The Bathroom Wall

With any tavern, one can expect that certain things that get said are out-of-place. But there is one place where almost any saying or scribble can find a home: the bathroom wall. This is where random thoughts and oddments that don’t follow the other entries at the Panda’s Thumb wind up. As with most bathroom walls, expect to sort through a lot of oyster guts before you locate any pearls of wisdom.

32660 Comments

There is a God!

And he is a plumber. The Bathroom has been flushed.

Thank you Reed.

Great!

Course, that still leaves what happens when the new plumbing acquires a big drip…

Wait, what am I saying?

Ingeborg Esbrandt said:

Hey, nice post :) - well, even though I came via Google searching for “justfaces spreadshirt” wondering why this post came up on top??? Greetings xoxo

Spammer alert!

To make one point about the previous thread. John Kwok wrote:

“Sorry Jim, but your invocation of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy is not helpful here. Incidentally there are many Muslims and Muslim Americans who oppose its construction, simply because they recognize that building it near Ground Zero is needlessly offensive to the families of the victims and the survivors of the 9/11 attack. Some of the most prominent critics - who are Muslim Americans - include Wall Street businessman Mansoor Ijaz (who tried to assist the Clinton administration in extraditing Osama bin Laden from the Sudan) and former United States Navy officer Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.

[…]

If you are going to call Miss USA, a Muslim American, Rima Fakih, a bigot, then be my guest. Same is true for those two prominent Muslim Americans I had mentioned. Or other Muslim Americans who, like them, have spoken out against building the “Cordoba House” Islamic Center (Of course I am also against it, but am definitely not a bigot.).”

Unless YOU are a practicing Muslim your opposition to this cultural center is pure bigotry, so your saying that you’re “definitely not a bigot” is false. Your ruse of hiding behind the Muslim-Americans’ backs is the same as of the racists who think that using the n-word is OK because so many African-Americans use it. If you are a Muslim, well then, I find your views on the issue just silly, not bigoted.

Kris,

You can’t possibly know what I know.

mrg said:

DS said: Kris has certainly demonstrated that he doesn’t deserve anything more.

Actually, I was suggesting we all insult and abuse DH. If he wants to invite it, why not oblige?

We already tried that on Kris. You can only call someone an @$$hole, a bastard and crazy so many times before it gets tiresome. What’s the point of bashing me?

Kris has called me a liar for stating the obvious facts about him. We can all see what he has done, so why would he deny the stunts he has pulled? He is the one who invaded our space to attack the cause of the blog, yet he expects us to be tolerant and respectful of him no matter what he says? There is no law or principle I know that demands any such thing.

Kris said:

What you said about me is a complete lie. I didn’t start the insults and attacks. You and your asshole buddies here did. And trying to con FF with lies about me and that swill about respecting people you and they (“we”) don’t agree with is yet another one of your acts of deliberate dishonesty. You and most others here wouldn’t know what respect is if it hit you like a freight train going 60 miles per hour.

Since the statements you make about me are false, you’re a deliberate liar, according to your own standards for others. Of course your standards for yourself are completely different. How convenient for you.

The ONLY reason you and most others aren’t now viciously attacking FF is because she said she’s a woman. Even then, some of you have been pretty blunt to her, and especially rude before she said she’s a woman, even though she has been nice the whole time.

My questions to her are not an attack or a trap. They are sincere. You are grossly misrepresenting me and are just showing yourself to be the hypocritical, dishonest, delusional liar you are.

You are a seriously fucked up lunatic with delusions of godhood who needs a good ass kicking.

By the way, Mr. theological agnostic, unitarian, universalist, dis-honorable, bushido, liberal, un-scientific pseudo-skeptic, what are you going to add to or subtract from your self-created, self-serving, bogus religion tomorrow?

You just keep piling up your lies and hypocrisy Dale. You said “You do what you like, but I’m done with Kris for good.” yet you’re still bashing me and lying about me.

You also said you respect people with whom you disagree but then you say “I went after him anyway.” when you first saw me here. When I first came here I didn’t say anything that warranted you going after me.

Plus, you said you respect people with whom you disagree but then you say “I’d go after Ann Coulter if that bitch showed up here too.” So much for you respecting people you disagree with.

As usual the things you claim about yourself, and me, are false, which makes you a chronic LIAR, according to your standards for others.

You admit to slamming me a lot but of course you try to make it look like you’re a saint for doing so. Whether you or anyone else here ever accepts it or not, I’m just giving you and others shit back because you and/or they started it, either with me or someone else who didn’t or doesn’t deserve it.

I didn’t escalate the situation. You and your fellow, lying, arrogant hypocrites did.

It really cracks me up to see you guys acting exactly like some of the creationists you hate and condemn so much. You accuse and attack them for not listening and having closed minds, and for playing what you think are ridiculous games, but you do the same thing. Congratulations, you have become your enemy.

