 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is a pun on, "canned ham", of course. For anyone who wanted to see
the inane (maybe there needs to be an "s" in there some place...) museum
built in the US by Ken Ham, here is your chance. A while back a bunch of
people donated a mess of money to get one scientist to go into and
critique this disaster. Here is the photo journal of it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scalzi/1969151713/in/set-72157603091357751/
This is the link to the article he posted on the subject too, but there
is a lot more content in the photo captions/comments. The Article is
mostly a lot of him repeating "Horseshit" a lot.
http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=121
All I can say is... Wait, sorry, I think my brain finally fell out, let
me pick it up off the floor. Now what was I saying? Oh heck, I guess I
will just send this.
--
void main () {
call functional_code()
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraz net> wrote:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/scalzi/1969151713/in/set-72157603091357751/
> http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=121
Regardless of what is the truth, that just seems to be mocking for the
sake of mocking. "Hahahaa! Look at all those idiots!"
Is that any better than the idiots?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <473abb4b@news.povray.org>, war### [at] tagpovrayorg says...
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/scalzi/1969151713/in/set-72157603091357751
/
> > http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=121
>
> Regardless of what is the truth, that just seems to be mocking for the
> sake of mocking. "Hahahaa! Look at all those idiots!"
> Is that any better than the idiots?
>
You didn't do more than read the article and look at a few pictures
right? To be clear, the author is a biologist, so he knows how bloody
silly this shit is. He also never says that **everyone** there is an
idiot. He even mentions one guy that, at the sign where it blames Adam's
eating an apple for creating weeds said, "Oh, come on!"
How the heck do you go through a place like that and not, about half way
through, start laughing your ass off. I means seriously, their
**entire** exhibit is based on two ideas - 1. Evolution is wrong, and 2.
Everything on earth was carried on the ark by Naoh by through the flood.
They can't even get their own nonsense right, in that they have a
diorama that **very clearly** shows dinos being loaded on the ship that
are **bigger** than Giraffes, then two rooms later they try to claim
that only *young* dinosaurs where loaded on the ship, which being young
where no bigger than a dog. Well, which @$#@$ one is it? Then there is
the, "Evolution is false, but well, there probably where only a small
number of animals on the ship, so everything 'evolved' from those
'kinds' into all the billions of species we see now..." Again, which $@#
$@# one is it?
This a monument to one nuts badly thought out version of one minority
interpretation of one religions silly story, and an even worse attempt
to claim that everything from disease, famine, and apparently crab
grass, is the fault of either Adam's fall, or teaching Evolution, or
both, backed by the worst science imaginable (if you can even call it
science), paranoia, and obvious mental illness. And, as the author state
in the subtext on his photo set, its unimaginable that 90% of the people
that go through the place will leave having been convinced of anything
other than that the guy who created the place was totally nuts, and a
sense of either horror that it was built and people might believe it, or
a strong case of the giggles (possibly both). The other 10% **have to
be** so badly deluded and disconnected from reality to begin with, that
nothing short of a head on collision with a semi is likely to dislodge
the idea that Ken Ham is some sort of scientific genius.
And now, that last suggestion, that you can't reach the people that will
believe this place, is **not** pure conjecture. Sure, *some* find
themselves in direct conflict between the huge disparity between facts
and the fiction they where taught, but at that point there is only two
paths. One, path is to suffer a massive crisis and start "honestly"
looking for the truth, the other path is to spiral into the pit of
insanity. The later post lots on the Internet. You can tell who they are
in posts by the fact that you can point them at the largest depositories
of facts possible, including rebuttals of their **specific** complaints
and arguments and not only will they not read them, they will continue
to repeat the same accusations, invalid arguments, silly strawmen, etc.,
over and over until they either get banned or get bored and find someone
else's website to rant on. Most of them are more than happy to give you
links to their websites, or send you emails too. They are almost always
written in comic sans, AND tend to emphasize WORDS, often seemingly AT
random using ALL caps, also using multiple colors, and a dozen different
font sizes, just in case you failed to notice those ALL CAPS parts.
