Guano

Comments that seem to me to be in violation of the game rules will be moved here, and closed to further comment.  Do not regard having your post moved here as a reprimand, merely as a referee’s whistle. :)

Feel free to comment on them at any other peanut gallery of your choice.

870 thoughts on “Guano

  1. Robert Byers:
    SHE??? God is not a she. God is the dominat one and should more correctly be called He. As the man was made first and the woman identity fior the man. nature also makes the male about dominance.

    You’ve never gotten laid in your life, have you?

  2. phoodoo: If I am right that those people don’t even know their own views, then there is no way they could know I am misrepresenting them.

    How can anyone take seriously a person spewing such nonsense?

  3. OMagain: So the point I keep making is that there is an asymmetry here that is not recognised I think by P, W in that for “Darwinism” there is a deep body of work that supports the theory. And it’s not something that a self confessed non-expert can seriously dismiss with a wave of the hand.

    The phoo character appears to be nothing but a troll.

    But, in any case, the “arguments” of W and P are full of the sectarian angst that science might be right but it can’t be because, in their minds, that would destroy their sectarian romanticism.

    I see no “spirituality” in either P or W; just angst and anger.

  4. William J. Murray: When I am satisfied with the state of a debate – that I’ve achieved my purpose in engaging in it – there really isn’t any reason for me to continue, is there?

    I point out what I think could use pointing out and leave it from there for others with reasonable intelligence, a fairly open mind and a reasonable grasp of logic to figure out on their own.

    Actually, it just makes you look like a coward. Like you run up to a doorbell and press it, then run away.

    A point by point rebuttal of Lizzie’s reply would be the least you can do. It’s obvious who is the winner in these back and forth’s as your responses are inevitably a fraction of the size. You claimed recently that nobody here could debate – that fatuous coming from you – you can’t debate! You are incapable of it! That’s what the onlookers see, coward.

  5. William J. Murray: When I am satisfied with the state of a debate – that I’ve achieved my purpose in engaging in it – there really isn’t any reason for me to continue, is there?

    So you’re not interested in any discussion, just dumping your load and fleeing. Pretty much the textbook definition of a troll.

  6. William J. Murray: As I said, I’m satisfied with the current state of that particular debate.

    There’s been a debate? I’m beginning to think the Dunning–Kruger effect is a commonplace phenomenon.

  7. William J. Murray: Because any reasonable person knows what I meant.

    LOL! You’re doing it again Your inflated ego and limited imagination makes you believe whatever YOU think is reasonable must be the gold standard. Real life doesn’t work that way. That’s why you lose so many arguments here and look like such an ignoramus doing it.

  8. thorton: LOL!You’re doing it againYour inflated ego and limited imagination makes you believe whatever YOU think is reasonable must be the gold standard.Real life doesn’t work that way.That’s why you lose so many arguments here and look like such an ignoramus doing it.

    And this post is in no way whatsoever in accordance with the supposed rules of this forum.

  9. phoodoo: And this post is in no way whatsoever in accordance with the supposed rules of this forum.

    I’ll accept your OT bellyaching as your admission that you have no answers for the valid points I raised.

  10. phoodoo:
    And anyone who looks up stochastic in the dictionary will see it described as “random”, since we aren’t talking about mathematical theory in this discussion, that is all stochastic means-so your point is kind of mute, and once again really just a distraction.Evolutionary theory is predicated on randomness, sorry.

    Sorry for being so harsh with you phoodoo. It’s not your fault you lack the scientific and technical training others in this conversation have. You can’t be expected to understand advanced mathematical concepts like ratios and fractions, or biological concepts like reproduction. It’s not your fault you see everything through the heavily distorted lens of your strict religious indoctrination. It’s not your fault.

  11. thorton: Sorry for being so harsh with you phoodoo.It’s not your fault you lack the scientific and technical training others in this conversation have.You can’t be expected to understand advanced mathematical concepts like ratios and fractions, or biological concepts like reproduction.It’s not your fault you see everything through the heavily distorted lens of your strict religious indoctrination.It’s not your fault.

    Thank you I appreciate the sympathetic comments.

    Likewise, I appreciate that you have a mental concept of what reproduction is. But I feel very sympathetic towards you as well, because of the fact that it is just too unlikely that you would ever find anyone willing to actually attempt reproduction with you. So I am glad that at least you have the capacity to imagine what it must be like.

  12. phoodoo: Thank you I appreciate the sympathetic comments.

    Likewise, I appreciate that you have a mental concept of what reproduction is. But I feel very sympathetic towards you as well, because of the fact that it is just too unlikely that you would ever find anyone willing to actually attempt reproduction with you.So I am glad that at least you have the capacity to imagine what it must be like.

    LOL! I’ll tell the Mrs. and the kid that phoodoo says they don’t exist. In the meantime is there anything we can do to help you overcome your ignorance of basic science concepts? Maybe use smaller words? Link to cartoon pictures? I’m sure you honestly want to learn and are just stuck on these silly semantic ‘definition’ games because of your gullible and childlike nature.