FODS

I haven’t lied about anything, you jackass! The simple fact is that you have invaded Panda’s Thumb and have been a disruptive force from the beginning and have played us like suckers. I’m not fooled by you and no one else is. Even if you were insulted by one or two people in the beginning, you could have ignored it and just responded to the ones who were being positive to you, like flowersfriend has been, but instead you started throwing shit at everyone who dared to reject your tactics. We insulted you because that seemed to be what you liked, but I get tired of that after a while. You don’t, appearantly.

If you seriously think you have made ANY positive contributions to this community here, you are even more delusional than most Creationists!

Dale Husband said: What’s the point of bashing me?

None whatsoever, but since any comments to a troll are going to produce nothing but bashing in response, that leads to what the point of the comments was.

John often fails to read for comprehension. A poor highschool education , no doubt.

Ghrom said:

To make one point about the previous thread. John Kwok wrote:

“Sorry Jim, but your invocation of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy is not helpful here. Incidentally there are many Muslims and Muslim Americans who oppose its construction, simply because they recognize that building it near Ground Zero is needlessly offensive to the families of the victims and the survivors of the 9/11 attack. Some of the most prominent critics - who are Muslim Americans - include Wall Street businessman Mansoor Ijaz (who tried to assist the Clinton administration in extraditing Osama bin Laden from the Sudan) and former United States Navy officer Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.

[…]

If you are going to call Miss USA, a Muslim American, Rima Fakih, a bigot, then be my guest. Same is true for those two prominent Muslim Americans I had mentioned. Or other Muslim Americans who, like them, have spoken out against building the “Cordoba House” Islamic Center (Of course I am also against it, but am definitely not a bigot.).”

Unless YOU are a practicing Muslim your opposition to this cultural center is pure bigotry, so your saying that you’re “definitely not a bigot” is false. Your ruse of hiding behind the Muslim-Americans’ backs is the same as of the racists who think that using the n-word is OK because so many African-Americans use it. If you are a Muslim, well then, I find your views on the issue just silly, not bigoted.

Malchus said: A poor highschool education , no doubt.

Oh Bob, I can hear the howls now: “Set phasers to SLAUGHTER!”

Kris said:

Mike Elzinga said:

With a troll’s profile ready at hand, and with sufficient discipline on the part of the regulars, that could be cut to zero.

Profile ready at hand? What exactly does that mean Mike? Ready for what or whom? Do you have printed profiles of all the people you’ve labeled as trolls and hand them out to passersby on street corners? Or, do you create a profile file in your computer containing your intricate and exhaustive (LMAO!) calculations and determinations about each alleged troll and somehow send a copy of it to everyone on Earth to warn them of impending doom? Or, do you only dispense it to other regulars here who are able to contact you personally and who request a copy because they let you do their thinking for them?

Or, do you just think that your stupid ‘profiles’ actually matter, when in reality they actually don’t? Do you really believe that what happens on this website, or your asinine profiles, or what you do with them, matters one iota to the vast majority of the people on Earth? Get over yourself Mike.

Hey, if you have my profile handy, why don’t you post it here? I could use a good laugh.

Your “profile” is a person who needs attention and does not even try to get it by behaving in any consistent or coherent fashion. You are a manipulative jerk who takes ANY response from others and uses it as an excuse to attack. You bash us for not being tolerant enough of Creationists, while stating Creationist fallacies yourself. Then you turn around and deny being religious and question why certain others who are Creationist take their religion so seriously. Such strange behavior is pathological in the extreme.

Gee, this website seems VERY important to you, considering how much time you spend here.

You are either crazy or a fraud, Kris.

The fun thing about the BW is that the trolls either have to cave in and respond on the BW – which they don’t want to do – or pass up responding – which they REALLY don’t want to do.

Kris said:

Whatever you do, don’t even consider that when people come here and sincerely want to ask, discuss, debate, learn, and/or contribute in some way, that when they’re mercilessly insulted and attacked and erroneously lumped into your hated group of ID/creationists, they just might not like it and may fight back, and especially when they offer reasonable explanations of their words and the explanations (and the person) are ignored, misinterpreted, misrepresented, slammed, bashed, and ridiculed by you and the rest of the mindless haters here. Yeah, don’t even consider that for a second. You and the other haters and bashers here are way too perfect to have to consider such things. It’s never your fault.

Your track record is too well known here for us to consider that you are sincere about anything. You are even WORSE than the average Creationist troll because you keep going back and forth between acting non-religious and acting like a Creationist. You cannot be both, so you must be bullshitting us. Nobody here can take that seriously.