I haven't met *anyone* on *any* website, out of hundreds, who actually
believed this BS and didn't even endlessly repeat the same BS over and
over, while appearing to be incapable of reading *anything*, including
the comments replying to them, without either missing the point,
ignoring it, or just flat out not reading what was said, and who didn't,
if they emailed people, or owned a website dedicated to their "truth",
didn't fit the above description. Well, almost none of them anyway, but
the ones that don't love to praise the ones that *do* fit that
description.
No, I don't think "most" of the people that are in any of those pictures
are idiots. Some are probably, at least in one respect, completely
fracking batshit nuts, just like the guy that built the place, but if
its more than about 5% of them, we might as well all move to Australia
and watch the US implode in the vacuum of ignorance, incompetence and
gullibility that would invariably suggest. And even 5% frankly scares
me.
--
void main () {
call functional_code()
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm not sure about the horses ass, but the
vehemence of anti-Christian rhetoric lately
reminds me of the attitude of the Germans
during the holocaust. "Might as put it,"
or maybe them, "somewhere that it's out
of everyone else's way."
Certainly his article does nothing to
convince those who disagree.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> > Regardless of what is the truth, that just seems to be mocking for the
> > sake of mocking. "Hahahaa! Look at all those idiots!"
> > Is that any better than the idiots?
> >
> You didn't do more than read the article and look at a few pictures
> right? To be clear, the author is a biologist, so he knows how bloody
> silly this shit is.
That doesn't make my statement above any less true.
The article and the photo series was nothing more than mocking for the
sake of mocking. "Have a look at these photos and have a good laugh."
There was no other point.
> Then there is
> the, "Evolution is false, but well, there probably where only a small
> number of animals on the ship, so everything 'evolved' from those
> 'kinds' into all the billions of species we see now..." Again, which $@#
> $@# one is it?
Regardless of whether evolution is true or not, that's one of the things
which always make me laugh. Anti-christian atheists always consider so-called
microevolution (eg. wolves and dogs having a common ancestor species) to be
the same thing as macroevolution (everything on Earth evolved from one
single living cell). Accepting the former but doubting the latter is
considered contradictory.
Regardless of what is the truth, that logic is flawed.
Anyways, your overly long argumentation is pointless. I was not defending
anything. I was simply saying that the purpose of that photo gallery was
nothing more than mocking for the sake of mocking, with no other point.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The article and the photo series was nothing more than mocking for the
> sake of mocking. "Have a look at these photos and have a good laugh."
> There was no other point.
Yes. And I feel it's entirely appropriate to mock people who are trying
to get others to act in self-destructive ways.
> single living cell). Accepting the former but doubting the latter is
> considered contradictory.
> Regardless of what is the truth, that logic is flawed.
Check this out for why it makes sense to doubt that:
http://denbeste.nu/essays/cake.shtml
> Anyways, your overly long argumentation is pointless. I was not defending
> anything. I was simply saying that the purpose of that photo gallery was
> nothing more than mocking for the sake of mocking, with no other point.
I don't know. A bad review of a bad entertainment is useful of itself.
Might save you $20. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <473c0fce$1@news.povray.org>, tim### [at] comcastnet says...
> I'm not sure about the horses ass, but the
> vehemence of anti-Christian rhetoric lately
> reminds me of the attitude of the Germans
> during the holocaust. "Might as put it,"
> or maybe them, "somewhere that it's out
> of everyone else's way."
>
> Certainly his article does nothing to
> convince those who disagree.
>
Sorry, but seriously, 90% of the country is Christian and about 5% of
those are currently parading their faith around as justification for
every stupidity and idiotic idea possible, from wars, to undermining
science, to you name it. Its not about ***Christians***, its about
radicals among them that want to redefine the entire universe to conform
to BS that only a tiny number of them take as being absolute literal
truth. And its not just non-Cristians calling them on it and putting out
the so called "rhetoric".
