the bestiality. I have to admit I had never heard anyone use that line of reasoning. Now all I can think about is what my dog and cat do at night when no one is around.
And daniel, if you do not understand evolution and you really think my dog and cat will bet getting it on tonight, I suggest a great book by Richard Dawkins called “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution”. If even this book is too much for you, he has a new book aimed at 12 year olds called “The Magic of Reality”. Check them out….
dewd:
You know what they say — laughter is the best medicine.
Which, as it turns out, is not true. I tried laughing at the burning and itching. That did not work. After a confidential and embarrassing discussion with my doctor, I was given an ointment. That worked.
So, for potentially embarrassing burning and itching: ointment, not laughter, is the best medicine.
Icthyic, that link should come with a trigger warning. Possibly three (one for each gun).
Caribou!
Gone.
One on’t crossbeams gone out askew in treddle.
missed this earlier:
Louis sez:
If you truly wish to understand Daniel watch this.
ROFLMAO
bookmarked.
I’m absolutely sure I will be using that in the future.
lollolololooloollolol…
One on’t crossbeams gone out askew in treddle.
Cabbage Crates coming across the briny?
My hovercraft is full of eels?
Bing tiddle tiddle bong.
This one was particularly disappointing. It’s so hard to chew on such incoherent mush. Bestiality, weather, caves, millions and billions, potatoes having sex with bees, amidst claims of persecution, all presented in some species of gibberish. Ah, but at least there was some good weed along the way.
I wouldn’t wish on anyone the horror of having to spend even one night on an isolated planet trying to decipher danielhaven’s nonsense. I can’t believe for a second that english is his first language. Perhaps it’s trollish?
On a side note, that was the one of my all time favourite episodes of TNG.
@danielhaven #295, who says, “Anchor, you must have an allegiance to a pre-packaged mountain of horseshit because only you know about it.”
What the hell would you possibly know about what I know, dipshit? You pretend to have an idea of what your God – a supreme and omniscient being – has in mind. I would never stoop that low. You exceed your station in every way. Have you no capacity for shame or embarrassment?
DanielHaven if you’re reading this can you PLEASE tell us what the hell you actually believe?
You’re completely incomprehensible, being bad at typing doesn’t factor into this, your posts are some of the most incomprehensible things I’ve ever read. It’s only because I’ve read some truly bad stuff on the internet that I have an inkling of what you’re saying, and when reading TobleroneTriangular helps me understand you there’s a problem.
None of this Tone-Trolling stuff where you make loud angry accusations against us, or so I think you’re doing. Don’t bitch about the “unfounded” accusations against you, sit down and post what you actually believe so we won’t get it “wrong”.
Seriously, just sit down and write WHAT you believe and why you believe that, and before you hit the submit button do a proofread. If you seriously think that we’re taking you out of context or something do the scientific thing and tell us what you actually believe. And write as clearly as you can, none of this shorthand stuff like “LIAR. – NOT” or “Add value to that”
@danielhaven #305, who says, “I really did use this platform to learn and I have.”
You lie.
danielhaven: “Knowing that now is too late and the price I will have to pay on false accusations and false assumptions is a price I hope will only affect me and not my family, children or grand-children.”
Now you are not only a liar but a coward who builds a pathetic excuse on the foundation of your own family, who cannot be held responsible for your ridiculous statements. You are indeed shameless.
danielhaven: “I will be told – Next time think, we don’t care?…Truth be told..”
Truth??? Be told???? REALLY? Your “truth” has nothing to do with any reference that is common to all people, bub. All your “truth” is wrapped within some idiotic belief system which rejects any external information by which normal human beings refine theirs.
One can forgive a moron for making statements over which he has no control, but it is impossible to forgive a schmuck who knows better.
There. I trust that better satisfies your desire to be regarded as a martyr.
@danielhaven #318, who says, “Those tirades of ridiculous accusations is acceptable from any moron, so long as it nails the obnoxious potato-head…Add value to that.”
You come perilously close to acting like the moron you describe. Don’t get too carried away…
Oh, wait. Pardon. My mistake. You more closely resemble the potato-head. No value adducable.
anchor, please do not compare the troll to the “Mr Potato Head” toy. It is demeaning and insulting to compare edible nightshades and or toys to the troll, implying that they are worth solely of contempt and ridicule.
I mean, seriously, anchor, what did toys and nightshades ever do to you to earn such a libelous comparison?
danielhaven
The number of people who have de-lurked to comment that you make no sense should tell you that you make no sense.
stanton: You are quite right. I will henceforth regard the “troll” as a schmuck. Accuracy counts.
stanton: “I mean, seriously, anchor, what did toys and nightshades ever do to you to earn such a libelous comparison?”
I slipped on a roller skate and broke my back. Then somebody put nightshade in my soup to speed my recovery and I died.
Why does this make me think of danielhaven?
@#196
I realize that I’m a bit late here, but this isn’t correct. Leopards and lions can interbreed with each other, as well as tigers and jaguars. Hybrids of all of these have been observed.
Worst creationist ever.
I read about half of this thread and had to stop. This has to be one of the most boring and nonsensical creationists I have never seen. The few posts I saw from Daniel between there and the bottom were every bit as awful. Their quality seems to be dropping, arguments with them are so much less fun than they used to be.
I’m still trying to work out if Daniel’s problem is that English is just his second (or fifth or 19th) language, or if he suffered a serious head injury at a very young age. Any theories, people?
Is it just possible that this is a poe? It really doesn’t make any sense any other way, well,… except for the brain damage explanation… :)
I’m thinking poe….
starsend42,
Could be. I was wondering about that. A especially boring Poe though…and that is saying a lot as I really am tired of the Poe phenomenon.
Martin: No, English is probably his only language, as it is with many a creationist. The deficiency he shares with others of that ilk is a lack of education combined with a worldview which he cannot defend with the logical apparatus at his disposal.
Oh, dear Darwin & sainted Sagan, the gezorkenblatt is strong in this one! At least he serves as a source of ignorant merriment.
There’s an hour of my life I’ll never get back.
If you pay close attention to the number 3 at about 1:54 I believe it represents the ‘trajectory’ DHaven has taken today, although a strong case can be made for the number 9 slot. I’m from Canader, eh? and not Australier, so our water sticks to the side of the hills instead of pooling around them.
Secretly, we’ve replaced the big bang with Folger’s crystals. Let’s see if he notices.
@Martin Wagner #347:
English isn’t his only language, he speaks Afrikaans as well. He speaks South African English, with its own regional peculiarities which make him hard to understand for non-South Africans. If Pharyngula was a TV show, he’d probably need subtitles.
Did he suffer a serious head injury as a child? Yes. He was constantly being hit over the head with the Bible as a youngster.
@Dalillama #345:
Ah! Thanks for the correction! But my first-choice answer to the question “What do you get if you cross a lion with a leopard?” is still going to be “You get fired from the zoo.”
[OT]
When I was recently on holiday in South Africa, a local told me the Lion King joke.
danielhaven #305:
All you’ve learned is how to retreat into your protective shell of stubborn garbled incomprehensibility when challenged. You do not strike me as someone who’s undergone even one cell of personal growth in your time here. You may be used to scumbags like Hovind lying to you, but that is no excuse for you to lie to yourself. You have not learned anything useful here, despite the fine array of minds you’ve had the attention of.
Now there’s that biblical framing bullshit again. Your mind has been conditioned to believe all that “sins of the father” nonsense. Why on earth would you partake in a belief system which threatens to punish descendants for the errors of their ancestors? This is just one of the countless ways in which Christianity gets you to think in such a monstrously toxic manner. We’re doing you (and your children and grandchildren, lol) a huge favour by pointing out the ways in which Christianity has warped your thought processes, and there’s a lesson to be learned from that.