  13. LOL! Phoodoo has no clue in the world what the right definition of generation in a population genetics model should be, he just knows that evilution must be wrong!

    I think that’s enough entertainment for one night.

  14. Phoodoo is very Mung-like. We should introduce the two if they haven’t already met.

  15. Phoodoo,

    The weak attempt at the rope a dope combined with the failed attempt of creating a diversion with the uninspired physicist insults/ jokes( Yea right, and four new births and deaths equals one generation, if you study M theory and 19 dimensions that is.) is a disappointing effort for someone of your caliber.

    On the plus side you have not completely melted down yet. And your self confidence seems undiminished.

    Your best bet now might be to bluff it out and declare victory repeatedly. Good luck. And thanks for all the fish.

  16. velikovskys: Your best bet now might be to bluff it out and declare victory repeatedly.

    Oh no, no implying that a commenter is bluffing or that xe is planning to bluff the next answer. Or suggesting that xe should bluff, ferchrissakes.

  17. Lizzie: Well, at least one of your starting population had a grandchild, so three, I guess.

    But you can only really count generations precisely within one lineage – but you could work out the average number of generations per unit time.It doesn’t make a lot of sense in a population of four, though.

    In some simulations, all organisms replicate simultaneously, so it’s easy.I tend to a proportion replicating every iteration of the model, so it’s staggered, as in real life.But you can still average generation time.

    The youngest great grandparent I know personally is about my age.But I’m not even a grandparent yet!

    Well, Olegt made the point that you can take the number of your births replacing deaths exchanges (one round of eating an M&M and replacing an M&M), divide it by the size of your population, and that was the number of generations. That was clearly logical nonsense, (and as you have just stated you don’t agree with that formula) and yet, your normal cast of effervescent cheerleaders like Hotshoe and Thorton couldn’t resist cheering on Olegt as being so clever (you know he is a scientist and all, how dare you question him) because well, they just can’t be bothered to have a independent thought (or any thought at all from what I can tell).

    In the little M&M game, each round of birth and death is roughly equal to a new generation of offspring. Thus in Olegts little trials, it took approximately 700,000 to 1 million of these birth and deaths events for a novel mutation to spread entirely throughout the population. A staggering number for only 1000 individuals. Olegt somehow wanted to call this only 1000 generations, which doesn’t make sense at all.

    But Thorton and Hotshoe were way too busy buffing each others pompoms, and blowing each others horns to even bother to notice what they were cheering about.

  18. Pro Hac Vice: When your assumptions utterly fail to describe the real world, and when you have such trouble drawing a line from them to your conclusions, you might consider whether they are mistaken.

    And your history of subscribing to and promoting UTTER FUCKING GIBBERISH should perhaps cause you to pause and consider your own judgement.

  19. Hi Steve! Tell us more about the evidence that convinced you macro-evolution is real and has happened in the past.

    You’re not going to run away and leave us hanging like you did before now are you?

  20. Steve:

    …but where is the science???….its got to be under that leaf..er, .leaf bug….er, well you know what i mean?

    LOL! Yes Steve, we know all too well what you mean. As usual you don’t seem interested in learning, just making empty noises. I’d explain the difference between Batesian and Mullerian mimicry for you but I’m afraid it would be way over your head. In the meanwhile there have been thousands of scientific papers and articles written on the topic.

    Animal camouflage: current issues and new perspectives

    Please tell us about the evidence that convinced you macro-evolution is real and has happened in the past. There must be some reason you made that admission.

  21. olegt:
    phoodoo,

    Have you figured out how to count generations of MM yet?

    Have you figured out how to count generations yet? You believe that four deaths replaced by four new births is equal to one generation, and you are going to ask ME this question. Are you fucking out of your mind? Even your own idol Lizzie thinks your idea of a generation is stupid, so what the heck are you talking about?

    My definition of a generation is exactly what a generation is,a successive line of a lineage. Its NOT four fucking successive offspring equal ONE!

  22. phoodoo: In your program, if you start with one black M&M in a population of 1000, of the 1 time in 1000 chances that the black becomes fixated, how many generations were required?

    (please don’t answer this Olegt, you already tried, and your answer is logically impossible).

    No, phoodoo, my answer is perfectly fine. There are no logical problems with it. The only reason why you are protesting is that you do not like my answer. That’s all there is to it.

    It’s a simple and well established model in population genetics. You don’t like its conclusions, but that isn’t good enough reason to deny its validity.

    You have tried multiple objections, none of which hold up to scrutiny. You have now resorted to slinging mud along the lines

    It is often said about many mathematical theorists, they have no idea what their numbers actually mean. Its not just a joke. The stereotype of them not even knowing how to dress themselves is not a stereotype for no reason.

    It may be true that we don’t dress well, but that hardly indicates that we don’t know what we are talking about.