Blindly defending these people because you don't like imaginary attacks
on Christianity in general isn't going to win you any points. They don't
think you or anyone else that doesn't ***believe*** in the literal
genesis story, dares to claim that science or evolution is compatible,
or has the audacity to claim that their silly BS isn't the literal word
of God, instead of metaphorical stories, are Christians either. They
win, everyone loses, and they have people like you convinced that
pointing at them and laughing is the same thing as attacking Jews during
WWII (or has anything at all to do with attacks on Christianity in
general).
I mean they **claim** to represent the majority of people in the
country... Is your next argument going to be that, because only some
American Christians fall for this shit, that I am attacking Americans?
BTW: Godwin's law - look it up.
--
void main () {
call functional_code()
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <473c27ea@news.povray.org>, war### [at] tagpovrayorg says...
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> > > Regardless of what is the truth, that just seems to be mocking for
the
> > > sake of mocking. "Hahahaa! Look at all those idiots!"
> > > Is that any better than the idiots?
> > >
> > You didn't do more than read the article and look at a few pictures
> > right? To be clear, the author is a biologist, so he knows how bloody
> > silly this shit is.
>
> That doesn't make my statement above any less true.
>
> The article and the photo series was nothing more than mocking for the
> sake of mocking. "Have a look at these photos and have a good laugh."
> There was no other point.
>
> > Then there is
> > the, "Evolution is false, but well, there probably where only a small
> > number of animals on the ship, so everything 'evolved' from those
> > 'kinds' into all the billions of species we see now..." Again, which $@
#
> > $@# one is it?
>
> Regardless of whether evolution is true or not, that's one of the thing
s
> which always make me laugh. Anti-christian atheists always consider so-ca
lled
> microevolution (eg. wolves and dogs having a common ancestor species) to
be
> the same thing as macroevolution (everything on Earth evolved from one
> single living cell). Accepting the former but doubting the latter is
> considered contradictory.
> Regardless of what is the truth, that logic is flawed.
>
> Anyways, your overly long argumentation is pointless. I was not defendi
ng
> anything. I was simply saying that the purpose of that photo gallery was
> nothing more than mocking for the sake of mocking, with no other point.
>
Why the #@$@$@ is it flawed. A) There is no mechanism **at all** that
prevents one from leading to the other and B) The only answer the
denialists can come up with is, "Well, maybe some intelligent designer,
who (wink, wink..) might not be god at all, did it, somehow." Sorry, but
that isn't science. Not knowing doesn't means you get to insert any BS
you want. But that is hardly the point. The premise that we have no
proof that micro can lead to macro is BS anyway, since we ***do*** have
evidence of it in modern times, in labs, with bacteria, as well as
things like ring species, where the opposite ends of the "ring", when a
land slide or the like has separated them, are genetically **unable** to
breed anymore, even though they can too their nearest neighbors, all
they way around the "ring". I.e. A<->B<->C<->D<->E, but A</>E. This
shouldn't be possible if micro evolution can't produce new species
(which by definition is any two groups of animals that are sterile when
they try to breed with each other, they don't have to be a giraffe and a
mountain lion, nor is there any rule that says they have to **look** so
radically different in the few hundred years it takes for this to happen
that you can tell them apart visually).
Well, at least you didn't pull the, "And evolution doesn't explain how
it got started!", claim, since that is roughly the same argument as if
someone claimed you can't reconstruct a car accident without knowing how
someone dug up the iron ore used to manufacture the car parts. Evolution
is about what happened "once you had" life, not how it got here (at
least not at this point anyway), and never has been about that.
Lets put it this way. If you think that micro evolution can't lead to
macro evolution, never mind that those terms when they are used mean
entirely different things between scientists and creationists, then you
are a) not knowledgeable enough about the subject to know why this is a
stupid claim and b) showing far more flawed logic than any biologist. I
suggest reading www.talkorigins.org and specifically looking at the
rebuttals given for this claim.