So you’ve never had a racist or sexist thought? Your “You go, girl” comment to me suggests that you’re clearly no expert on recognising your own sexism, so self-awareness is not one of your strong points. As for your beliefs: welcome to the 21st century, where unscientific (and anti-science) beliefs are finally starting to get the complete lack of respect they deserve.
And this is where you start losing even me. I believe the Afrikaans technical term for this is “‘n klomp kak”*. You’ll do yourself a favour in all walks of life by learning to communicate in a way that others will understand. You do want to be understood, don’t you?
* Afrikaans is a beautiful language for profanity. “A pile of shit” rolls off the tongue so benignly, but its Afrikaans equivalent is made to be delivered with the spitting vitriol it deserves.
Hi everyone!
I discovered Pharyngula right about the time of the transfer from SB to FTB —so quite recently— and I still read a lot of weird stuff in the comments or from people PZ is quoting but man… this is so incredible, and I mean that stricto sensu. I really cannot believe daniel is a real person.
I know, I’m being naive here.
I understand I may be witnessing the elucubrations (sorry, can’t find a proper English word just right now) of a Troll or a Poe (whatever that is) and I don’t know if I should laugh or cry. And no, I’m not just being rhetorical.
I obviously encountered, in real life of on the interwebz, people I would very strongly disagree with or find absolutely ridiculous (I mean, by way of Colbert and Stewart I do follow the US election a little so I’ve seen/heard my fair share of those), but this is beyond everything I could imagine and a part of me is really hoping daniel is indeed doing some of this on purpose. Really really hope.
Now, don’t worry (you didn’t, did ya?), I won’t actually loose some sleep over it but I guess it’s kinda disturbing to experience this for the first time…
And daniel, as other people pointed out, when non-native English speakers —like myself— wonder if English is indeed your first language, you oughta ask yourself some questions, don’t you think? At first I thought you were just quite young but that doesn’t seem to be the case (but then again, it’s hard to tell).
Anyway, my worldview has been widened a little. Pretty much in the same way it was the first time I heard of dust-mites, but sader.
You were lost before.
I would say it hasn’t been fun but it has.
So, I’ll take my new bag of complexes bestowed upon me by this amazingly enlightened forum and just drift.
P.S. None of the above is English, you gotta just dig that.
*forehead smack* I’m so dense. It wasn’t until I got this far into the comments that I realized that danielhaven was playing Mad Libs. Does anyone know what Mad Lib book he’s playing from? I’m thinking Deliberately Ignorant Incomprehensible Creationist, but not sure.
A clue to the clueless, trying be funny when you are incapable of being funny is just pathetic. You are pathetic. Your attempts at humor fall flat and make you seem addle-minded. You can’t even postulate a coherent theory or present evidence for your imaginary deity. You aren’t a scientist. Just a mouthy loser.
@ anchor 342
If one wants to be pedantic: a South African troll is called a “tokoloshe”.
@ danielhaven
As jy regtig so kwaad en depressief raak moet jy liewer ‘n sielkundige gaan sien. Jou god kan jou nie help nie. (En jy moenie so diep in die bottel kijk nie. Dit maak jou probleem erger.)
Greetings, Tomfrog! But with a handle like that, in a thread like this, I gotta ask: Got a date with a cute honeybee this weekend?
Daniel strikes me as someone who may have shared some Kool-aid with Walter Veith.
tomfrog:
A Poe is a post or a person who’s statements are so over-the-top they seem they are satire, but may be sincere. This is based on the proposition that there is no way to distinguish religious satire from some of the more extreme forms of religious belief.
The Pthhhhhhhtp of all knowledge explains it more thoroughly.
To Hexanitroisowurtzitanverwendendes_Bärtierchen says:
Whatever the above?
The words above are now fact. “tokoloshe”. ????
To most of the English Professors out there, you doing a Gr8t job.
Ernstig? Kwaad en depressief? Kyk net vir jouslf in ‘n spieel.
Much to your chagrin, I have now learnt that evolution is defunct. That things were created, changed. evolved, developed and many more(mutated,etc) is not the debate.
Courteousy of changeable moniker says:
2 March 2012 at 5:37 pm
People Who Inspire Daniel
My Brother
Tony Factor
Ayn Rand
Nelson Mandela
This proves that I don’t believe in family, I discriminate, I am sexist, I am racist and I cannot speak english.
To all the judges, judge.
Or:
Philosophy
Favorite Quotations
The Rich will always become richer
The Mafioso boss rules
The bottom feeding pool is just there to be bled dry
Then you DIE and all that means ZILCH to you
Your Family/Associates fight for what over many lives ruined.
AND YOU ARE JUST DEAD AND BURIED…DUST TO DUST…
THERE IS NO AFTERLIFE… THERE IS NO GOD
I admit to saying all that, at a paticularly low time in my life. This may be difficult to comprehend but even through this bad time, I still believed and a reason why I still believe today. The above hacked data is personal but my only remorse is that I was in that moment at that time. Why have I not changed the writing? To make a point to myself of where I was.
You may use a tattoo, a ring, a bangle or whetever works for you. You may use nothing but that is your choice. I did not present my choice, to be ridiculed or whatever.
Just think about what he and posibble others know about you!
Since I cannot spake ainglish, my moronic brain (considering evolution is no longer the debate), can the Abiogenesis-[dare I add it)-ists, please just get to the beginning.
Again, can the ex-wannabees, change their crown, admit they are still developing a theory and just call themselves develop-[dare I add it]-ists.
And some ‘corny’ person will come and say, the beginning of what?
You wanted proof : see, we can expand and evolve our ideas.
Why should we care what a delusional fool who doesn’t understand evidence thinks. You can preach your fuckwittery all you want, but we only laugh at your attempts. You see, science is based upon evidence, not fuckwitted testament. You offer no evidence, and your fuckwitted testament is just inane noise, full of sound of fury, meaning nothing, since it isn’t based on reality.
So you acknowledge to the world you are a delusional fool, believing without evidence. The definition of delusion.
This sentence makes no sense. Who is this he you presume to talk about…
Your attempt at ridicule shows you are an fuckwitted ignorant blowhard, who doesn’t understand how science works, and doesn’t care to learn. The theory is developed with a million or so papers backing it up. You have presented no alternative theory and no evidence to back up the alternative theory. You have presented nothing but hot air, typical of creobots who can’t formulate and present ideas. Until you provide evidence for your theory, like your deity isn’t imaginary, you have nothing.
You presented no proof. That is third party evidence where your testament is removed from the equation. Your fuckwitted testament is lies and bullshit. All you can do is posture, pose, and pretend you made a point when you never even approached a point. Typical of losers like you and Hovind.
Welcom to ‘theoblivionmachine’
He knows more is the name indicates.
Thank you for introducing me to a SCIENTIST whom you despise, for whatever evolutionary theory, Walter Veith.
This now I really appreciate and I look forward to what he presents.
danielhaven:
There are two issues here.
The first is, you are an extremely poor communicator, at least in writing. Here, for instance, you have a sentence with two separate ideas. The first idea is that you cannot speak english. (Also, “spake” is a past-tense form of “speak,” and so muddles the meaning even of the first idea.)
Then you have a lonely subject, your moronic brain. Nothing is happening to your moronic brain here, so this bit isn’t even a fully-formed idea.
The last bit of your sentence has something to do abiogenesis, but I can’t quite tell what you want. You have some sort of aversion to adding the suffix “-ists” to things. Perhaps you stutter when you speak that bit, or maybe it causes you physical pain. In any case, you seem to have a problem with it. But ultimately, I can’t tell what you really want the people who study abiogenesis to do. They are trying to get to the beginning — of life, anyway. So, you want the scientists who study abiogenesis to do their job?