    The problem isn’t our lack of understanding of the subject, phoodoo. The problem is that you are an arrogant and opinionated bastard who isn’t interested in learning. You were urged multiple times to perform the numerical experiments yourself. You dismissed all of the fine points Allan and others were making. You were wrong on multiple occasions. Again, it’s OK to be wrong. People learn from their mistakes. But not you. You are not here to learn. You are here to declare everyone a bumbling idiot.

    At some point you will have to change your attitude or leave.

    [I moved this to Guano. But I did so with some reluctance. I agree with most of what it says. The problem is with getting personal, not with the general point being made -- Neil Rickert.]

  23. Well, you were invited to “start a thread” before, Neil, after having your own request to “start a thread” answered. But you didn’t show. Who’d a guessed, right?

    “Since you are most probably a ‘naturalist’ as ideologue yourself (even if you won’t admit it), it would be no surprise that you would play down the alternative meaning.

    “one can be a naturalist, while being skeptical of naturalism.” – Neil Rickert

    Oh, please, start a thread on that topic. Dare ya! ;)” (http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=3612&cpage=2#comment-35167)

    One shouldn’t really expect much on this topic from a “Mathematician and computer scientist who dabbles in cognitive science.”

    “without the activity of humans, it could not exist as a fact.”

    That seems to be Rickert’s anthropocentric view of theology, doesn’t it. Will he admit any reflexivity in his claims?

    “to fix a particular region where I could start counting, in order to be able to write down some information. The markers broke up the sameness, and allowed me to have a sense of direction.”

    Oh, goodness, no, you aren’t talking about the Anchor of ‘theology’ again, are you? Par it down merely to ‘secular worldview’ to make Rickert feel more comfortable to himself.

    “There appears to be some unwritten rule of philosophy, that anything depending on arbitrary choices must be wrong.”

    That could turn into your calling card, Neil. You actually seem to *want* to advocate “arbitrary choices.” Most people, from a global sociological perspective, on important life choices, actually prefer the non-arbitrary (and even the hopeful). But hey, you’ll still likely promote your fancy mathematical chaos and arbitrariness to whoever will listen and nod as far as it goes, right? ;)

    “as a mathematician, I suppose that term “solipsist” fits some of what I know.”

    There are many mathematicians who are not solipsists, like you claim to be (and seem to relish@#!), Neil.

    Readers of this blog, be well to turn away from Neil Rickert’s solipsism to something more elevated, truthful and good.

  24. As I have observed many times about ID/creationists; they jump into “advanced” topics without being able to demonstrate a grasp of high school level science.

    Your Gish Gallop on scaling up the charge-to-mass ratios of electrons and protons was expected and quite unimpressive. You even included and catalogued your persecution complex and the “hatred directed at you” under the category of “humor.”

    And now you are off again onto something “advanced.” What is the point, and who are you trying to impress?

    It’s one thing to scour the literature for the purposes of sectarian apologetics; it is quite another thing to be deeply involved in the ongoing research. One actually has to know things extensively to do the latter.

    You seem to be trying to insinuate that there are gotchas researchers don’t know about but you do.

  25. olegt: Why is this particular theory interesting, Sal? What justifies the investment of time into studying it?

    Hmm, maybe because Sal is a YECcer who wants “science” to give him some remotely-possible-no-matter-how-implausible hypothetical justification for rejecting the consensus age of our cosmos.

    IF not down this particular mousehole, then down the next, or the next, surely!

  26. Uncharitably, I am seeing some parallels with Andrew Schaffly and his approach to Richard Lenski

  27. Alan Fox:
    Uncharitably, I am seeing some parallels with Andrew Schaffly and his approach to Richard Lenski

    Do you mean there was also a guy named Andrew Scaffly who made all these claims about test results he supposedly had run, and then continued to refuse to show the results as well?

    Interesting.

  28. phoodoo: Do you mean there was also a guy named Andrew Scaffly who made all these claims about test results he supposedly had run, and then continued to refuse to show the results as well?

    No. That’s your strawman of what actually happened.

  29. olegt: That isn’t specific. Try again.

    If you want to know the specifics just do the tests yourself and stop being so dam lazy. Or are you too incompetent? No one owes you anything, get off your lazy, uneducated ass.

  30. olegt: I did and I showed my results. Multiple times.

    Your turn.

    You didn’t show any results of the issues discussed in this very thread. Your bluff has been called.

  31. phoodoo: The results were ludicrous.That’s pretty specific.

    With respect phoodoo, that is not true. To be specific, you have to at least indicate which results you are referring to and what makes them ludicrous, in your view.

    ETA someone else must have moved the comment I was responding to into guano. I’ll pu this there too as it makes no sense to leave it in the original thread.

    ETA

    The full text of the comment I was responding to is:

    olegt: That isn’t specific. Try again.

    The results were ludicrous. That’s pretty specific.

