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.

44035 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.

I said wrong:

-. I am really wanting somebody to interpret Darwin at this next statement above.

Because I have been hitting myself on the head trying to comprehend what is it that everybody is reading, and if they really understand Darwin?

I repeat, I do not believe in the God of the Bible.

It should say:

-. I really want somebody to interpret Darwin at this next statement above.

Because I have been hitting myself on the head trying to comprehend what is it that everybody is reading, and if they really understand Darwin?

I repeat, I do not believe in the God of the Bible.

verne_julius1 said: .Darwin says things like to trick into believing? Am I wrong?

You are wrong. Darwin never says ‘trick into believing’ in the OOS. The word ‘trick’ only occurs three times in the entire book; once when talking about dog breeding and twice when talking about insect camouflage and mimicry.

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling 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.

-. I am really wanting somebody to interpret Darwin at this next statement above.

He’s being very literal. He’s saying that all the various living species you might see on a tangled bank are the product of just a few evolutionary concepts. I.e., things reproduce with modification, and natural selection acts on them. Second, he thinks there is grandeur in the fact that such a great variety (endless forms) of beautiful and remarkable creatures have all evolved from a much smaller number (few forms or one) of simpler organisms.

Because I have been hitting myself on the head trying to comprehend what is it that everybody is reading, and if they really understand Darwin?

Millions of people understand this paragraph. Millions also enjoy Shakespeare, another author whose writing seems to confuse you. So yes, I think “they” really understand Darwin and Shakespeare, while your English reading comprehension skills are not (yet) up to the challenge.

verne_julius1 said:

Charles Darwin - Origin of Species CHAPTER VII. MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION.

Longevity–Modifications not necessarily simultaneous–Modifications apparently of no direct service–Progressive development–Characters of small functional importance, the most constant–Supposed incompetence of natural selection to account for the incipient stages of useful structures–Causes which interfere with the acquisition through natural selection of useful structures–Gradations of structure with changed functions–Widely different organs in members of the same class, developed from one and the same source–Reasons for disbelieving in great and abrupt modifications.

“He who believes that some ancient form was transformed suddenly through an internal force or tendency into, for instance, one furnished with wings, will be almost compelled to assume, in opposition to all analogy, that many individuals varied simultaneously. It cannot be denied that such abrupt and great changes of structure are widely different from those which most species apparently have undergone. He will further be compelled to believe that many structures beautifully adapted to all the other parts of the same creature and to the surrounding conditions, have been suddenly produced; and of such complex and wonderful co-adaptations, he will not be able to assign a shadow of an explanation. He will be forced to admit that these great and sudden transformations have left no trace of their action on the embryo. To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of science.”

-.Darwin says things like to trick into believing? Am I wrong?

CHAPTER XIII. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION–continued.

Distribution of fresh-water productions–On the inhabitants of oceanic islands–Absence of Batrachians and of terrestrial Mammals–On the relation of the inhabitants of islands to those of the nearest mainland–On colonisation from the nearest source with subsequent modification–Summary of the last and present chapters.

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling 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.

-. I am really wanting somebody to interpret Darwin at this next statement above.

Because I have been hitting myself on the head trying to comprehend what is it that everybody is reading, and if they really understand Darwin?

I repeat, I do not believe in the God of the Bible.

*

Please somebody interpret Darwin about the above paragraph’s! I also suffer from English and understanding it!

Tarred with the Epithet Loony: An Intermittent Series

I remember I got challenged to debate one time by the American Atheists Association [sic]. They called me — not they, but a news guy called — and said, hey, American Atheists Association wants to debate you. Will you debate ’em? And I said, “Well, here’s the ground rules. If I debate them, I get 92% of the time.” He said, “That’s not fair!”

I said, “Well, wait a minute.” I said, “92% of the nation believes in God. 6% doesn’t. 2%’s undecided. Now, if I debate them and they get 50% of the time, they now get eight times more than what they’ve earned. They’ve earned 6% of the time. My side has 92%–I’m not gonna give away my 92% to go down to their 50%. And so that’s the way policy works in America, is the majority gets to rule.

David Barton

phhht said:

Tarred with the Epithet Loony: An Intermittent Series

I remember I got challenged to debate one time by the American Atheists Association [sic]. They called me — not they, but a news guy called — and said, hey, American Atheists Association wants to debate you. Will you debate ’em? And I said, “Well, here’s the ground rules. If I debate them, I get 92% of the time.” He said, “That’s not fair!”

I said, “Well, wait a minute.” I said, “92% of the nation believes in God. 6% doesn’t. 2%’s undecided. Now, if I debate them and they get 50% of the time, they now get eight times more than what they’ve earned. They’ve earned 6% of the time. My side has 92%–I’m not gonna give away my 92% to go down to their 50%. And so that’s the way policy works in America, is the majority gets to rule.