Or perhaps you simply aren’t comfortable with ignorance. You might not be comfortable with the fact that, while we have several potential mechanisms for the genesis of life, we don’t know which one is the process that actually happened — or perhaps it’s a mechanism we haven’t discovered yet. If that’s the case, Sweet Pea, I have some frightening news for you: we’re all pretty damned ignorant about many things, and answering that ignorance with even more ignorance (the answers given by religion) doesn’t help us one damned bit. All it does is pain over our ignorance with shinier ignorance.
Thanks to the application of the scientific method, however, we are a fuck-ton (which is more-or-less a metric ton, give or take a few thousand fucks) less ignorant than we were when religion was our only source of information. This should tell you something both about science, and about religion. First, you should be reassured that science is the method we currently use to learn about reality. Second, you can also be reassured that religion has never answered any of those questions. Even the Bible has two different explanations of how life began. So, as religion can use any damned thing at all to answer ignorance, it doesn’t give us any real knowledge. It can only supply a very poor illusion of knowledge.
If you’re happy with illusions, you are welcome to them. Just don’t kid yourself. It’s still not a true reflection of reality, and never will be.
@danielhaven
You haven’t been ‘hacked’. Your facebook is public, there for everyone (including yours truly) to see.
@ Ms. Daisy Cutter
Hehe.
Nope, I used this nickname the rare times I’ve already commented here so I kept it on this thread also.
The trend went towards insects it seems so I thought I was covered. (Um, I’m not entirely sure but there may be a pun here… there’s one in French tho :-p )
And thank you for your greetings!
Walter Veith. Scientist *snicker*
No more a scientist than you are.
You see, know scientists. I’ve been a working scientist for 35+ years. And I know how science is done. You don’t. You couldn’t identify a real scientist if given an map, a GPS, and a book of clues.
I’m still reading Hovind’s “thesis”. Oh, dear. It’s awful.
*headdesk* (and another for writing style)
*headdesk*
Er, turbidites?
—
I shit you not.
To Nerd of Redhead
YOU have no proof, YOU are going on hearsay, YOU are delussional. YOU talk of facts and theories of evolution.
YOU claim to win by cheating and changing the game plan.
What a wonderful winner you are!!!
Start at the beginning…and is your friends would explain the ‘HYDROX’ collider.
I know you think I need lots of medical attention, you kinda have to look at some of your own.
I apologise, the above is not ainglish. Um, never actually quite understood your scientific point that you could not comprehend ainglish yet you can quote, mis-quote, make-up things from your mis-understanding or mis-interpration.
Still drunk huh?
Liar. Scientific paper that evolution works = proof. Where is your citations? I SEE NOTHING….
No, I didn’t win. Science won by allowing for change in theories as the evidence changes. You acknowledge there is no evidence for your imaginary deity. And I’m the delusional one??? Reality, you and it are in separate worlds.
Yep, I’m getting my BP treated by a real doctor. Your excuse for not getting your delusional thinking treated???
That wasn’t us. That was you each and every time. You can’t say something that other people can understand. The fault isn’t with them, but rather with you. Your mind is closed. Open it to the possibility you are wrong. And you are WRONG.
You can’t win because you can’t articulate your ideas and present evidence to show you are right. Your testament isn’t and won’t be evidence. You lie and bullshit, so we have to take your word out of the equation. We, meaning the blog, have your number as a lying godbot. They all lie. It is required when you are a delusional fool without evidence.
@ daniel
Prescriptivist!
Fuck me Jesus but I am good looking!
Your mistaken belief system is of no concern to me either way. (Why are so very many goddists so very scared of evolution? The more sophistimicated theologians do not suffer from this.)
You are at a particularly low time in your life now. At least previously you were not in denial about it. (Hell, just read your own posts!)
It was not hacked and it is not personal either. (Hint: The bullshit you are spewing here is also part of the public domain… just like that stuff you posted on Facebook.)
Are you telling me English is not your first language? Gooi die taal as jy wil.
Weird. On occasion, he almost makes sense. Then he sounds like a deranged 5 year old again. I’m going to go with a Poe, as I don’t think he’s really as stupid as he comes off.
But, I could be wrong. I’ve met some really stupid people who can’t grasp basic concepts.
He’s right. My evolutionist colleagues and I have data from hundreds of weather balloons, and we have no idea how all that helium could escape the planets gravity. Of course we buried this data, so that our plan to destroy god in the minds of the people could continue.
I’ve seen more coherence from drunk glaswegians than I have from Daniel in this thread.
Daniel, you have not been misquoted, your incoherent ramblings have been reproduced faithfully when quoted. What they mean possibly only you and the voices in your head know. Certainly they are not in any form of understandable English. Neither do they produce any form of evidence to back up your position, nor do they clearly state what your position is. I predict you will respond with more incoherent ramblings.
So here are some for you that will only make sense to a small portion of the world’s population.
Ah think that ye dinnae ken what ye are saying ya daft gowt, gonnae no dae that.
Not Happy Jan.
You can’t handle the Truth!
BTW @pentatomid #286 made me laugh.
As near as I can make out, I think that just maybe perhaps dhaven is accepting the theory of evolution (for now …) and wants some charitable soul to talk to him about abiogenesis instead.
dhaven: “charitable soul” is a figure of speech. It means charitable person. It doesn’t mean I suffer under the illusion that there is such a thing as a “soul” in the religious sense.
re abiogenesis: nigelTheBold and numerous others have already pointed out that “we don’t know” OR saying that something “is not yet fully understood” is not an excuse to jump in with “goddidit”. “goddidit”, by definition, adds nothing to the sum of human knowledge or understanding; you might as well say “Rumplestiltskin did it” for all the explanatory power it would have.
finally, do please try even harder to express yourself clearly. Using complete sentences, each one containing a subject and a predicate that includes a verb, would be very helpful.
Martin Wagner #347 wrote:
A very small theory, but I think at least part of the reason some (ok, most) of daniel’s posts have been difficult to figure out is because daniel — like many people — tends to write the way he speaks. So we’re losing the inflections which would clue us in that he’s changed voices and is no longer giving us his opinion; instead he’s pretending to mimic what we are saying, or would say, or should say if we were consistent with our views. Obvious enough in a conversation, but lost on the internet and very, very confusing.
Probably not the main problem but, if I’m right, it sure as hell hasn’t been helping.
danielhaven #367 wrote:
Welcome back; I hope you got some much-needed sleep.
I never thought evolution itself WAS the debate for you. Your real concern is probably elsewhere.
But I’ll ask: If it were to turn out that you’re mistaken (and Veith is mistaken) and evolution did in fact take place as evolutionary biologists more or less describe — THEN what would change about how you understand religion?
Would you still believe Christianity is true but realize that God must have used evolution? Would you still believe that God exists, but it couldn’t be the god of the Bible, but something else? Or would you become an atheist — and what would that mean?
Thank you.
I think this is the analogy for which people are searching.
@ Ariaflame
His is an affectation of English. Of course he knows how to spell the word “English” but choses (consistently you will notice) to spell it “ainglish”. As if this is not his first language. The spelling is certainly unrelated to Afrikaans. (It would be “Engels” The closest Afrikaans word to that spelling would be “anglicisme”.) He is perhaps hoping to hide behind pretense in order not to be called out for his lack of real argument.
“Forgiving me pleeze I are no speak ainglish so good.” Should we be cutting him slack for his charade?
@ Sastra
Aaah, marshmallows now. (Me, I’m tackling up with the smelly cheese.)
Sastra, my dear, you are the very ‘soul’ of patience itself. Kudos. I would like to add you to my List Of People To Collect In The Event Of A Zombie Apocalypse, under the title of ‘Peacekeeper’; I have a feeling you’d be invaluable.