    Apologies to phoodoo again that this comment has disappeared. I think it may have been due to a glitch in the caching plugin.

  32. Hi Phoodoo, If you’re looking for a free-for-all, I’ll set you up a thread at AtBC. Be warned, nothing but Butthurt for you lies there, though. They’ll shred you and laugh.

  33. phoodoo: Why would I think Alan or anyone else here would ever admit I was right, when even this you all will pretend is an example of even handed moderation. What expectation could I ever have of people admitting the truth here?

    Right about what, phoodoo? You were dead wrong about fixation of color in a bag of M&Ms. You couldn’t figure out how to count generations of M&Ms and jumped from one definition to another, never sticking to one.

  34. olegt,

    Yes Olegt, I realize you have declared victory from underneath the hem of Alan’s skirt, and the dishonest consensus of your moose lodge brethren. You would have made Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf very proud. Congratulations. Keep warm in the safety of his knickers.

    Enjoy.

  35. phoodoo: and the dishonest consensus of your moose lodge brethren.

    What features do you want to see in v2? Then when you have all the data you need, your accusations of dishonesty can be founded on hard facts for all to see! Who could disagree with that, eh?

  36. In regard to doubting the “‘shadow academic world’ when it comes to theology and science,” the question then rises whether one admits there is an enlightening world “when it comes to theology and science.” I suspect most people here do not allow for that possibility. For those who do, here is a top quality global level to start: http://www.issr.org.uk/

    ISSR is not surprisingly against ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ and for limited ‘evolutionary theory’ that does not get exaggerated into evolutionism. Neither of those positions are unknown to people here. Polkinghorne, Collins, (Ted) Davis, Giberson, Gingerich, Haught, Isaac, (Ard) Lewis, McGrath, Numbers, Oord, Russell and Schloss are BioLogos affiliates, founder or current staff who are ISSR members. You won’t find ‘Timaeus’ crediting them for their anti-IDT writings anytime soon because he is an Expelled Syndrome IDist.

    [redacted]

    There’s a push-back happening in contemporary USAmerican evangelical-dom regarding acceptance or rejection of evolutionary biology. Giberson and BioLogos are intent on exposing the YECism of much of that ‘sector’ in the USA and showing that it is not contradictory to both accept limited evolutionary theories in natural sciences and also maintain one’s faith in Creation (that is, without exaggerating it into the ideology of creationism). IDists claim not to care either way (with their DiN approach), while nevertheless getting their funding directly from that sector of USAmerican society.

  37. “No, Giberson and the BioLogos folks are not academic theologians. They’re engaged in combating anti-science beliefs in the evangelical church.” – Steve Schaffner

    Yes, and according to the statistics provided in Giberson’s article, this seems to be a worthy cause for BioLogos and folks like Giberson to take up in the USA (just as it would be in Turkey and elsewhere that the ideology of ‘creationism,’ especially the YEC variety, has taken hold predominantly via churches, temples and mosques). I’m not sure if BioLogos views it as ‘combat,’ in fact I doubt they use the ‘warfare model’ language much. They seem to be more interested in ‘healing’ the wounded than ‘fighting’ like iconoclasts, the latter as IDists prefer to frame their task. But the efforts to cleanse the evangelical church in the USA from its anti-science beliefs and fears are clear and obvious at BioLogos. Imo, these efforts should be applauded, even by those IDists who are not YECs.

    [redacted]

    What the topic brings to the forefront is the contrast between the IDM’s pretenses to scientificity, on the one hand, and on the other their willingness to throw fellow evangelicals and right-wing conservatives under the bus who reject those pretenses. It’s a catch-22 for IDists, as Dembski himself notes that evangelicals are the main audience of IDism. The IDM isn’t gaining many ‘converts’ to IDism among Catholics or Orthodox, which they so desperately want for their ‘little tent,’ so they display an ‘evangelicals-like-us’ attitude that actually reinforces their marginality and their Expelled Syndrome symptoms.

    Timaeus’ language is just much more arrogant and condescending than most other IDists, which is how he treats Giberson and others at BioLogos, even while portraying himself as an ‘academic theologian.’ But then again, since Timaeus is not actually defending the scientificity of IDT as such, he obviously doesn’t represent the IDT of the Discovery Institute. And his main targets for theological critique are mainly evangelicals, not the much deeper and broader theological tradition of Catholics and Orthodox, in which a significant number of strong, clear and convincing critiques of IDism have been made.

    IDists claim Giberson is theologically slippery or in some cases incoherent. They have a case with Howard van Til and Francisco Ayala, one or both of whom have apparently left the Christian fold. In Giberson’s article he doesn’t tell his current position, instead saying what he is not: “I am a white evangelical Protestant, or at least I was until persuaded to leave a couple of years ago.” The phrasing “I am/I was” doesn’t leave matters any clearer. Does he just mean leaving his teaching position at Eastern Nazarene College or leaving evangelicalism altogether?

