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.

42649 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.

What is comic is that the age of the earth as much older than 10,000 years was already on the table before evolution was. Creationists want us to believe that geologists are willing to claim the earth is more than 4.5By old because biologists want or need it to be that old. It’s all a grand conspiracy to them! Flood geology had already been seriously challenged - and even creationists like Cuvier thought the evidence more consistent with multiple floods laying down different layers of sediment resulting in multiple extinctions followed by repopulation due to subsequent creation events. Sedimentation layers and relative ages were known from at least the 17th c. The Bible as scientifically reliable was in question long before Darwin. As with the article I linked to a few days ago, this is all about creationists being ignorant of both history and science.

80 years before the publication of the Origin of Species, and 30 before Darwin was even born, Georges Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, estimated the Age of the Earth as at least 75,000 years old, based on experiments of the cooling rates of iron balls.

As far back as the late 17th century, at least 120 years before Darwin was born, Edmond Halley had already reached the conclusion that the Earth cannot be just a few thousand years old.

Around the same time, the great british naturalist (and of course staunch creationist, given the times) John Ray, read about Steno’s work, and was so disturbed by their implication, that he reasoned that if the shells incrusted in the mountains were indeed fossils, “the world is a great deal older as imagined or believed, there being an incredible space of time required to work such changes as raising all the mountains”.

DS said:

Creationists lie, all the time, about everything. It’s what they do. Apparently, you have picked up the habit.

He teaches it, every chance he gets.

If FL tells you the sky is blue, go outside and check.

DS said:

FL said:

But if we just look at ONE system of the eye – the human eye lens – then you’re stuck with Nilsson’s game, the game that’s accepted by ALL evolutionists. And Nilsson says, 200 years (actually just 192). Period. And that includes all the irreducible complexity too.

FL

Sorry, no, wrong again.

You are the one who cited Nilsson. You are the one who is stuck with the game you are trying to play. Nilsson never said anything about any 200 year nonsense, no real scientist ever did. It is not accepted by all evolutionary biologists, you just made that up and I can prove it. I am an evolutionary biologist and I told you repeatedly that it was nonsense. Lamb never said it, the opsin paper doesn’t say it, the crystallin paper doesn’t say it. You’re just plain lying. And you cannot find a single evolutionary biologist who believes it either. Not one. Go ahead and try. All you have to do is come up with a real scientist saying in a real scientific peer reviewed journal that the human eye had to evolve in 200 years. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then you must admit that you lied again.

Look, science is not constrained by the twenty year old unsubstantiated musings of an itinerant theologian. No matter how many times you try to peddle his gross misinterpretations, they will never be true. Creationists lie, all the time, about everything. It’s what they do. Apparently, you have picked up the habit.

But it must be true, because Floyd needs it to be true. Therefore, despite the fact that Nilsson never says so, and no doubt would vehemently disagree with such libel, Nilsson says that the eye had to evolve in 192 years. After all, Floyd said he did, and Floyd is never wrong.

You and your facts, logic and evidence stand no chance against Floyd’s infallibility and quotes from random morons he finds on the internet.

Well, I said I was through responding to this nonsense, but I can’t overcome the compulsion.

FL said:

Okay, you added the steps good, but you started at the wrong place.

That’s why it seemed off, but now it’s clear.

Stages one through eight go from left to right in the link I provided. (They go from top to bottom in Nilsson’s paper.) Anyway, stage one is the initial stage, and in the paper, the phrase “176 steps” appears directly underneath stage one.

But THAT number does NOT go with stage one. Nilsson is saying that it takes 176 steps to complete Step 2. Stage one is just the initial start point, a flat patch of light-sensitive cells. We’re supposed to start our counting with STAGE TWO.

Stage 2 = 176

Stage 3 = 362

Stage 4 = 270

Stage 5 = 225

Total = 1033

Ok, I accept that.

And that exactly makes Step 1034 “the initial one percent transmission step in stage six (192 steps total) leading from a state of absolutely no lens to something which, after an additional 191 steps, is a weak but graded-index lens”, just like Baldwin said on pg 433.

This also dovetails with Nilsson’s statement (footnote on pg 53) that “a graded-index lens” appears “in stages 6-8.” Six, not five, is where the graded-index-lens begin.

****

So now that’s done. All steps and stages accounted for, and J.T. Baldwin counted ‘em up correctly.