Thanks, Sastra, we could have done with that site a while back… I definitely remember a Bliss Nanny, though without the cat!
Emrysmyrddin #387 wrote:
Only to myself. I’d probably end up last one standing, as I’d always be saying things like “Emrysmyrddin, could you please be a dear and check out that little noise in the the back it’s probably nothing, thanks ever so much.”
Sastra – that’s okay; I’ve put danielhaven on the List too. We can always do with a supply of chum for ‘unexplained noises in dark storeroom’ scenarios…
I have to admit, I am rather surprised that Sastra learned her ethics from horror movies.
You haven’t done it before and the suggestion to cut me some slack would only mean more insults and a lesser form of debate, a debate no longer about evolution as that has by-passed its sell-out date
Not to quote, a real argument tends to end in a negative way, A Real discussion, with a sprinkling of spice [rhymes with), can end in the spectrum of decision-making.
On an option of bias, You all blatantly enforce that I have to believe what you do else I am a Goddist, moron, troll, sexist, racist, illiterate, in dire need of charity, phsychiatric care and even have I right to believe in my true Lord. The last two words may offend you, pretty much the same as those who add on is only acceptable at this stage, as they are [claiming credit} for being on your side.
Guilt is not guilty by association. You praise a person who puts ‘junk’ in a name of a City that does not need that junk. My age shows, similar to his but the assumption “just because” does not make us compatriots, he has to work on his guilt [as stated] and then has to bring in being SAfrican. My view is not the South African view, Same as his is not. Same as the views posted here are not a United States of America viewpoint.
So,
I know somebody who talks like danielhaven writes. Long strings of unconnected jokes, tangents and logical – to them – mental connections, as well as pop culture referents and other various next steps that just bubble up in his head an out his mouth. Doesn’t bother to check if you know the show he’s quoting, doesn’t keep a reign on his train of thought so he stays on one subject, and, most relevantly here…
…doesn’t ever, ever stop to check if he’s making sense to anyone that isn’t him.
After all, he knows what he’s on about. Never bothered to make the fundamental next step in communication. As you can imagine, it’s very tiring talking to him, and not something I willingly do.
Start at the beginning
You are free to believe whatever you wish as long as you don’t expect me to believe it… unless you have some actual evidence? No? Oh well, never mind. I still can’t see why you persist in deploying incoherence in comments here, it simply wastes space on the server.
Back where you associate the imprisonment of Hovind to a news story of a man raping a ten month old infant?
No thanks.
danielhaven #394 wrote:
Okay. And we’ll try to keep it simple.
We’re disagreeing on science and religion. If it were to turn out that you’re mistaken (and Veith is mistaken) and evolution did in fact take place as evolutionary biologists more or less describe — THEN what would change about how you understand religion?
Would you still believe Christianity is true but realize that God must have used evolution?
Would you still believe that God exists, but it couldn’t be the god of the Bible, but something else?
Or would you become an atheist — and what would that mean?
Or … a different option I have not thought of?
danielhaven
If your purpose here was to convince people of the rightness of your position, you have failed.
Jesus suffered and died for your sins and you have failed Him.
For shame.
A real discussion starts with possibility you are wrong. Can you be wrong? Wrong about evolution occurring, wrong about your imaginary deity? If not, you can’t discuss, only preach…
Yes, show us conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Without a deity/creator creationism can’t exist….
We have explained to you how life came about by our best theories. You need prove the existence of your imaginary deity to even have a theory….and you acknowledge you can’t do that…You lose….
I’ve honestly tried to parse this. I stared at it for a whole minute, trying to fit it together in all the myriad jigsaw ways that it could otherwise arrange itself. Has anyone tried repeatedly smashing their head on their desk? Because I’m almost at that point, but don’t want to self-inflict the required brain-damage if someone’s already beaten me to it.
Well, I missed the party last night, but I’ll give it another try this morning.
I think danielhaven has mentioned a couple of times that he is skeptical that the earth is actually approximately 4.5 billion years old.
I was a creationist once (I hate admitting that). Eventually, I realized that creationism was nonsense promoted by people who at best lacked critical thinking skills and at worst were deliberately deceitful. Thankfully, it only took me until age 17 to figure this out.
The thing that started me along the path to rational thinking was learning about how radioisotopes actually work. In chemistry class, we talked about the use of radioisotopes in medical testing and treatment. We learned a basic equation used to calculate radioisotope decay for these tests. This equation, and others like it, are used to make sure that when you ingest a radioactive substance for an imaging test, the dosage is sufficient for imaging but not high enough to hurt you.
The next year, in physics class, we learned about how carbon-14 dating, and other forms of radiometric dating, actually work. Imagine my surprise when I saw the same equation. It was immediately clear to me that radiometric dating must actually be pretty accurate. If scientists were wrong about the equations for radiometric dating, they’d also be wrong about the equations for radioisotope tests and treatment. Since these tests and treatments work as they are expected to, the equation must be reliable.
At this point, I realized that the earth really is 4.5 billion years old, and there has been plenty of time for evolution to occur. Others upthread have already explained how this happened.
daniel #392:
In what way is my choice of alias an argument relevant to anything?
Let’s not lose sight of the original reason this thread exists – you came here to defend the honour of Kent Hovind, only to find yourself amongst people only too keen to point out Hovind’s true nature to you. Yet you choose to continue to defend the man and what he stands for.
You’re a textbook case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome. You’re too clueless to realise just how clueless you are. You can start changing this by dropping the belligerent bloody-minded arrogance, and by paying attention to what people are patiently trying to explain to you.
And apparently I can’t post two links at a time, so here’s one of the relevant links from Wikipedia.
The use of radioisotopes in medicine
And FtB won’t let me post a link to the radiometric dating page on Wikipedia, for no apparent reason.
So I’m going to suggest that you go to Wikipedia and type in “radiometric dating”. The article explains everything much better than I can.
Emrysmyrddin #400 wrote:
“The last two words may offend you, pretty much the same as those who add on is only acceptable at this stage, as they are [claiming credit} for being on your side.”
Challenging. I’ll attempt a translation.
First of all, I think daniel is addressing someone specifically — probably either ariaflame,theophontes, or Nerd. The “two words” are “My Lord.” So we (might) get:
“Using the words “My Lord” will no doubt offend you so much there’s no hope you’ll deal fairly with me, since at this point the only words you’ll consider acceptable are those coming from the folks who keep piling on and pretending they’re so wonderful for being on your side.”
That was hard; I kept rewriting it. The “claiming credit” clause was particular tricky. It would be nice if daniel gave me some GOLD lights or something, because otherwise I won’t know how close I came.
daniel:
Who hasn’t done what before?
1) Do we know that CapeTownJunk is a dude? Oh, sorry Danny, you’re not sexist! You just assume that strangers on the ‘tubes are all guys. Gotcha.
2) If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that you appear to be the same age as CapeTownJunk, yes? Dude, your age appears to be about twelve-and-a-half. CTJ is a clear communicator. You? Not so much.
I did not wallow through 392 comments for you to leave me hanging like that!
Is it too early for a “greatest hits” compilation?
Yes, and ironically, I gave DH the fricking history of how we know the Earth is old right here. (Link.)
The response was:
Maths is not a strong suit, it appears. (DH, a hint: 4,500 million years?)
Okay, say what you will about “hacking” or whatevertefuck, but daniel’s facebook page is sooooooo funny!
Keep it up, Danny!
feralboy12: “Is it too early for a “greatest hits” compilation?”
Will there be a comeback tour? *scared*
Dear Daniel.
You’ve run out of the benefit of the doubt. I posted an invitation upthread to explain what you actually believe since you seemed pissed off that people were apparently misinterpreting you.