    If he is a disenchanted ‘evangelical,’ yet still a self-professed evangelical, that’s one thing. If he’s a disenchanted evangelical, who stopped professing evangelicalism and became Catholic, Orthodox or joined some other mainline Protestant Christian denomination, that’s another thing. If he’s a disenchanted evangelical who is losing or has lost his Christian faith, that’s something else entirely, though this latter position doesn’t seem to be where Giberson is at.

    Sooner or later Giberson will have to figure out whether he wants to use the label ‘evangelical’ (& Protestant) (at all costs) any longer because he could discard it without ceasing to be a Christian. This is relevant in that it connects with a broader conversation about evangelicalism in the USA, which is inevitably intertwined with the IDM and IDT in whose soil the ‘theory’ originated. The IDM and its ‘story’ will never escape from their affiliation with ‘creationism’ (e.g. cdesign proponentsists), just like it is finding it next to impossible to part with its ‘evangelicalist’ identity, which fuels the IDM as a ‘protest’ movement against neo-neo-Darwinian ideas in biology and other natural sciences.

    If Giberson would be willing to teach at a public university, there would probably be a position for him teaching science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse (in addition to physics and astronomy) as there are a growing number of such courses and programs being offered on this topic, despite what the warfarists at this site instead want. If Giberson wants only to teach at a private ‘evangelical’ Christian university he will likely continue to have problems (or might have already lost his opportunity for another shot after his previous difficulties). If he seeks teaching at a Catholic university, there would likely be little fuss about his acceptance of evolutionary biology, within proper limits as acceptance of evolution is already understood by most Catholics from statements by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and previous Popes.

    Are we supposed to be arguing, Steve, or have I just said nothing you don’t already know? ;)

  38. Do you have something personally invested towards your family in being an atheist, petrushka? It seems you are actively trying to persuade people to disbelief with your ‘aged’ words (while they don’t actually seem persuasive). I do not consider your anti-religious words wise nor profound, just jaded.

    If your invested-atheism is true, then you seem to be trying to control and manipulate people too.

    There are few ‘new religions’ (in the past 100 years), and none of which vaguely compare in scope or depth of person to the historical ‘world religions.’ What, Wicca, Falun Gong, Jews for Jesus, Raelism? A ‘movement’ does not a ‘religion’ make.

    Usually such statements as petrushka’s reflect stunted individual development or (often cynical) aged disenchantment, welcoming emptiness of fate and heart. Even the ‘Jediist’ religion is fading quickly. Fads are more like what they should be called. What is petrushka referring to; L. Ron Hubbard’s science fiction (as if most people consider ‘scientology’ a ‘religion’)?!

    That petrushka hasn’t or somehow can’t any more elevate himself to have a serious, mature, wise discussion about centuries/millennia-old Judaism, Christianity or Islam is not simply a ‘market’ question. It means more than that. It reveals petrushka’s lack of will, lack of interest, and even perhaps a shallowness of character, culture and tradition. He speaks a kind of decadent tabloid ‘wisdom,’ bent on instrumentalist rationalist, and displays just too much ‘skepticism’ rather than a depth of personality and community that could arise even here at TSZ.

  39. William J. Murray: Perhaps you haven’t been following the conversation up to this point.

    William, I think it is you that has neglected to read the OP, neglected to communicate with other commenters and continued to post off-topc “stream-of-consciousness” meanderings.

    You have author status. Put it in another thread.

    Thanks in advance.

  40. The problem for petrushka is that many Abrahamic believers are ‘champions of scientific reasoning’ far above his social work level. But he is too self-absorbed in atheism to pay those people and their arguments any respectful attention. It’s a sad case for a man nearing his 70s, but in secular western societies nowadays, not altogether uncommon. Science & technology will save ‘us,’ but death is the end (maybe spice in a bit of Buddhism for comfort too). And Muslims *must* be IDists – why? – simply because a USAmerican social worker said so based on a non-existent article from a yellow-journalist media source. That’s what seems to count as ‘truth’ to petrushka, the so-called ‘greatness’ of ‘skepticism’ and depair.

  41. “Ah, I see I accidentally (not really) used the suffix “-ist”.”

    O.K. a take-back. Thanks.

    As for petrushka, almost 70 yrs old and still can’t admit he’s peed his pants!

  42. “would humans be exactly as they are in the absence of intention?”

    Would your life be exactly as it is in the absence of intention? It’s kind of a silly question. Homer would say ‘Duh.’

    Ted was referenced for Neil. petrushka seems to need a whole lot of learning to help him explore more elevated, meaningful and vital thoughts than the atheist in him has yet dared to face in almost 70 years. (Oh, but he’ll tell you he’s dared and then some…just like Ayn Rand.)

  43. “atheists, and atheism, pose a threat to society.”

    It’s atheist propaganda that is problematic, not atheists themselves.

    “Atheism? Meh. It gets boring, as a topic.”

    Yeah, not much to it.