David Barton

Yeah, that was amusing. And as Hemant points out, he’s still wrong - the percent is more like 70%.

But hey, if we’re going to use logic like that, then I say you have a 12 hour debate, starting at 9am, give Barton the first 11 hours and 32 minutes, and then give the atheists the last 28 minutes. After all, atheists are last in terms of political representation, so it only makes sense to make them last to speak. Amiright or amiright?

For the so savvy PandaThumb “scientists”! And for Richard Dawkins

A up to date story on LUCA!

www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/science/last-universal-ancestor.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

“…From Dr. Martin’s data, it is clear that Luca could manage the complicated task of synthesizing proteins. So it seems unlikely that it could not also synthesize simpler components, even though the genes for doing so have not yet been detected, said Steven A. Benner of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution. “It’s like saying you can build a 747 but can’t refine iron.”

Dr. Sutherland too gave little credence to the argument that Luca might lie in some gray transition zone between nonlife and life just because it depended on its environment for some essential components. “It’s like saying I’m half alive because I depend on my local supermarket.”

Dr. Sutherland and others have no quarrel with Luca’s being traced back to deep sea vents. But that does not mean life originated there, they say. Life could have originated anywhere and later been confined to a deep sea environment because of some catastrophic event like the Late Heavy Bombardment, which occurred 4 billion to 3.8 billion years ago. This was a rain of meteorites that crashed into Earth with such force that the oceans were boiled off into an incandescent mist.

Life is so complex it seems to need many millions of years to evolve. Yet evidence for the earliest life dates to 3.8 billion years ago, as if it emerged almost the minute the bombardment ceased. A refuge in the deep ocean during the bombardment would allow a longer period in which life could have evolved. But chemists like Dr. Sutherland say they are uneasy about getting prebiotic chemistry to work in an ocean, which powerfully dilutes chemical components before they can assemble into the complex molecules of life…” -

- …Me seems life is more complex than believed!

“Yet evidence for the earliest life dates to 3.8 billion years ago, as if it emerged almost the minute the bombardment ceased.”

Don’t take that too literally. When we’re talking about about a period of 3.8 billion years (three thousand eight hundred million years), a delay of, say, 50 million years counts as “almost the minute”. And the meteoric bombardment, of course, didn’t “cease” overnight, but would have tapered off over millions of years (and is actually still tapering).

Just Bob said:

“Yet evidence for the earliest life dates to 3.8 billion years ago, as if it emerged almost the minute the bombardment ceased.”

Don’t take that too literally. When we’re talking about about a period of 3.8 billion years (three thousand eight hundred million years), a delay of, say, 50 million years counts as “almost the minute”. And the meteoric bombardment, of course, didn’t “cease” overnight, but would have tapered off over millions of years (and is actually still tapering).

Bro. 1/50,000,000 is not as if “almost the minute”!

3,800,000,000 / 50,000,000 = 76

At least divide the pie chart into a 100millionths 1/100,000,000 = 3.8

3.8 years could be as the minute, or 76 years I suppose might be pushing it.

But Evolution needs 1,000nds of years, or millions for each “event” of species?

So 3,800,000,000 / A = 1,000 ; 3,800,000,000/3,800,000 = 1,000 .

Suppose 1,000 years is your “evolution minute”. 50 million years is much more than your 76 minutes…!

…me thinks you need more time for everything to happen under your premises!

How many years on average does each specific species event take from life formation, in your Evolution studies ?

George, are you also julius? That’s a no-no. just sayin’.

Oh gosh no! Just felt some affinity with Julius and not exactly with you guys!

List of unsolved problems in philosophy From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_[…]n_philosophy

…Mind–body problem; …Cognition and AI; Hard problem of consciousness

The hard problem of consciousness is the question of what consciousness is and why we have consciousness as opposed to being philosophical zombies. The adjective “hard” is to contrast with the “easy” consciousness problems, which seek to explain the mechanisms of consciousness (“why” versus “how,” or final cause versus efficient cause). The hard problem of consciousness is questioning whether all beings undergo an experience of consciousness rather than questioning the neurological makeup of beings.

Etc.

Yawn!

Was anybody calling me for something?

I was in bed sleeping, and not on the floor.

Oh crisakes!

Consciousness?

Well imagine it, I thought consciousness was a mere word. And you can study it as a Thesis for a PhD degree!

I wonder where Biology Evolution, missed all the components in question in a Humanoid or their brains?

Does anyone else wonder if those two understand each other?