--
void main () {
call functional_code()
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <473cb774$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> > single living cell). Accepting the former but doubting the latter is
> > considered contradictory.
> > Regardless of what is the truth, that logic is flawed.
>
> Check this out for why it makes sense to doubt that:
>
> http://denbeste.nu/essays/cake.shtml
>
Wouldn't that be, "Why it doesn't make sense to doubt it?" Mind you,
this guy makes some common mistakes. First one is suggesting that their
are some huge number of *possible* combinations that would work. Really?
How does he determine this? Yeah, the math would seem to suggest that is
the case, but we are not dealing with arbitrary objects, which one can
"presume" all interconnect in functional ways, no matter how you arrange
them. Lets put it this way. Take a processor. There may be an infinite
number of ways you "could" combine the instructions, but some **won't**
do anything at all, such as INC X followed immediately by DEC X.
Chemistry is far more complex than a processor. Just because you can
imagine combining A with G in umptenth billion ways, or even imagine
other chemicals in place of it, doesn't mean that every combination or
chemical that could happen would work. Some may be too unstable, some
too stable. Some sequences could cause folding errors, which would
destabilize the whole mechanism and prevent *any* of it working. Unless
he has some way to *test* every possible chemical, or every possible
combination, and lay out a statistical table that specifies what works
and what just doesn't at all, his "REALLY BIG NUMBER" might be a really
small number. We don't have the data to produce such a table (we still
don't know how every chemical in existence has an effect on every other
chemical in *every* situation, let alone how every DNA molecule
can/would effect arbitrary sequences of genetic code.) Claiming that you
can make predictions of what is/isn't possible, when you don't even have
the data to make a vague guess, is a bad idea. And this is just what he
is doing: "Since we have virtually **no** data to determine what
possible combinations *can* or *do* work, lets just assume they all
work, then make up some 'really big number' based on that assumption."
Sorry, but such a number is meaningless, since it presumes facts you
don't have.
But none of that really matters, since the article says *nothing* about
the likelihood of macro vs. micro, and only supports the idea that it
all works, based on the existing "chart". A fact that would **support**
the idea that it all started from a single cell, since, even if there
where a thousand possible "working" solutions, the only way you get only
*one* solution that works, on all scales, is via common descent.
Well, ok, you could get it via engineered DNA, but if so, the engineer
is an idiot, in as much that nothing in our DNA is engineered to be
robust or stable, just "good enough". Engineers don't design things to
be, "Barely good enough to stay afloat.", and that is what you get when
you start looking at the hacks, screwy solutions, and bad designs in
biological systems. The other claim is a, "genetic map", leading from
the first versions to the newest ones, which plays out like some sort of
master program. But.. Oops, that doesn't work either, since lots of
species don't have near enough unused "data" in them to do that
(including viruses), some viruses and the like have barely enough to
function at all, for example, let alone contain "code" to define how
they got from the first cell to now, and we are finding the function of
most of the "junk" DNA in humans and other animals. This pretty much
only leaves the "damaged" DNA, which are regions containing copies of
things that are broken, like the Vitamin C gene, which exists in humans,
in a damaged form, but isn't functional, which is why *we* get scurvy,
while non-primates don't. We know what it *should* have done, what it
does in other animals, and that it **is** broken. And that is the point,
we survive *despite* it being broken, since we can get what it used to
produce from other sources. If we couldn't, then we *would* die out.
There is nothing in there that would suggest denial of common descent of
macro evolution.
--
void main () {
call functional_code()
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > The article and the photo series was nothing more than mocking for the
> > sake of mocking. "Have a look at these photos and have a good laugh."
> > There was no other point.
> Yes. And I feel it's entirely appropriate to mock people who are trying
> to get others to act in self-destructive ways.
Mocking for the sake of mocking is not constructive nor helpful. It only
increases aversion between different groups. Is that really the correct
way of doing things?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