    “Gregory has assumed that people who seek scientific answers are mentally deficient.”

    petrushka loves to tell lies and has no evidence for his untruths.

  44. Gregory: petrushka loves to tell lies and has no evidence for his untruths.

    GUANO. Against the rules to say that a poster is telling lies [and "untruths"].

    If you don’t like it, I’m sure you’re free to patronize some other forum, Gregory. Or as Lizzie would surely say, you’re free to continue to post here in any case. But stop stinking up this forum with your ill-tempered guano!

  45. Kalamazoo Mike. How would anyone know how to get the geography right if you are willing to say *NOTHING* about who you really are? And then you blame someone else for it… = ))

    I asked you directly, clearly, without any doubt. It was a simple 10-second Google search – Is this you? http://www.kamsc.org/staff/Michael+Elzinga You didn’t answer.

    No, I don’t hate atheists. I’ve studied with, worked with and even lived with atheists without problems. I believe that in the hearts of many (perhaps all!?) atheists something greater lives. It’s just yet to be found though its real.

    But as for insights into creationism vs. evolutionISM (yes, as ideology) vs. IDism, of course atheists like you, Michael Elzinga, are heavily biased in your own way. A simple imitation of NCSE scouts, tainted with local bitter bias. “Ain’t that America?” Yet you’ve done so little to openly admit yourself or show this, it’s actually not even funny. So I won’t laugh. You are a non-person, disguised as a physicist, according to the way you talk. Inhuman robot ‘scientismist’ (to use your term).

    For me, that’s not acceptable. It’s weak. It’s heartless. It’s empty.

    I drew attention to one basic failure in the OP, which is entirely on topic and speaks more deeply to the idiotic distinction that Ham makes and that Lizzie misunderstands, with her dull HPSS mind.

    THERE ARE MULTIPLE SCIENTIFIC METHODS. “Yes, of course,” the chorus *should* say. But no, not here at TSZ among agnostics and atheists. Instead silence, looking at feet, not responding is what has happened here at TSZ. Oppose the theist though it stare directly in the face of rationality and logic. You folks (mostly USAmerican) live in a very strange and sad country when it comes to worldview!

    The existence of multiple scientific methods challenges (nay, destroys) Lizzie’s outdated, amateur ‘observation’ of ‘science’ at its core. But then so you’re stuck folks, cuz following Lizzie, you simply don’t know, but just want to believe. It’s like boo-hoo chorus, post-Soviet scientific atheism, cuz the world’s focused on Sochi now and Obama didn’t come (though more Heads of State than ever did come) and Putin is actualy clearer now and more stable than GWB ever was. But you didn’t want it to be about you or USAmerican and it isn’t, so you don’t. Enough to quiet the 95% atheist-skeptic crowd.

  46. Gregory:
    “Has anyone ever uttered the word Aspergers with reference to you?”

    No, but probably you’ve been called a ‘hamburger’ before.

    Classy group of atheists you’ve gathered here, Lizzie. Classy. ; )

    I’m sure the term Dunning-Kruger has been mentioned.

    If you don’t like the folks posting here you can always leave and go to Uncommon Descent. You’d raise the average IQ of both places.

  47. Mike Elzinga has insulted, prodded, condescended and tickled me at TSZ.

    I asked a simple question and he ducked it. I’d like to know if asking this is against the rules. His name is already listed, not hidden; his claims are already made.

    http://www.kamsc.org/staff/Michael+Elzinga

    Is this TSZ’s Mike Elzinga or not? He feigns authority like it is, then says nothing when pressed and claims to be a current University of Michigan Professor.

    What’s actually real in this ‘Skeptical’ Zone?

  48. “I suspect it’s a Heideggerian term of art.”

    Do some research then. You claim to be a scholar.

    I’ve traced it to the 1950s. Where have you traced it to?

    Your ‘suspect’ appears as empty speculation.

    “looking for “naturalism without scientism” that I’ve started and stopped four times now.”

    Well good. I honestly hope you find it and start again. I’m well ahead of you and most other ‘USAmericans’ on this. I went East.

    Did you see the Opening Ceremonies in Sochi, KN? So much you don’t know, or them. And it’s not my knowledge to possess to claim arrogantly, it’s theirs to humbly follow and learn from. Are you willing to do this? I know you want to, but will you, KN? You have doubts. Given.

    “Trying to get clear about any of this stuff is extremely frustrating!”

    Right, so call these dogs off my back cuz I got no more time for this filth and will disappear. Will you?

    Yes, I read Pigliucci, White (you saw my review), and Wiseletier. And I teach it. Fascinating. But read Hutchinson and Artigas too; don’t shy from the theists.

    “I won’t say that the term is entirely useless.”