Expressed violent thoughts a number of times?? Yeah Mike, I would thoroughly enjoy kicking your ass and the asses of anyone else who has called me a liar, but I haven’t “expressed violent thoughts a number of times” in the way you’re implying. You’re the one who needs a psychiatrist, along with some others here. If you’re considered sane, I’d rather be considered crazy. And comparing me or anyone else you simply don’t agree with to a serial killer just helps show how paranoid and delusional you are.

If you don’t like being called a liar, stop being one. At least I have ALWAYS told the truth about YOU.

DH, a very minor issue here: the first part you cited above was addressed to me, and personally I find it amusing to watch such comments fall into a hole of resounding silence.

However, as far as the rest goes, carry on.

mrg said:

DH, a very minor issue here: the first part you cited above was addressed to me, and personally I find it amusing to watch such comments fall into a hole of resounding silence.

However, as far as the rest goes, carry on.

Oh, did you want to answer him here first? Be my guest. But I figured I’d just make a note of ANY inappropriate thing Kris says elsewhere and post it here, answer it here, and wait for Kris to take the hint and stop attacking us everywhere else and just slam people here.

Dale Husband said: Oh, did you want to answer him here first? Be my guest.

Why would I want to do that? But if my own rejoinder is indifference, I can at least politely ask that the effect not be spoiled.

Kris threatens: “I would thoroughly enjoy kicking your ass and the asses of anyone else who has called me a liar,…”

Lotsa bluster; everybody’s collective asses are exposed right here.

Mike Elzinga said: … everybody’s collective asses are exposed right here.

AARGH! I am so outa here!

Kris said:

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said:

Serial killers are maybe a bit much of a comparison.

The point was the sociopathic needs of such an individual. This troll has expressed violent thoughts a number of times. But a psychiatrist would have a better handle on this that I.

I think people like attention; it’s just a question of what kind of attention. When I was the factory contact guy in my corporate life, a colleague in marketing told me that it was true I put up with a lot of abuse – I did – but added: “People thank you sometimes.”

And they did. I get thanks on occasion for my current efforts as well – not often, and maybe thanks aren’t the be-all and end-all of the effort … but on the other side of the coin, if nobody ever thanks me, what reason would I have to honestly believe what I was doing actually did anyone good?

Now take the negative mentalities that show up here … does anyone ever thank them for what they’re doing? It’s obvious it never happens, and just as obvious that they haven’t any expectation that it will.

They still want attention, and lacking any concept that they will ever be praised, they have no alternative but to be disruptive. If one cannot build, then they can only take satisfaction in destruction.

Yeah; you are pointing out common desires that nearly everyone has. But sociopaths also know this and manipulate these.

But I suspect most of us can simply walk away from these kinds of manipulations when we have other things to do that are satisfying; and I suspect most of the moderators here on PT do in fact have other things vying for their attention.

Hell, I’m retired and I can’t get through everything I want to get through in a week. The only reason I even show up here is that the PT topics are often very interesting, and I have a high speed connection that allows me to look in from time to time when I happen to be working on my computer. So most of the time I’m multitasking up a storm when I’m here.

Expressed violent thoughts a number of times?? Yeah Mike, I would thoroughly enjoy kicking your ass and the asses of anyone else who has called me a liar, but I haven’t “expressed violent thoughts a number of times” in the way you’re implying. You’re the one who needs a psychiatrist, along with some others here. If you’re considered sane, I’d rather be considered crazy. And comparing me or anyone else you simply don’t agree with to a serial killer just helps show how paranoid and delusional you are.

Whew! Glad I never called Kris a liar. I only called him a coward and a bully.

Mike Elzinga said: Lotsa bluster; everybody’s collective asses are exposed right here.

So it’s like “one of these days Alice, POW! To the mooning”?

Another collection of Kris’ delusional rants.

Kris said:

And of course your insulting comments, and the insulting comments by the other hypocrites here, don’t violate any of those rules you posted, eh?

Apparently, all that matters here is that any insults have to be aimed at creationists or anyone who doesn’t blindly and viciously attack them right along with you guys/gals.

Giving you back your own shit isn’t allowed. Questioning you isn’t allowed. Having a mind of my own isn’t allowed. Calling you on your bullshit isn’t allowed. Anything less than total devotion and obedience to you and your creationist hating ‘cause’ isn’t allowed. Hypocrisy, by you and your cohorts, is allowed, and encouraged.

Kris said:

And of course you and others going on and on about “trolls”, and repeatedly posting “DNFTT”, isn’t “SPAM”. Yeah, whatever.

Why do you think that a “dissenter” is automatically a “troll”? You’ve said you’re a Christian. Would your Christian God approve of your insulting, hypocritical, hateful behavior?

Kris said:

Maybe, just maybe the moderators are getting wise to the hypocrisy and other bullshit you and others are guilty of.

Now STFU spamming troll.

How do you like your own shit thrown back at you?