FL

And that still doesn’t change a thing. Nowhere do Nilsson and Pelger even imply, let alone specifically state, that a lens suddenly appears out of nowhere in 200 years. That is wholly the misconstrued conclusion of Baldwin. What Nilsson and Pelger do say is “a graded-index lens can be introduced gradually as a local increase of refractive index.” And if you insist on your 200 year average of steps, that means over a time period of 38,400 years – plus another 120,800 years (stages 7-8) before the final product. And it has been pointed out to you endlessly (with links to papers included) that all the necessary elements (proteins, structures, etc.) for a primitive lens to form are available. By the time human eyes came along, there had been tens of millions of years of vertebrate eye evolution – no divine miracles required.

And that is possibly one reason why no researchers in this field, Nilsson and Pelger in particular, has ever bothered to make any published response that I can find to Baldwin’s nonsense. I’m sure there are many other reasons, all of which would include the caveat that Baldwin is just a clueless theologian on any topic involving biology (and probably any other field of scientific research).

Well, glad we cleared that up.

FL said:

Instead, everybody’s just assuming that Nilsson got it right, and ignoring all problems (which are many!), and also ignoring alternatives (a clear case of intelligent design via irreducible complexity of the eye lens).

Ok, demonstrate it. Show me your scientific hypothesis based on intelligent design. Don’t forget to include all the details. And then provide a method to test your hypothesis. And “a magic designer just made something happen at this particular point” will not be convincing unless you can show how I can test “magic designer.” Go!

OH, you mean the following wide_open confession by Dr. Nilsson himself, which you did NOT refute at all:

There wasn’t anything to refute.

FL said: And Nilsson says, 200 years (actually just 192). Period. And that includes all the irreducible complexity too.

Nilsson says no such thing. Exactly where does he say that?

http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/cour[…]sson1994.pdf

Point it out (using this paper – the source).

FL said:

Likewise, American science SERIOUSLY needs the help that non-YEC advocates of Intelligent Design offer, again whether it be science, social work, or secretarial. American science would suffer greatly if Michael Behe, Hugh Ross, Walter Bradley, and many others were to disappear.

And yet, not one of them has made a single contribution to scientific understanding based on ID. Can you point to, or name, anything?

So this is about what FL thinks Baldwin thinks Nilsson thinks.

Figures.

Historians have a Chinese Whispers theory of memes. (Well, actually, they don’t. That’s a colorful term I just made up. What they have is recognition that the more minds an idea passes through, the more the idea mutates.) But the mutations are in turn directed by the mental filters installed in those minds. And the ruling mental filter installed in FL’s mind is a Morton’s demon the size and power of a quasar.

So Nilsson’s plot of one possible evolutionary pathway to the vertebrate eye, with one or more steps requiring unquantified mutations, becomes in FL’s mind not only an admission that the vertebrate eye could not have evolved without divine intervention at least once, but that it did so in about 200 years.

The fact that such a stepwise evolutionary path over even a couple of centuries is in direct contradiction to Genesis 1:21, which says that God created vertebrates (the fish), which presumably includes their eyes, in ONE DAY, the fifth, does not detain FL for a moment. He thinks - completely falsely - that he has found some narrative that somehow, anyhow, is at odds with standard evolutionary theory.

He hasn’t found any such thing, and that is painfully, pitifully obvious. But if he had, it would falsify the Biblical account of creation at a stroke. Why is he advocating it, then?

No reason, other than that FL thinks it damages evolution. Better evidence that FL simply cannot follow the implications of ideas could not be provided. But we knew that already.

Evolutionary biologists have shown that the vertebrate eye evolved over millions of years.

Nilsson demonstrated that the vertebrate eye could have evolved in 364,000 years.

Baldwin incorrectly claimed, based on his misrepresentation of Nilsson, that the human eye had to have evolved in 200 years.

Floyd incorrectly claimed, based on his pathological need to believe in a deity, that all evolutionary biologists therefore must believe that the human eye evolved in 200 years! When it was pointed out to Floyd that this was illogical and contrary to known fact, what did he do? He repeated the lie over and over again.

Well that about sums it up. If Floyd wants to keep lying about the Nilsson paper, he can certainly do so. If anyone wants to take the time to point out that he is lying, they are also welcome to do so. If they give up in disgust before Floyd stops repeating the lie, it won’t matter, he’ll still be lying.

Daniel said:

What is comic is that the age of the earth as much older than 10,000 years was already on the table before evolution was. Creationists want us to believe that geologists are willing to claim the earth is more than 4.5By old because biologists want or need it to be that 80 years before the publication of the Origin of Species, and 30 before Darwin was even born, Georges Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, estimated the Age of the Earth as at least 75,000 years old, based on experiments of the cooling rates of iron balls.