    Good, well fend off the scientistic hounds of TSZ then. But they don’t pay you much attention as a mere (ex-Reform atheist Jewish) philosopher, do they? You’re a mere ‘empirical’ pawn for them. sCiEnCe –> SciEnTiSm

    You seem to fall down willingly at the ‘philosophy is dead’ trope. Stand up, KN. Get inspired. For Y-WH’s sake! Learn more than the Sophists did. Find truths and adventures in the neo-post-modern age. You need not be as weak or eclectically destructible as you appear. Why not awake, arise?

  49. Gregory:
    “It would be interesting to know which lessons from Russia Gregory thinks are important and why.”

    You have not proven yourself worthy of my time.

    The utter self-defeat of writing to tell people they’re not worthy of your time. Gregory, I suspect our opinion of you is 1/yours. Your poor fucking students.

  50. ‘Secular politicians’ = pseudo-saints according to davehooke, who is doing his radical atheist worldview duty, supported here at TSZ, even by mods. It’s just as ideological as the Soviets nowadays in USAmerica with such claims. There are a lot of religious politicians in the USA, but that’s not newsworthy except pejoratively at TSZ.

  51. Predictions involve causal entailment.

    We need causes for predictions.

    Would anyone else like to explain to Glen Davidson why he so glaringly, blatantly, obviously wrong?

    So you whine about how you’re treated here, while you make an appallingly false and ignorant statement such as that one, without any adequate argumentation.

    It’s not wrong at all, although I could have included the caveat that strict causality isn’t something known to extend beyond “classical science.” I thought I’d let that go because the issues here are almost always of the nature of classical science, such as the highly classical causation of orbiting bodies.

    Or do you only do that for people at odds with your ideology?

    Why don’t you make a case, rather than the usual ignorant and false accusations? Is it the apparent cause, that you write without understanding the matters you so unswervingly bungle?

    Glen Davidson

  52. Gravity is not even the apparent cause. Gravity doesn’t cause anything.

    Just your usual arrogant and ignorant tripe, and blatantly false misrepresentations.. Interactions cause things, not forces, gravity is just one of the ways in which interactions occur.

    Since you can’t deal with these matters competently you just repeat your ignorance and demand that others back up your grossly ignorant misstatements.

    Glen Davidson

  53. LOL! Here comes drive by Steve posting more regurgitated ID Creationist bluster.

    He still can’t find the spine to post his definition of information as it applies to biological life. What a surprise.

  54. Thorton,

    At least Neil gets it now.

    You however, unfortunately lacking the prerequisite luminescence required to enable a successful search for that which sits on the head of a pin…..

    Nah, on second thought, I don’t feel sorry for yah.

  55. More empty ID Creationist bluster from Steve, still no definition of information.

  56. “What if penguins believed they had an all-seeing penguin deity?”

    What, zoocentrism now? Typical. And what if Michiganers believed in a nothing-feeling atomic reductionistic worldview? Would it bring happiness, fulfillment? Or ultimately NIHILISM – the primary subject of this OP?

    No society in history has ‘dispensed with deities’ and been better for it. Not one. Even the Scandinavians have religious crosses on their flag, if they’re partially forgotten in their hearts. Religion is a so-called ‘human universal’ according to anthropologists. We can’t escape it.

    But hey, that’s just ‘soft’ sociology talk, not ‘hard’ physicalism. It’s easy picking condescension from a difficult ‘scientist’ like Mike. “If I could be like Mike?” No, thanks to his unbelief.

    Mike Elzinga nihilistically plays charades that the world should adopt his physicalistic-reductionistic natural scientism. He abhors people who believe in Creation, in a vertical existence, in more than DEATH without LIFE. Most of the world, however, including its/our intelligentsia (of which Mike doesn’t seem to be a part) disagrees.

    “We were born to shine, all of us here because we believe.” – Andrea Bocelli

    A guy who is blind sees/feels life better than Elzinga! Elzinga’s ‘humbug’ doesn’t spoil the party. It’s just sad, arrogant provincial materialistic insularity, echoing NCSE, with not a speck of originality, deeper vision or faith involved.

  57. “OK, I looked up “polygenism”.” – Joe Felsenstein

    Only now, in your 70s, and finally looking up ‘polygenism’!?! That’s the whole ball game, senor. Any Hebraic (or German) person should know this.

    It’s in the links above.

    (Btw, were you actually named after ‘Joe’ Stalin, a former Georgian seminary student gone very bad?! Wow.)

  58. walto,

    As your posts on this topic have gotten gradually less confused (you really should go back and read some of them–they’re pretty funny), I don’t think it’s really that surprising that I’ve gotten less critical.

    As of last night you hadn’t “gotten less critical” at all. You were claiming that my “stuff” was just as confused as ever:

    I’m sorry keith but repeating that stuff doesn’t make it any less confused.

    Today, you suddenly credit me with “an important point” and say that “our critiques are related.” Yet my argument hasn’t changed one bit. The only thing that’s changed since last night is your understanding of it.

    Also I’m nice, and very much less interested in fighting than you are.