Panda’s Thumb is a blog made for defending evolution and promoting proper science education, and since Kris was the one who invaded the blog to spew both Creationist arguments that we were expected to “tolerate” (like we are supposed to tolerate falsehoods?) and then claim to be non-religious at other times, why shouldn’t we regard him as unwelcome, inconsistent and disruptive? Why shouldn’t we treat him like he is the enemy, when that’s all he has ever acted like since he arrived here?

An example of hypocrisy would be us invading and attacking ID promoters on Uncommon Descent. I’ve never done that, and never will. Maybe Kris can go over there and drive the ID people crazy for a while, to prove to us once and for all that he is an equal-opportunity critic, and not a bigoted Creationist concern troll.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/

Kris the creationist wrote:

“If, however, “descent with modification” is defined as showing that speciation (evolution) occurs and/or occurred, then that’s a different ballgame, and requires greater evidence. While a lot of evidence points to a persuasive probability that descent with modification, including divergence/speciation, occurred throughout(?) the history of life, there’s a lot more work to do to before it can reasonably be said that it has been established close to 100%, and I’m not sure it can be reasonably said that it can be established ‘empirically’. Many inferences have been and have to be made, and inferences are a matter of opinion.”

This is of course incorrect. I already posted a link to a web page entitled:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

If Kris wants to discuss the point, he can do so here. Maybe someone will want to discuss it with him. Unless of course he is just plain chicken shit.

DS said: Kris the creationist wrote:

You might just leave a short bland note on the original thread to invite him to come to the BW for discussion. He’ll ignore it, of course, but that works too.

Yawn.

(Bored.)

All the spamming at The Immune System Cross-examination Still Burns, and other forums, is very unChristlike, don’t you think?

Makes you wonder if these anti-science creation-supporters are Christians? (Never known a real creationist who wasn’t.)

It’s funny how trolls stubbornly resist being prodded to direct their comments to the BW. They know that once they do, they don’t have any real nuisance value any more: “What’s the point of trolling, then?”

Kris huffs and puffs and squeaks “What are you afraid of?” hiding behind his mommy’s apron. Afraid to mix it up on the big kid’s playground, he’ll sit in the sandbox and cry.

Poor widdle Kwis! Mean old scientists call you out on your stupid shit? Maybe if we ignore the little wanker he’ll go back into the closet and play with himself.

Geeze, I’m beginning to miss FL! I tell you, the neighborhood is going to hell.

I knew the asshole was chicken shit. All he haas to do is come here and provide a better explanation for the 29 different independent data sets that are all consistent with common descent. Until he does, I guess he will just be someone who believes in evolution but not in common descent. Yea right.

Everyone should remember, he had his chance to discuss science, he chose to quote mine and insult instead. He can cry all he wants to now, but everyone is wise to his crap.

ksplawn said:

Ugh, just jumped in to check on things and the first post out of the gate, FL is already calling everybody Nazis.

(Evolutionist = Gestapo on steroids.)

I know PT has some damn admirable tolerance for free debate and discussion.

But do we really have to put up with stuff like this, even on the Bathroom Wall? Especially from somebody who has proven, over many years, to be utterly devoid of any redeeming qualities as far as debate and discussions go?

Seemed like the yapping of some toy poodle to me.

Kinda hard to take seriously the yapping of tiny dogs and the rantings of ridiculous men.

Glen Davidson

Just seems like leaving it up there is sending the message that it’s acceptable.

A Masked Panda (ds_Q) said:

ksplawn said:

Ugh, just jumped in to check on things and the first post out of the gate, FL is already calling everybody Nazis.

(Evolutionist = Gestapo on steroids.)

I know PT has some damn admirable tolerance for free debate and discussion.

But do we really have to put up with stuff like this, even on the Bathroom Wall? Especially from somebody who has proven, over many years, to be utterly devoid of any redeeming qualities as far as debate and discussions go?

Seemed like the yapping of some toy poodle to me.

Kinda hard to take seriously the yapping of tiny dogs and the rantings of ridiculous men.

I concur with Masked. Such proofs of Godwin’s Law serve only for our amusement; no one should take them seriously.

david.starling.macmillan said:

A Masked Panda (ds_Q) said:

ksplawn said:

Ugh, just jumped in to check on things and the first post out of the gate, FL is already calling everybody Nazis.

(Evolutionist = Gestapo on steroids.)

I know PT has some damn admirable tolerance for free debate and discussion.

But do we really have to put up with stuff like this, even on the Bathroom Wall? Especially from somebody who has proven, over many years, to be utterly devoid of any redeeming qualities as far as debate and discussions go?

Seemed like the yapping of some toy poodle to me.

Kinda hard to take seriously the yapping of tiny dogs and the rantings of ridiculous men.