我不明白

Wǒ bù míngbái

*

Я не понимаю

YA ne ponimayu

bleet, blimp, bungggggg…

Just Bob said:

Does anyone else wonder if those two understand each other?

they clearly aren’t interested in a discussion. If they were, they would stick to a single topic and ask a specific question.

What they are doing is spraying a variety of different topics and comments. Verne is just highlighting the fact he is a troll.

George, we’ll have to wait and see, it depends on whether he actually sticks to a topic or jumps around. At the moment, he seems to be on an “argument from ignorance” line. You can’t explain this particular piece, therefore whatever he thinks. This is a known logical fallacy. I’ll give a version of the example i’ve given FL many times.

The teacher asks the class “whats 2 + 2?”

FL replies excitedly “five”.

Johnny replies “three”.

Bob replies “i don’t know”.

The teacher replies “Well, Bobby, you aren’t right and neither are you Johnny”.

FL starts jumping up and down saying “i’m right, I’m right”

The teacher replies again “ Sorry FL, you aren’t right either, you all got it wrong”

Showing someone else’s argument is wrong, only shows their argument is wrong, it doesn’t show yours is correct. The same goes for showing someone else doesn’t know, it only shows that they don’t know, not that you are correct.

There is only one way to show your argument is correct, and that is to prove it’s correct.

It is possible to do this by excluding all other possibilities, but this requires proving that the possible alternatives are restricted to a certain set of possibilities and that all the other alternatives are not possible.

Oh and if you want to highlight all the different things science doesn’t know or understand, we’ll be here for a long time. If we knew and understood everything, every scientist would be out of a job!

***

Verne and George,

if you want to learn, there are many very knowledgeable people on this site, if you ask a specific question with genuine interest, you have a good chance of getting a very knowledgeable answer from someone who is willing to explain it. just don’t start with asking 50 different questions. Stick to one, then move on once it’s been discussed. Also try and be specific about what you don’t understand and what your question is.

Just Bob said:

Does anyone else wonder if those two understand each other?

After reading their output, I feel the need for a Bathroom Wall’s Bathroom Wall.

Just Bob said:

Does anyone else wonder if those two understand each other?

I wouldn’t be surprised if those two are each other.

You are right Bob.

There is nobody else from the B.W. here, and if that is what you want, then B.W. me in the B.W.

Do you have a database for B.W-B.W.?

If not! I can stay here in silence. And merely give short opinions regardless if you like it or not!

Otherwise, this blog is quite biased!

You seem to have a Policeman’s generally “tunnel vision and mind”! Like you always do the same. B.W. and then B.W.-B.W.

So Arizona dessert, here comes some more sand.

verne_julius1 said:

You are right Bob.

There is nobody else from the B.W. here, and if that is what you want, then B.W. me in the B.W.

Do you have a database for B.W-B.W.?

If not! I can stay here in silence. And merely give short opinions regardless if you like it or not!

Otherwise, this blog is quite biased!

You seem to have a Policeman’s generally “tunnel vision and mind”! Like you always do the same. B.W. and then B.W.-B.W.

So Arizona dessert, here comes some more sand.

I agree. You guys do what you do! Otherwise decant the water or apostate the faith!

verne_julius1 said: So Arizona dessert, here comes some more sand.

George Frederick Thomson Broadhead said: I agree. You guys do what you do! Otherwise decant the water or apostate the faith!

I love it when creationists write messages on open fora complaining about how they’re being censored from giving their opinion on open fora. It renews my faith in P.T. Barnum.

Hmm.

bathroom wall.. manure spreaders… maybe they should be put out to pasture…

verne_julius1 said:

You are right Bob.

There is nobody else from the B.W. here, and if that is what you want, then B.W. me in the B.W.

You’re wrong, Verne. That wasn’t my comment.

Oh, and “Arizona dessert” might be the local pie specialty at the truckstop in Winslow, AZ, but it’s not a desert.

One more (and I’m hoping, the final) time: If you have a specific objection to or disagreement with evolution, just state it.

Simply.

One sentence, if possible.

No jokes or sarcasm.

No rambling.

And if possible, tell us your alternative to the evolutionary view. People here would love to discuss it with you – or argue about it. That’s what this is all for. But we can’t seem to get out of you what your problem with evolution is, or if you even have one.

The anti-evolutionists have ample resources to tell the world what happens, when or where, why or how, so that the world of life has the variety that it has. If there is some fatal flaw in evolutionary explanations, how does their account of life explain that things turn out as they do - rather than any of the endless other possibilities? What alternative is there?

Give us an expository essay: something positive.

Just Bob said:

Oh, and “Arizona dessert” might be the local pie specialty at the truckstop in Winslow, AZ, but it’s not a desert.

It could always be an ironic description of the fare served up by the Sheriff of Maricopa County to his “guests”.

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