You have not.
You have instead continued to create posts that are incredibly hard for other people to understand whether you realize it or not. You have continued to act petulant about what people think you believe rather than say what you believe. You have continued to play the role of the martyr saying that we believe you are racist, sexist, and goddist rather than actually arguing your points. You have continued to attack the Tone of the argument rather than the substance. You have continued to angrily lob nonsensical Ad Hominems at other posters for being meanies. You have continued to fail to argue effectively through all of this.
To be honest I really didn’t think you’d actually make an argument, your views were either shot down long ago with evidence, links, and real science or those views were made so poorly noone but you can understand them. However I extended a courtesy to you. Since all you’ve done since is play the martyr please shut the hell up about how nasty and mean and troubling and painful this thread has been to you because you’ve shown pretty damn conclusively you don’t deserve real sympathy.
It’s cute of you to talk about how all these mean nasty people on the internet are causing you so much pain that your grandchildren will feel it, or that we should realize that “Nice” which rhymes with “Spice” (Took me a while to figure out what the heck you were on about) leads to a “Spectrum” of outcomes in an argument or whatever. No. You don’t deserve any nice because you chose to ignore the nice to bitch about how awful and oppressed you’re being by those people who think you’re sexist for sounding sexist and racist after not calling you a racist or a Goddist for coming to the defense of Kent fucking Hovind to talk about god. You want to stop those mean people on the internet? Grow thicker skin and start talking about what you actually really believe if we’ve got it wrong. And if we’re right about you being the simpering godbot with a broken language module then shut up.
danielhaven @ 394;
Frankly I don’t see the point. At no point in this thread or its predecessor have you suceeded in actally laying out your position in a clear or even coherent fashion. Many other commenters have explained the weaknesses in what you have said, and have sought to lay out the case for evolutionary theory. In the process they have repeatedly demonstrated the concepts of the Big Bang and abiogensis, and how both of those ideas are completely seperate from evolutionary theory itself, and yet you continue to conflate the concepts into an unintelligible malange – a straw-theory version of evolution that you still haven’t managed to argue against competently, all the while tone-trolling and complaining about imaginary persecution.
At this point, I can see little merit in rehashing a thread that is already 400 posts long. You are either unwilling or unable to approach these issues rationally, and we have other things to do with our lives than attempting to explain basic scientific and and mathematical concepts to you for the umpteenth time.
Sastra, you’re extremely impressive as a translator. I think there’s every chance you’ve come pretty close – chapeau!
dh, if Sastra’s translation is indeed close to your intended meaning, couldn’t you take it as an example and try to write as clearly as that?
feralboy12, the greatest hits compilation is at once hilarious and scary. Even taking into consideration that one or two of those were dh’s attempts to say something funny in a way he fondly imagines to be similar to the humour of others on the thread, what remains is still quite remarkably incoherent.
dh: instead of wandering around all over the place, could you just tell us (in sentences! pretty please!) what you believe in relation to abiogenesis and what you believe in relation to evolution (which is of course a separate issue) and why (i.e. on what grounds) do you believe it?
@danielhaven
OK..Ummm..No… that is not science.
Science 101
Science is a methodology used to explore reality based on two (2) basic principles:
1). Naturalism
a. the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
b. the belief that all phenomena are covered by natural laws and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value
2).Uniformitarianism
…the assumption ( for which there is ample evidence ) that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.And that they will continue to do so.
All science and scientists accept this …provisionally
Sastra @405:
Ahh, it’s the old ‘you’re all just drones in a hivemind!1!!’ gambit. Do these trolls not read their own bingo cards? If he’s going to be so unoriginal, this would be a lot easier if he would just recite the bingo square numbers.
feralboy12 @407:
O the memories! *wipes a tear* Perhaps he should try and reach a wider audience with this genius – possibly through iTunes? At £0.79p a time he could make… £0.79p. If Kent Hovind bought it.
changeablemoniker @410:
I skim-read this as scarred. I still consider my first reading of it accurate…!
Alan Mac #414 wrote:
I disagree. Science is not based on Naturalism. None of the methods of science require, up front, that some distinction be made between what is “natural” and what is “supernatural.” As you say, it’s a methodology used to explore reality — and that would, in theory, include the supernatural, if it exists.
Naturalism isn’t assumed by science. Instead, it’s recognized today as the most reasonable conclusion — a strongly supported working theory.
I know this might sound like nitpicking, but I think this point lies at the heart of the New Atheist vs. Accomodationist debate. If the scientific approach is based on an assumption of naturalism, then the supernatural is off-limits from scientific criticism. We can’t argue against it using objective tools. True, creationists are forbidden from putting their views into public schools because “it’s not science” — but the views of Dawkins, Coyne, and PZ are similarly hampered. Pointing out that the theory of evolution causes serious problems for the God hypothesis is not allowed.
Because, if your characterization of science is correct, then God is not a “hypothesis” and should not be treated as one. Its status of “supernatural” means it’s protected from having to conform to objective or rigorous standards. Naturalism then is a faith, impervious to correction. And supernaturalism is free to pick “other methods” which can be used to find and study it.
I don’t think it works that way. The supernatural — and teleological explanations — are being excluded for damn good reasons. Given what we have discovered and continue to discover about the universe, there’s no good reason to think they’re true and a lot of good reasons to think they’re not. Scientists didn’t wave them off because they’re not in the jurisdiction which science is, by definition, allowed to study because science is ‘based’ on the principle that naturalism is true.
On the face of it, your description sounds like it supports naturalism and throws out God but, upon examination, I think it does the opposite … and is generally used for just that purpose. To protect religion.
Not a month of Sundays is the disagreement about science and religion. Science and all encompassing fields are facts as they are Scientifically shown but attaching or splitting a theory does not make it fact. Not that it is difficult to baffle an idjit like me but splitting the theory????
You portray every Scientist as an evolutionist. Many times, when that Scientist follows his beliefs, you all are like a swarm of bees because you believe you are right.
Discussing Religion, there is about as little to talk about as discussing evolution. Yes, they both exist and obviously for a long while still.
Still gets us back to the beginning [not the middle].
danielhaven #417 wrote:
Okay…
Do you mean the theory of evolution has been split? I don’t understand.
I assume you are saying here that a scientist who follows his ‘belief’ that evolution is false will be attacked by people who think he is wrong — and this shouldn’t happen.
Why not? If his skepticism is based on evidence, then the scientist who is not an evolutionist should WANT his views taken seriously in the scientific community.
Sastra, my turn:
“Not a month of Sundays is the disagreement about science and religion.”
→
“The conflict between science and religion will not be resolved by argument.”
—
“Not that it is difficult to baffle an idjit like me but splitting the theory????”
→
“(I know you think I’m an idiot) because I am baffled: why do you make a distinction between evolution and abiogenesis?”
—
“You portray every Scientist as an evolutionist. Many times, when that Scientist follows his beliefs, you all are like a swarm of bees because you believe you are right.”
→
“Not all scientists accept biological evolution. When a scientist believes otherwise, you all gang up on them because you too accept your beliefs on faith.”
Shaka, when the walls fell.
Hm.
That last one is more ambiguous; it might instead be:
“Not all scientists accept biological evolution. When a scientist believes it, you all accept what they say because it accords with your own beliefs”.
Exactly. Science is there to be debated, and anyone professing doubt for scientific reasons should want to put those reasons to the sword of inquiry and see whether or not it holds.
But often the line of thinking that one doubts evolution for “scientific” reasons is little more than a religious belief masquerading as scientific. Philosopher William Lane Craig, for example, says that he doubts evolution for scientific reasons, yet these reasons aren’t something he’s ever put forward in the scientific pursuit of knowledge. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has dismissed the scientific standing of evolution as the “only game in town” for naturalism.