I concur with Masked. Such proofs of Godwin’s Law serve only for our amusement; no one should take them seriously.

I agree. Poor old Flawd is just flailing and twitching, grasping for another provocation. And he, like so many brain-dead commentators these days, reaches to the bottom of the barrel to dredge up the Nazis.

He really needs something because his strict biblical christian morality won’t let him curse. Nazis are the worst old Flawd can manage, dagnabbit.

FL said:

…you DO assume that the Bible is totally wrong on EVERY historical claim that would require a supernatural action; i.e, a miracle, to actually take place.

If a given Bible historical claim happends require a supernatural action to take place in actual history(the origin of the first humans for example), you simply assume that it never happened in actual history.

So you not only put on the sunglasses of the religion of materialism before going to the science table, you even put them on before going to the Bible study table.

And you do this every single time, for if you start making an allowance for even ONE supernatural historical claim, just ONE Bible miracle accepted as actual history, you then obligate yourself to explain why one supernatural miracle gets accepted as actual history while another gets rejected as actual history.

So you automatically assume that Jesus didn’t heal the man with the withered hand as actual history, because if you accepted that supernatural creation-ex-nihilo miracle from Jesus at the PERSONAL level, you could no longer explain why the same sort of supernatural, creation-ex-nihilo miracle shouldn’t be accepted at the PLANETARY level, and from the same historical Person to boot. (Col. 1:16).

I wanted to snip this for the sake of brevity, but it’s all just SO good.

Good because it so perfectly illustrates the fundamentalist worldview. Better than I did in my series. I should have enlisted your help, FL.

We call it fundamentalism (well, technically they gave themselves that moniker back with the publication of The Fundamentals in the early 19th century), but we really ought to call it Semiconductalism. Like semiconductors, they see everything in 1s and 0s. On or off. Black or white. Gospel truth or hellish lie.

Religious leaders want to be able to maintain control of their flock, to dictate doctrine and command obedience. So they invent the biggest false dichotomy ever: the notion that without strict, unyielding Biblical docetic literalism of the strongest kind, Christianity will fall to pieces. Unless all the sheep follow in perfect Himmler lockstep, the wolves will descend. They keep their followers trapped by fear: fear that without perfect adherence to the literal doctrines as handed down from the Authority’s interpretations, they will have no basis for faith and their world will fall apart and no one will have any reason not to rape and murder.

So of course FL will project his authoritarian presuppositionalism onto us. He truly believes it…and, what’s more, he has no other choice. His worldview, with all the “right” absolute propositions, requires that everyone else hold a perfectly-opposite worldview, one which functions in the exact same way but with all the “wrong” presuppositions.

One thing I wish I had emphasized more in my series was the value of counterexamples. Creationist rhetoric is awash with fallacies of the most egregious kind, to be sure, but ferretting them all out isn’t necessarily the best approach. One simple counterexample to their claim can accomplish instantly what weeks of debate might never be able to do.

So while there are numerous ways I could easily eviscerate FL’s tortured claim that “materialist” presuppositions prevent the consideration of “personal” miracles lest they pave the way to “planetary” miracles, I don’t need to. I can just point to the counterexample: me.

Meanwhile, Scott F said,

You see, the Scientist can admit, “I was wrong”. Science can admit that in the past it got something wrong.

On the contrary, the myth of “Self-Correcting Science” has long been debunked…especially when that “Science” happens to be the theory of evolution.

Biophysicist Cornelius Hunter explains what evolutionists resort to, when faced with a falsified evolution prediction:

In order to fix a false prediction the theory needs to be adjusted so that it no longer makes the false prediction. So for geocentrism the false predictions were corrected by having the planets and other objects travel in very complicated patterns, involving epicycles. In fact, using epicycles the model became very accurate, and before Kepler and Newton there was no physical reason to think that objects in the sky could not move in such patterns. But the model became highly complex – it is a great illustration of the tradeoff that often occurs between the complexity and the accuracy of a scientific theory.

You can always maintain accuracy by adding more complexity to the explanation, but then the question arises: is the explanation a description of the way nature really works, or just a description of the observables? This is a key distinction in the philosophy of science, and geocentrism is a good example of a theory with very high accuracy that was merely describing the observables, rather than nature itself.

What I think is actually more interesting than evolution’s false predictions are the reactions to those false predictions, and the incredibly complex additions to the theory that were required. Like geocentrism, evolution has a large number of epicycles. For instance, dramatic similarities are sometimes found in otherwise distant species. The eye of the squid and the human, for example, are incredibly similar. Such design convergence is rampant in biology, in spite of the evolutionary expectation. Evolutionists explain convergences as arising from similar environmental pressures.