    Indeed, one can practically feel the warmth and amity radiating from this statement of yours:

    I’m sorry keith but repeating that stuff doesn’t make it any less confused. But, I don’t know, maybe a tenth confused repetition will be the difference-maker.

    walto:

    To be honest (if condescending) your behavior on both this thread and the last one in which we interacted has seemed pretty sophomoric to me–to be blunt, sometimes just plain obno…

    I invite you to reread both threads in a calm state of mind. If you can summon some objectivity, you’ll gain quite a different impression of my behavior, and especially of your own.

    –and not just to me. Perhaps others enjoy that kind of thing, I don’t come here to fight, however.

    I come to The Skeptical Zone to debate and discuss, and that includes challenging other’s views as well as having my own views challenged. I’m emotionally equipped for that, while you seem to struggle with it. I can admit my mistakes with no fuss. So can Vincent Torley, and in a very public way. Why is it so hard for you, walto?

    As I said in the other thread:

    The people who do best at TSZ are those who take responsibility for their statements. When someone expresses disagreement, they either respond with a counterargument or accept the criticism.

    Others complain that they’ve been wronged when someone disagrees with them. Those folks tend not to do so well at TSZ.

    You type it in. You click “Post Comment”. No one is forcing you to do that. Your comments are your responsibility. If they’re right, you take the credit. If they’re wrong, or poorly expressed, you take the blame. Just like everyone else.

    Richardthughes calls it “putting on your big-boy pants”, though of course it applies to “boys” and “girls” alike.

    Dry out those big-boy pants and pull them back on, walto.

  59. keiths,

    I have no problem with anybody disagreeing with me, keith. It’s your weird desire to win that I find irritating. When I say, e.g., that there’s a sense in which you and I aren’t disagreeing too much, you shoot back stuff like “I see you’ve made a 180.” You did the same kind of stuff on the other thread. I think it’s adolescent.

    I guess you could say we have different ideas about what constitutes a big boy. I think there’s a kind of big boy that doesn’t always feel the need to WIN when discussing things that they may disagree upon. To me your kind of bellicosity is unpleasant and pointless.

    Now, I get that you take my attitude not to be above reproach. You think it’s both condescending and, I guess, cowardly or little boyish. The little-boy pants thing I have no problem with, but I absolutely encourage you or anybody else here who thinks my posts are too condescending to ignore them and for the moderators to guano-can them. For that stance, I agree, is also unattractive.

  60. walto,

    I have no problem with anybody disagreeing with me, keith.

    You most definitely do, walto. A big problem, especially when the person challenging you is an engineer “who first heard about de re and de dicto a couple of days ago and is still trying to get it straight”, in your words. Like I suggested, try reading the two threads when you’re in a calm and objective state of mind. You’ll see what I mean.

    It’s your weird desire to win that I find irritating.

    If I think my position is correct, I defend it. I’m neither intimidated by credentials nor cowed by arguments from authority.

    On the other hand, if I’m wrong, I don’t try to win at all costs. I admit my error and move on. It happened in this very thread, when you challenged my Snoopy example and I conceded your point. Why do you find it so difficult to follow suit? Why this weird desire to avoid admitting error at all costs?

    When I say, e.g., that there’s a sense in which you and I aren’t disagreeing too much, you shoot back stuff like “I see you’ve made a 180.”

    That’s because you objectively have made a 180, as I already explained:

    As of last night you hadn’t “gotten less critical” at all. You were claiming that my “stuff” was just as confused as ever:

    I’m sorry keith but repeating that stuff doesn’t make it any less confused.

    Today, you suddenly credit me with “an important point” and say that “our critiques are related.” Yet my argument hasn’t changed one bit. The only thing that’s changed since last night is your understanding of it.

    walto:

    I guess you could say we have different ideas about what constitutes a big boy.

    I actually doubt that, but I do suspect that you have a harder time living up to your big-boy standards.

    Now, I get that you take my attitude not to be above reproach. You think it’s both condescending and, I guess, cowardly or little boyish. The little-boy pants thing I have no problem with, but I absolutely encourage you or anybody else here who thinks my posts are too condescending to ignore them and for the moderators to guano-can them.

    The problem isn’t that you’re condescending or critical. I’m thick-skinned, and I’ve gotten plenty of that at UD and from a couple of individuals here. The problem arises when you refuse to take responsibility for your statements.

    I don’t want your comments to be guano’ed. I’d like for them to remain out here where people can easily see them, but it would be really nice if you would don the big-boy pants and take responsibility for them. It’s your choice to click ‘Post Comment’. Don’t do it if you aren’t willing to assume responsibility for what you’ve just typed.

    Cast aspersions all you like, but take responsibility when you do so and be prepared to back up your claims. You don’t get special privileges here at TSZ. Like everyone else, you may be challenged if someone disagrees with what you’ve written. Deal with it and stop complaining.

    (Or if you insist on complaining, then be prepared to back up your complaints, and don’t complain about having your complaints challenged. :-) )

    Big-boy pants.

Comments are closed.