Daniel #417:
This is all about the disagreement between science and religion. The big bang, abiogenesis on Earth and evolution are generally regarded by scientists as the three major components that have led to humanity being where it is now. So, if religions are so concerned with truth, why aren’t they disbanding in the wake of science providing compelling evidence that they’ve been wrong all this time?
Science isn’t motivated by destroying religion – scientific endeavour is a search for knowledge and truth. It’s not science’s fault that humanity’s religions prefer to suppress knowledge and fabricate their own version of the truth. Religions know that science is their mortal enemy, because it threatens the foundations of their beliefs.
So, in keeping with Biblical tradition, they’ll send mixed messages. Take evolution, for example. On the one hand, they’ll fight evolution (and its implications) tooth and nail, but on the other hand they’ll claim that evolution is perfectly compatible with their beliefs. The end result: a religion’s followers get muddled by these mixed messages, and their ability to think rationally and logically gets stunted. In your case, all you can do is recite Hovindian dogma parrot-fashion.
No human deserves to be one of Kent Hovind’s parrots.
@ John Morales #419;
At first I thought you were quoting him, but those are probably interpretations, and you’re probably right — especially with the last, which is what I was assuming.
I thought his first comment was a denial that his objections has anything to do with religion. This seems to go against what he said earlier, and I’m skeptical anyway, but I was willing to drop it to see if we could get any further if we went very slowly, and very gently. Distractions don’t seem to …. be a good idea.
I don’t know about evolution/abiogenesis, though it’s a good guess. It is probably best to wait for daniel to explain, though.
And he probably doesn’t care for us talking about him as if he’s not reading this … poor dear.
Dear omnicrom
[Am I even allowd to address you as above without some -ist involved]
‘You’ve run out of the benefit of the doubt.’
I never was given a chance.
‘I posted an invitation’
I accept your invitation, excuse me for taking too long but when a whole bunch of people speak to you at the same time, I will try to answer asap. Sorry that it took this long.
‘You have not.’
My cards are on the table, your hacker buddies put it all out there. Mmmmm, then I’m told to shut up….The moronic caveman doesn’t even have to guess why.
From Daniels facebook wall:
Daniel Haven knows 日本語族.
February 4 at 6:16pm
Could japanese be his native tongue?
You know, that might be the first accurate statement DH has made. Revisiting his original post, I think his disagreement is “why are you picking on Kent Hovind, when there are more horrible crimes being committed”. (To my chagrin, I missed this earlier.)
DH, we all condemn child abuse. We also condemn wilful ignorance, stupidity, and arrogance. And we take a pretty dim view of statements like this:
No, Daniel. You put it there.
Right there where it says: danielhaven.
[meta]
danielhaven:
Psst: Y0|_| T()0 C@n 8E l_l83Я 1337 |-|@xOr, wItH t|-|3 s3©RE+ | WiLl RE\/3A|_ |_||\|t() Y3W: C|_i<|< o|\| y()µR NAM3 @t t}{E |-0|* ()F @|\|y ©O/\/\|\/|en|- yOU\'Ve P()$|-E|) Hə®E.
daniel:
No, you ignored the question.
Uh, what?
Look, Danny, I’ll break it down for you– you’ve signed in to comment on FtB through facebook. That means that every time you make a comment, your name (which is above the comment box) is a link to your facebook wall.
Don’t like us looking at your junk? Either create a login that isn’t connected to facebook OR you can set your facebook security options to “friends only”.
Complaining that we’ve read a link that you have (unwillingly or not) provided is, frankly, kind of dumb.
Oh wait…
You know, I actually wish I had hacker buddies. Watching the money transfer itself to my Cayman Islands bank account would be much more fun than my real job.
Ironically, my previous real jobs have including watching other people’s money being transferred to British Virgin Islands bank accounts. The amounts were demotivationally large. :-/
To CapeTownJ… [I just cannot add junk to the city]
It shows your appreciation.
You say that I am limited in my beliefs, It’s simple and I have stated my beliefs and been quoted. You enforce viewpoints that are totally inaccurate that I have to believe in every religion just because I believe.
The dumbest answer I can give you is that the sun revolves around the earth and that the earth is flat.
Posted before, parts of evolution theory/fact is now a defunct conversation.
You all brag about three but talk only about one. Even then, the insults are ludicrous. The conversation is about all your missing links, ie the other 2.
By the same token, no human should be Charles Darwin’s mole.
P.S. Totally anonymously, you made previous ascetations. What was your role during that period that 20 years later you have to place the guilt trip in this environment?
Hackers posting information from a public Facebook account?!?! Fuckin’ internets, how do they work?
… or more pointedly, “Fuckin’ communication and writing skills, how do they work?”
Daniel Haven,
This might help:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0En-_BVbGc
A bowl of fruit and vegetables decaying over a 74 day period. Done at one shot every 40 mins, played back at 30 frames per second. That’s a total of about 2,850 separate pics over a 74 day period. now the guy who shot this video might be lying to us. I mean have you ever really seen a bowl of fruits and veggies rot? I can leave an apple out and it will rot of course, but do you actually see it rot? No you see the results over time though. I can take my camera and run the same experiment. I can use an instrument to see what happened in the past though I wasn’t present to see it happen. It’s like hunting with a good tracker. Those guys see stuff.
That’s what scientists do. They use their hunting skills and their “cameras”(like radio-metric dating) to see into the past.
That’s all mate.
danielhaven: When you say “three”, do you mean the same three subjects summarized in #122 — i.e. the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution? Which one do you claim we are talking about to the exclusion of the other two?
Also, what are “ascetations” and who are you addressing in your postscript? If it’s changeable moniker, I don’t think he’s guilt tripping anyone, just describing a previous experience that’s tangentially relevant to the conversation.
(And Sastra @#384, surely you mean this one?)
danielhaven #433 wrote:
I think you mean this:
1.) evolution
2.) biogenesis
3.) the Big Bang (origin of the universe/everything)
You are willing to accept evolution; ok. But the other two are still problems.
If this is not what you mean, could you please explain it to me more clearly?
@ octopod #437
Might also fit.
No One
That video is fabulous!
Going back through the early posts on Sb, I think DH is trying to say that the benefits of morality from christianity are more important than scientific knowledge, and that science’s attempts to undermine christianity therefore cause harm.
Daniel, is that accurate?
To Dr Audy
Hacker was the polite for malicious intent.
I also posted a response to that and what you say is correct.
Read it, form an opinion and deal with the caveman.
There is not just a lack of being judged here [haven’t been chirped about my 29th language so far], but more about discussing the other 2 parts that allow evolution to work.
I have some humans as Charles Darwin’s moles in my garden. Sometimes the buggers become such an infestation and eat all my quantum tomatoes that I have to take out gravity magnets to control them.
[meta: “deal with the caveman”. So stolen!]
Waaaugh, that is not what “hacker” means. “Hacker” means “someone who does clever things with code and/or physical objects”, not “someone being mean using a computer”. But never mind that.
More interesting is the actual subject under discussion. When you say
do you mean to say that evolution does not “work” as an explanation for the presence of life on Earth without the “other 2 parts”, or do you think the explanation of evolution alone as given here is insufficient as an explanation for simply the diversity of life on earth? The reason I ask is because evolutionary biology alone is not intended as an explanation for the presence of the universe or for the presence of life in that universe, but only as an explanation for the variety of living things observed.
Once you clarify this we can probably actually talk about the subject. :-p
The problem with quantum tomatoes is that Casimir aphids just keep materialising on the outsides.
Trying to find coherence in danielhaven’s word salad is like try to build a stove made of pudding.
[meta]
Sastra,
I like things neat.
1.) evolution
2.) biogenesis
3.) cosmogenesis
John Morales #448 wrote:
Yes — but under the circumstances, better to keep it simple. No new terms.
(I’m off to dinner. Good luck)
pj #443
That made more sense than anything from danielhaven.
to changeable moniker
No, it is not correct and it can be discussed till….
I see a difference in beliefs but I do not see a separation of either group laying claim to maths, science, biology, etc.
Before it is said, “imaginery deity”, there is a reasonable split of people in those fields that allows a common ground.
The difference is not so much the subject and more on the interpretation yet the issue has become divisive.
It’s so close to English…
Therrin @ 420;
Now I think we all know how Picard felt…
By the way, I found this sniny new internets. I think it may belong to you.
OK, so you think that some scientists believe in God? (I don’t disagree. I’ve known some who do. I think they’re wrong.)
But then, why “debate” evolution? All the scientists-who-believe-in-God I’ve known wouldn’t question evolution. (Or the big bang. Maybe abiogenesis.) If you want “God” as “mystical force pervading the universe” and/or “the spark of life” on Earth, then fine. I think you’re wrong.
But on Sb you were saying things like:
The overwhelming evidence is that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
I think you’re being disingenuous, and that’s being charitable.
Crap! But I have come into this late. I’ve just absorbed most of yesterday and all this morning reading throught the comments on the old thread, only to come here and find another 432 to read (who knows what the final tally will be).
To the (I can’t remember your correct handle, sorry) South Afrians out there who are not the crazy creationist, Fear not, no one holds you responsible for their idiocies. After all, Ken Ham is Australian (albeit a queenslander), and I accept no responsibility for him or his poison.
Nice segue:
IslandBrewer says:
ROFLMAO
danielhaven:
If you “believe” in the faith sense that religious usually believe, then, no, you are not a scientist. If you are skeptical of unsupported statements, and rely on observation, evidence and aim to falsify your hypotheses, then yes you can possibly at least call yourself an adherent of scientific process.
Don’t use the inconsistencies of the English language to attempt to “prove” a baldly false statement in the scientific sense. You just end up showing how little you grasp not only science but also the language.
Secondly, the fact that your parent’s had sex is not directing vitriol at them. It is simply stating a fact. The probability is extremely high that they did, whether they are christian or not. The evidence is that you are here & are commenting. You have stated that you are not a test tube baby (based on the year you stated as your birth year) and as we accept that at face value, we conclude that (until evidence that contradicts comes along)your parents very likely had sex. The fact that you see this as being an insult to your parents would be very worrying to any sexual partners you may have, as you seem to see sex as a negative & something that is insulting.
Furthermore, your non sequiteurs regarding bestiality, child rape, and potatoes are just innane.
I can only admire the people who have actually attempted to take the time to educate you, when you clearly don’t wish to be educated. Not surprising though, as education is the enemy of religion.
This also ignores the fact that much science finds its way to people like you via popular media. When a paper is published in a peer reviewed publication, it will be stating findings based on the evidence. Very often the evidence is not complete and may be open to interpretation. Very often the authors will acknowledge the areas for more investigation. Then the popular media hears about it & rewrites it in different, more simplistic words & either completely changes the meaning of the findings, or claims a certainty that was never in the original paper. People like you then get hold of the media releases & can easily show that the headlines in the Sun or on some other NewsCorp tabloid apparently show science contradicting itself.
Apologies to all if the fact I have not read all 400 comments mean I have missed the marks with anything in my post.
Time to go and live
[meta]
#451 apparently expresses the belief that science and religion are compatible and both account for reality with equal merit — they’re just a matter of interpretation.
(Similar to believing that Kent Hovind’s interpretation what constitutes tax fraud has no less merit than the Court’s.
“If it’s just money the IRS wants, there are thousands of people out there who will help pay the money they want so I can go back out there and preach,” Hovind said)
—
(Could it be that some interpretations are less correct than others?)
Well, durrr. If you’d actually bothered to read the link I gave you here, that would be obvious. You think this is news?
(Of course, if you can’t spot a hyperlink in your own fricking nym, you might well miss one in a random blog comment.)
Danielhaven,
No, first there was the common purpose of the maths and sciences, but when the sciences began to discover enough it became clear that the idea of ‘god,’ especially in the Ahbramic sense, did not fit congruently with the picture of reality that began to emerge.
This picture of reality, as being explored and understood by using scientific methods, was universally recognized as truth until the findings of science began to contradict what religions believed true.
The split was fundamental and originated with the devout changing their acceptance of science as a source of reliable knowledge.
It is you that tried to hold on to the idea of a deity and caused a split, not us. It is not possible for your deities to exist or conform to reality, therefore your deities are not real and must be imaginary.
Can you tell me how science is right about finding most properties of nature, yet is suddenly incompetent when it disagrees with religion?
This is still going on? I commend the rest of you for your infinite patience.
JM: “some interpretations are less correct than others?”
Heh. PZ nailed it in the original Sb post:
Ms Daisy Cutter:
[Donna Tartt, The Secret History]
CapeTownJunk says:
3 March 2012 at 4:25 pm
Daniel #417:
QUOTE : Not a month of Sundays is the disagreement about science and religion.
This is all about the disagreement between science and religion. The big bang, abiogenesis on Earth and evolution are generally regarded by scientists as the three major components that have led to humanity being where it is now
changeable moniker says:
3 March 2012 at 4:47 pm
QUOTE : Not a month of Sundays is the disagreement about science and religion.
You know, that might be the first accurate statement DH has made. Revisiting his original post, I think his disagreement is “why are you picking on Kent Hovind, when there are more horrible crimes being committed”. (To my chagrin, I missed this earlier.)
I’m so glad you guys agree
octopod says:
3 March 2012 at 5:41 pm
danielhaven: When you say “three”, …
Also, what are “ascertations” and who are you addressing in your postscript? If it’s changeable moniker, I don’t think he’s guilt tripping anyone, just describing a previous experience that’s tangentially relevant to the conversation
I don’t think CM will be pleased about this. The person referred to knows and CM had nothing to do with it.
‘tangentially relevant’ – ?
What two parts? This is where you fall off all logic. Random mutation followed by natural selection. We have scientific evidence that they work. Where is your SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that they don’t? Remember, science is only refuted by more science, and you have presented absolutely zero science. Science, meaning papers from the peer reviewed scientific literature….
dNo there isn’t. There is the facts, and there are the delusions like your imaginary deity.
Nope, not the interpretation bullshit. Facts aren’t interpreted. They exist. Your imaginary deity doesn’t exist. It can’t be interpreted, just scoffed at.
[helpful]
‘ascertations’ are just like assertions, only with even more™ certitude.
<blockquote>stuff you are quoting</blockquote>
Easy!
You’re absolutely right. I’m mystified.
Is “the person referred to” CapeTownJunk?
I thought they were extra-Acerbic, due to having more Ascorbic Acid.
To catnip67
Wow, such a long educating lesson.
Gunning the crazy whatever-ist is so easy.
If you read some more you may have a mate out there.
To CM
Are you asking me or ‘octopod’?
???
This is hilariously appropriate! Godsmack – Whatever
Approaching 500 comments, and I still have no clue what danielhaven’s talking about. I would respond some other way, but confusion is the best I can do right now.
danielhaven, it would help if you kept your statements or questions short and about one subject at a time. To give an example, let’s suppose you want to ask something about the big bang. You could ask, “What are people talking about when they say the big bang happened?” If that’s the question and you actually want someone to attempt an answer, that is the type of question you should ask.
Keep it simple.