But it has always been absolutely fundamental to the theory of evolution that biological variation be blind, not responsive, to environmental pressures. Natural selection works according to the environmental pressures, but selection only works on pre-existing designs. The idea that the incredibly similar complexity of the eye just happened to arise twice independently – in very different environments – is an excellent example of an epicycle.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/0[…]n021311.html

****

And the debunking has taken place in other scientific arenas as well, as this 2012 article in The Atlantic clearly exemplifies:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a[…]ence/266228/

Therefore the cultural myth of “Self-Correcting Science” is simply a debunked and falsified myth.

FL

FL said:

Therefore the cultural myth of “Self-Correcting Science” is simply a debunked and falsified myth.

Sure, Flawd. Uh huh. Right.

FL said: The myth of “Self-Correcting Science” has long been debunked…especially when that “Science” happens to be the theory of evolution.

Biophysicist Cornelius Hunter explains what evolutionists resort to, when faced with a falsified evolution prediction:

In order to fix a false prediction the theory needs to be adjusted so that it no longer makes the false prediction. So for geocentrism the false predictions were corrected by having the planets and other objects travel in very complicated patterns, involving epicycles. In fact, using epicycles the model became very accurate, and before Kepler and Newton there was no physical reason to think that objects in the sky could not move in such patterns. But the model became highly complex – it is a great illustration of the tradeoff that often occurs between the complexity and the accuracy of a scientific theory.

Oooo-kay.

I’m not even sure where to start with this one, FL, but your big argument is that science isn’t self-correcting because explanations self-protectively get more contrived, and to illustrate it you talk about the gyrations that generations of astronomers went through to reconcile the heavens with the religious anchor concept of geocentrism.

A concept that was soundly debunked and, well, self corrected when careful measurement by other scientists indisputably demonstrated a much simpler model, free of contrivance, was actually at play.

Even for you, FL, this is nonsensical, and that’s saying a lot. Apparently you, at least, are still capable of topping yourself.

FL said:

And the debunking has taken place in other scientific arenas as well, as this 2012 article in The Atlantic clearly exemplifies:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a[…]ence/266228/

Therefore the cultural myth of “Self-Correcting Science” is simply a debunked and falsified myth.

Um… and just how do we know that the initial research was wrong if other scientists didn’t try to replicate the results, thereby double-checking and, oh, what’s the term?… Oh yes, self correcting the answers?

I’m fascinated though, FL. I read the Atlantic’s Website fairly regularly. How is it that you can find this one article about the shortcomings of some obscure published research, yet somehow the regular drumbeat of Atlantic articles about the excess motivated by religion seem lost on you?

david.starling.macmillan said: We call it fundamentalism (well, technically they gave themselves that moniker back with the publication of The Fundamentals in the early 19th century),

“The Fundamentals” were published in the early 20th century.

FL said: (Evolutionist = Gestapo on steroids.)

This only trivializes the evil that the Nazis were. “On steroids”, indeed. An apology is due to the victims of the real Gestapo.

david.starling.macmillan said:

FL said:

I’m willing and able to explain to FL how Christianity can exist apart from penal substitionary atonement.

Then please do that, yes? Thanks in advance.

I’ll just assume, for the sake of argument, that there’s a part of you which is actively curious, actively wishes to know, and would be genuinely interested. This, despite all the interactions with you which would tend to prove the contrary. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

What is justice? Our base instincts – our sin nature, if you want to use your stereotypical jargon – tells us that justice is synonymous with retribution. Punishment. Revenge. The law is just because it exacts vengeance on the wrongdoer. Fault for fault, slight for slight, violence for violence. An eye for an eye.

Our nature says that unless the evildoer suffers in proportion to the suffering he has visited on others, justice will not be “satisfied”. Impersonal, unyielding, vengeful, justice stands apart, demanding its scale be balanced by violence.

We make violence out to be redemptive. I confess I have a particular weakness for superhero films, but they illustrate this part of our culture pretty perfectly. Violence solves everything in the end. The bad guy gets punched, beaten, drowned, shot, or blown up, and we know that all is right in the world once again. That is our view of justice, our dearest god, fashioned after our own image. We worship vengeance and play the role of our own Accuser.

And where does Jesus come into all of this? Well, we make out his story to be something we like, something we’re comfortable with. Jesus wanted to save us, but had to satisfy Justice, so he got himself killed in our place, and that makes everything right. Violence redeems: we no longer owe anything to Justice. It’s simple and we like it, because it matches our nature. We don’t have to change anything, really; we just switch our allegiance from Justice to Religion and keep doing all the same things.

But God said – before Jesus and through Jesus – that true justice is something else. Something different. Justice is not about fear and punishment and retribution, but about forgiveness and restoration and peace. Justice liberates captives, ends oppression, replaces hatred with love. Justice lays down its rights so that someone else may live free.

“He who would save his life will lose it; he who loses his life will surely find it. He who would come after me must take up his cross daily and follow.”