As far back as the late 17th century, at least 120 years before Darwin was born, Edmond Halley had already reached the conclusion that the Earth cannot be just a few thousand years old.

Around the same time, the great british naturalist (and of course staunch creationist, given the times) John Ray, read about Steno’s work, and was so disturbed by their implication, that he reasoned that if the shells incrusted in the mountains were indeed fossils, “the world is a great deal older as imagined or believed, there being an incredible space of time required to work such changes as raising all the mountains”.

Pre-1900 Non-Religious Estimates of the Age of the Earth.pdf.

Here is the “logic” that Floyd is using:

Floyd claims that the human eye evolved in 200 years.

Therefore, humans could not have been created in 7 days.

Therefore the biblical account of creation is wrong.

Therefore, no creationist believes in the biblical account of creation.

Now if Floyd chooses to keep using that logic, I guess no one can stop him. But then he will have to deal with the consequences.

Are you sure he won’t simply ignore the consequences?

DS said:

Here is the “logic” that Floyd is using:

Floyd claims that the human eye evolved in 200 years.

Therefore, humans could not have been created in 7 days.

Therefore the biblical account of creation is wrong.

Therefore, no creationist believes in the biblical account of creation.

Now if Floyd chooses to keep using that logic, I guess no one can stop him. But then he will have to deal with the consequences.

Floyd’s contradictions and inconsistencies are features, not bugs. Flaunting them is his way of showing how powerful his God is, that his God overcomes and reconciles all of them. Without his God, he’s a gibbering fool.

Yardbird said:

Floyd’s contradictions and inconsistencies are features, not bugs. Flaunting them is his way of showing how powerful his God is, that his God overcomes and reconciles all of them. Without his God, he’s a gibbering fool.

And since there are no gods, he is a gibbering fool.

What a pitiful old loony.

So why argue with a fool?

fnxtr said:

So why argue with a fool?

Nobody here is actually arguing with FL. He doesn’t listen, and is completely incapable of following the arguments being made, or of understanding the implications of his own, or their incoherence and illogic.

We’re explaining and defending evolution to anybody who happens by. If we didn’t, it might give the impression that there could be something to this creationism, or intelligent design, or whatever damnfool ploy the theocrats are plugging this week.

Well another month has come and gone and still no answers from Floyd. After having been shown up for a liar, he has run away again. And after three months of running away, all has managed to do is to quote one creationist misrepresenting yet another paper and claim, without any evidence whatsoever, that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Oh well, according to him, that’s still plenty of time for the human eye to evolve. Maybe he’ll be back in two or three more months to tell his lies again. Doesn’t matter. No one was fooled the first time and no one will be fooled the next time either. You would think that someone who claims to read the bible and believes that he will some day face judgement would want to set a better example. Guess not.

fnxtr said:

So why argue with a fool?

Because you can’t help it, quite honestly.

As for me, I freely admit being a fool. A mere court jester, mind you. But I always find myself just sitting back and smiling at the end of the Panda day.

Smiling, thinking, googling, smiling again. That’s me.

Believe it or not Fnxtr, I’ve asked the same question (quietly) that you’ve asked.

Now Dave Luckett has his stock answer, his pat answer – “We’re explaining and defending evolution to anybody who happens by.” Yeah yeah, sure sure.

But honestly? That’s what the Main Article Contributors (mostly Matt Young) are doing. That’s not really what YOU guys/gals are doing.

After all, you BW’ers don’t really have the fire in you, like the Main Article contributors. When I’m gone on vacation, the Bathroom Wall shrinks down to NEARLY NOTHING per week unless Mr. Phhht injects a constant stream of religious/political clippings to keep it alive.

Surely you’ve noticed, yes?

****

So I don’t think Dave Luckett’s answer will really suffice. Furthermore, evolution is NOT automatically synonymous with atheism (which I’m obviously trying to attack these days), so Dave’s answer doesn’t explain the situation at hand.

Ms. Keelyn had a good partial answer – “A compulsion” – but whence cometh the compulsion? Hmm?

On rare occasions, I’ve even seen you folks crash into each other while trying to go after “the fool.” (And yes, as the fool in question, I did laugh VERY heartily on such divisive occasions.)

But a fool I am, and a rather run-of-the-mill type at that. C’est la vie.

So I’d like to see a fuller, more specific answer to Fnxtr’s question, Pandas.

Exactly WHY are you folks arguing with a fool like me? Whence thine odd compulsions?

FL

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