Do not bring up events which happened billions of year later, like the origin of life or its evolution (or other irrelevant topics), if you understand that the big bang isn’t about any of that. Ask questions about those separately, if you have any intention of finding out what my answer is (or anyone else’s), rather telling us what we think and getting it all wrong.
Since you don’t say anything other than drivel, reading your fuckwittery gets people nowhere. Now, if you wish us to consider your imaginary deity, either provide the conclusive physical evidence for one, or shut the fuck up about it. Which means all your fuckwitted “interpretation” bullshit which relies on your imaginary deity must be dropped. Time to fish or cut bait…
Well, we haven’t discussed it, but were we to, I’m sure we could agree on the fact that you can’t read for comprehension.
You. Is “the person referred to” CapeTownJunk?
Lord knows, I asked you enough direct questions on the Sb thread and didn’t get a single straight answer.
Let’s see if this yes/no question will evade your powers of response.
Yikes! There’s and “if we” loose in comment #473. Vets in Jeeps armed with tranquiliser darts are roaming the countryside, trying to return it to its proper place. Sorry.
Oh, FFS. s/\’s and/s an/.
[meta]
changeable moniker,
To be fair, its reading comprehension is far superior to its ability at expressing itself comprehensibly, and to be kind, I further grant that it must be exceedingly difficult to articulate one’s conceptualisations when they’re so ignorant, nebulous and incoherent.
In addition to everything else, DH may be color/colour blind.
Changeable Moniker: One person’s good time is another person’s motivation to drink heavily.
I did that already. That’s why I fucked up the regular expression in #476. :)
I’m waiting for a yes/no answer to #474. I’m not holding my breath.
[This post brought to you by Lindemann’s Bin 50 Shiraz. I approve.]
To Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says:
3 March 2012 at 7:05 pm
QUOTE :
What two parts? This is where you fall off all logic. Random mutation followed by natural selection. We have scientific evidence that they work.
This is really proving to be very difficult. Sometimes too many voices causes utter chaos, especially when the voices don’t correspond, [sing in harmony].
Three parts to why you are posting on this site and mentioned by others, not particularly in the right order. Evolution has been discussed. The big bang and abiogenesis are the two parts.
From all your postings, the proof is there and you know.
Please share that knowledge with a moronic caveman that needs enlightenment.
You know, reading that, I’m surprised that you don’t like Joyce. ;)
Unfortunately I’ve misplaced my danielhaven to English dictionary so I have no idea what DH is talking about.
Here’s a simpler question: Is “the person referred to” CapeTownJunk?
Yes or no. Please respond.
Parts of what? You are incoherent. Your deity is imaginary, and can’t be used to explain anything. More incoherence if you think otherwise…
To CM
It was not you that was referred to at all.
As said, the person will know and I hope it ends as none of that part is pleasant.
Till a response is received, can we just drop it?
The problem with Daniel is that even when he is close to coherent he still doesn’t make any sense.
Daniel, your problem is that you don’t understand that religion does not refute science. Only more science can do that. Science can’t refute religion either, but it can make it look silly if science shows the earth to be 4.5 billion years old, the universe a few time older, and religion can only whimper without evidence “6,000 years old”, as is the case you are trying to defend. And you can’t even put forward that case, you are so incoherent, and can’t prove your imaginary deity exists.
I’m reading the ‘three parts’ thing as Daniel still having the idea that cosmogenesis, abiogenesis and evolution are part of one all-encompassing theory.
They’re really not, we’re not making that up! They are three entirely separate and very different concepts, only related by the fact that they seem to fit the body of evidence we have managed to gather together so far through observation. Evolution, as something we can and do see, measure and track as it happens, is the hypothesis that we’ve managed to test into ‘theory’ status.
The other two, being difficult to verify due mainly to time restrictions, at least manage to be consistent with our current understanding and don’t conflict with any physical laws that we know about. Yet.
In short, we know evolution happens, and we think it’s -most likely- that cosmogenesis and abiogenesis happened. Certainly much more likely than wizardry, anyway.
Have you taken any time to read anything about the big bang or abiogenesis?
Why do you come here to ask random people on a blog to explain extremely complex scientific issues to you? Remember that you’re doing this only after people here show how idiotically and incoherently you’ve been misrepresenting them and confusing them with each other.
So, before I bother to waste my time to explain how we know the big bang happened, you’ll first have to know what the fuck I’m talking about and stop acting like a complete fucking idiot.
SIMPLE
The big bang ?
No, the medium one…
[OT]
For those who actually care but don’t know: Defining the Big Bang and The Big Bang for Beginners, both courtesy of Ethan Siegel at SB.
No, I won’t. Until you start making sense. (Which is likely never.)
You started this. I’m just bringing a knife to the stick fight.
It’s been discussed, but I’m not sure you’ve understood what’s been discussed. But we can move on from that.
OK. You want to understand more about the Big Bang, and about abiogenesis.
Remember, those are two distinct ideas. So, the first one first.
Cosmologists — scientists who study the universe, or cosmos, are very confident that there was a Big Bang. This is why, in very simple terms.
The universe is not static, or unchanging, at a very large scale. In fact, the universe can’t be static, because of gravity. Let’s say that the stars that we see in the galaxy, and in other galaxies, were simply scattered around in an otherwise empty universe. But since gravity is universal, those stars (or the galaxies composed of stars) should start to move towards each other, and we should see signs of that movement.
That isn’t what we see.
Instead, what we see is that the galaxies are all moving away from each other. Gravity still works the same (the stars inside of galaxies are still pulled toward each other), but something is causing all of the galaxies to move apart from each other despite gravity. That “something” is usually called “dark energy”.
But if all of the galaxies are moving away from each other now, then in the past, they were all much closer together. In the past, the universe was smaller, and hotter. And the “Big Bang” is what the universe going from very very small and getting larger is called.
Maybe you want to know what the evidence is for the universe being very very small and very hot is. Well, cosmologists have discovered that as well. When something that is hot expands, it cools down, and gives off energy (or radiation). And scientists have discovered the Cosmic Background radiation, which is exactly the temperature that would be expected if all the energy in the universe started from a single point and then expanded and cooled down.
There’s more to the Big Bang than that, but I don’t want to overdo it in one comment.
======
Now abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is currently a hypothesis. We know that life exists now. Life is made of chemicals; life can be considered as a very complicated chemical reaction. We find evidence that life existed in the distant past, but was much simpler, consisting only of single cells rather than as multicellular organisms. And before a certain point, we find no signs of life.
We know that life as we know it has certain requirements in order to work; in order for the chemical reactions that life uses to occur. This includes a certain range of temperatures, and liquid water. We know that that range of temperatures exists here, in Earth’s orbit.
Given all of the above, it is hypothesized that life originated, on Earth, a few billion years ago, in liquid water. Some chemical reactions occurred, and additional chemical reactions were affected by those reactions, and eventually, those chemical reactions became cells that could survive on their own, and reproduce by division (as all cells do now), and evolve.
Scientists don’t know exactly what the chemical reactions were, but they are investigating many different possibilities. That’s why abiogenesis is still called a hypothesis rather than a theory: it’s an explanation, based on facts, but it needs to be stronger and better-supported than it is now with more facts — since not all of the facts are yet known.
I quite enjoyed the bang lite. But that’s just me …
Yawn, still no evidence for your imaginary deity Daniel…If you can’t do that, you have no argument, as it doesn’t exist…
[OT + meta]
Ghey sex with Brownian is also a Big Bang.
(Or so I’ve heard)
huh, wasn’t there supposed to be a creationist in this thread?
All I see is a deep boot-heel print in the mud.
…
Oh.
nevermind.
to consciousness razor
…”extremely complex scientific issues”….
That gets explained at what level in the education system?
….”to explain how we know the big bang happened”…
Then can “we”/you just end the debate and explain it?