Those passages make us uncomfortable, so we make them out to be something different, like “Oh, that’s talking about martyrdom” or “Oh, that’s about how hard it is to follow God sometimes.” Sure. No, those passages mean what they say: if you want to follow the Gospel, you have to give up your rights and lay down your life. Lay aside your demands for retributive, punitive justice and begin working toward redemptive, restorative, reconciliatory justice.

The problem is, God can forgive us all day long, but that’s not going to get us to lay down our rights of our own accord. That’s not going to make us treat others with any more respect, any more love, any more compassion. We are the wicked servant who, when his master had forgiven him ten thousand talents, refused to forgive his neighbor a hundred denarii.

And that’s why Jesus had to die. Not just to show us the way, but to prove to us that his words were life: that peace was stronger than violence, that reconciliation was better than retribution, that punishment could not stand up to forgiveness. That hate kills and love saves. The cross was where our punitive, violent justice – all of our sin and hatred meted out in condemnation against Jesus – met God’s forgiving, reconciling, restoring justice…and love won. The power of death was broken and Jesus came back to life.

That’s what Christianity actually is, FL. It’s not something you can package up in a neat little bundle with truisms about “justice” and “paying your fine”; it’s too big for that. It’s why the injustice of the cross and the forgiveness spoken by Jesus bring people to repentance and love. They don’t need a slick package; they need the truth. They need a justice that restores, not one that condemns.

Chew on that. If you can.

Nicely stated. I expect that FL will come back with an extremely long-winded argument about why he thinks you’re wrong, rather than addressing the question people have actually been interested in: does FL believe that someone who holds an incorrect belief about the nature of the Atonement can truly be a Christian? Or were the early church fathers and are most people who claim to be Christian today actually not Christian?

OK, that is seriously cool.

I have to admit, I’ve always been fascinated with the Mars probes, in fact, I think I might just owe a good chunk of my engineering career to them.

One of my earliest memories is being a young boy back in ‘76 when the Viking rovers landed on Mars. The first rover touched down very early in the morning on the east coast and the networks covered it live.

I remember sneaking downstairs and sitting in front of the TV at 5AM as the first slow-scan pictures came in from Viking I. IIRC it took about 25 minutes for the first image to fully scan, as it slowly assembled itself at about fingertip-tracing speed on the TV.

I was fascinated, not because of Mars per se, but I was fascinated that mere mortals could build a machine to go all the way there and send pictures back.

I realized that I was a mere mortal, and therefore by extension that meant I could do things like this. At that moment I think I had my first “I wanna be an engineer and do this kind of shit” moment.

While I know it never does much good to point out the fallacies in the arguments quoted by FL, it’s at least a useful exercise in understanding creationism.

FL said:

Biophysicist Cornelius Hunter explains what evolutionists resort to, when faced with a falsified evolution prediction:

Like geocentrism, evolution has a large number of epicycles. For instance, dramatic similarities are sometimes found in otherwise distant species. The eye of the squid and the human, for example, are incredibly similar. Such design convergence is rampant in biology, in spite of the evolutionary expectation.

And this is where Hunter is simply talking out of his derriere. Evolution does not predict that design convergence won’t happen. Creationists like to pretend it will, but it won’t.

Instead, the theory of evolution predicts that design convergence will happen in unconnected lineages, and designs will often converge to as close a level of similarity as selection pressure will allow for…BUT that the paths taken will be wildly different, and the underlying genetic structure disparate.

And that’s what we see. Physical similarity in unconnected lineages is undergirded by completely different genetic pathways, indicating convergence. Physical similarity in connected lineages has matching genetic pathways, indicating common ancestry. All the creationists need to do is find matching genetic pathways in unconnected lineages, and they’ll have falsified a major part of our understanding of biology. But instead, they’d rather set up strawmen, shout “see evolution wouldn’t predict this” (even though it actually does) and then offer their own ad hoc imaginings in its stead.

It’s a lovely catch-22, of course. Whenever science does self-correct, the creationists immediately jump on the “see, it’s changing all the time, look how unreliable” bandwagon.

I had one respected PhD creationist insist to me that “evolutionary morphology” had originally predicted a gliding-lizard origin for bird flight, but that genetics had revised it to the theropod ancestry hypothesis. Which is complete bunk. But anything to insert just a little doubt.

They don’t understand that they can’t have it both ways. They don’t want science to be self-correcting, but they want to say it changes constantly.

Very similar to Republican politicians. The rational person would say, “Hey, I was wrong and I changed my mind based on new things that I’ve learned.” In contrast, the Republican politician (or Christian apologist) simply says, “Hey, I never said that. I’ve always believed that minorities should have equal rights. I’ve never believed otherwise.”

Yeah, tell me another one. Go ahead, pull the other finger.

This bullshit again? Do I really have to bring up which party Lincoln belonged to, who opposed the Civil Rights Act, who kept electing KKK leaders, who passed the Jim Crow laws, and who blocked minorities from their primaries?

eric said:

FL said: there are major differences between what the Pandas call “slavery” and the actual system given by Mosaic regulations

Um, no. We call the system give by Mosiac regulations slavery. It’s YOU, FL, and nobody else, who is limiting their definition of “slavery” to the system used by the US in the 1800s.

regulations consistent with a gradual plan by God to eliminate slavery worldwide.

I agree your God’s decrees about slavery change gradually over time. I think that’s evil. In fact, the US civil war was, in part, fought over this point, because the Republicans refused to agree to the Democrats’ plan for gradual elimination of slavery. Had they agreed, we may not have fought a war.

God’s freedom plan in a sinful world of slaveries (more than one system) was gradual but quite effective.

Gradual is evil, when as God he could’ve just said “thou shalt not keep slaves, nor tolerate slavery within your borders by others.” Or how about “thou shalt not tolerate a slavemaster to live.” That’s much better than telling people to kill witches, which resulted in many deaths of innocent women over the centuries (and still does).

Really,the Republicans blocked a Democrat plan to phase out slavery? I find this highly unlikely, given that the administration was Republican and the South was firmly Democrat. Do you have any cites for that claim?

KlausH said:

Very similar to Republican politicians. The rational person would say, “Hey, I was wrong and I changed my mind based on new things that I’ve learned.” In contrast, the Republican politician (or Christian apologist) simply says, “Hey, I never said that. I’ve always believed that minorities should have equal rights. I’ve never believed otherwise.”

Yeah, tell me another one. Go ahead, pull the other finger.

This bullshit again? Do I really have to bring up which party Lincoln belonged to, who opposed the Civil Rights Act, who kept electing KKK leaders, who passed the Jim Crow laws, and who blocked minorities from their primaries?

Yes, it is a matter of historical fact that there have been, in the past, times when the GOP was more supportive of civil rights than the Democratic Party. Do you think that now—the year 2014—is one such time, KlausH? I don’t. I think the contemporary GOP has collectively gone batshit fucking insane. If you want to talk about past times when the GOP had not yet made itself into the deranged creature of plutocrats, Teabaggers, and wannabe theocrats that it is today, hey, have a blast. Myself, I’d rather talk about how to drag the contemporary GOP back from the abyss, because it would be nice if the US had a major political party that stands for those particular bits of the GOP agenda that are actually sane, and, at the same time, doesn’t go for the psychotic freakshow weirdness exemplified by the likes of Sarah Palin.

xubist said:

KlausH said:

Very similar to Republican politicians. The rational person would say, “Hey, I was wrong and I changed my mind based on new things that I’ve learned.” In contrast, the Republican politician (or Christian apologist) simply says, “Hey, I never said that. I’ve always believed that minorities should have equal rights. I’ve never believed otherwise.”

Yeah, tell me another one. Go ahead, pull the other finger.

This bullshit again? Do I really have to bring up which party Lincoln belonged to, who opposed the Civil Rights Act, who kept electing KKK leaders, who passed the Jim Crow laws, and who blocked minorities from their primaries?

Yes, it is a matter of historical fact that there have been, in the past, times when the GOP was more supportive of civil rights than the Democratic Party. Do you think that now—the year 2014—is one such time, KlausH? I don’t. I think the contemporary GOP has collectively gone batshit fucking insane. If you want to talk about past times when the GOP had not yet made itself into the deranged creature of plutocrats, Teabaggers, and wannabe theocrats that it is today, hey, have a blast. Myself, I’d rather talk about how to drag the contemporary GOP back from the abyss, because it would be nice if the US had a major political party that stands for those particular bits of the GOP agenda that are actually sane, and, at the same time, doesn’t go for the psychotic freakshow weirdness exemplified by the likes of Sarah Palin.

Ok, please give some actual examples of racism by the contemporary Republican party. Palin is largely criticized for things she never said. I can give many examples of blatant racism, including racial slurs, by Democrat leaders. The only thing that changed, race relations wise, with the Democrat party is that, around 1970, they discovered that the could get away with lying their asses off about racism. The most common tactic is lying about Republicans. It is the Democrats who falsely accuse all who oppose them as racist. It is the Democrats who are against treating people as individuals and according to their own merits. It is the Democrats who are violently opposed to a “colorblind society”. It is Democrats who spew racial hatred against prominent black individuals who do not obey their “leadership”.

stevaroni said: Oooo-kay.

I’m not even sure where to start with this one, FL…

Oh, that one’s easy.

1) It’s yet another appeal to authority.

2) The authority is Cornelius Hunter.

Leave a comment

About this Archive

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter