 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25-12-2011 0:34, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 10:01:39 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
>> On 12/23/2011 19:28, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Methinks you missed the ironic twist in what he was writing,
>>> particularly
>>
>> I got well and truly POE'd.
>
> Power Over Etherneted? ;)
problably not. If it was Andy i might go for Pipe Organ Encounter but he
isn't, so I have no clue what he did mean.
--
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the floor.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/25/2011 1:15, andrel wrote:
> problably not. If it was Andy i might go for Pipe Organ Encounter but he
> isn't, so I have no clue what he did mean.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 09:45:08 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> On 12/25/2011 1:15, andrel wrote:
>> problably not. If it was Andy i might go for Pipe Organ Encounter but
>> he isn't, so I have no clue what he did mean.
>
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
Yeah, I found that after posting. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/25/2011 2:10 AM, andrel wrote:
> On 25-12-2011 3:31, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 12/24/2011 4:20 AM, andrel wrote:
>>> I am not sure you got the irony either. I start doubting my ability to
>>> get any message across :( .
>>
>> Oh, and, in my own defense, I post commentary on at least three blogs
>> that have drive by stupid on them all the time,
>
> It is good to be reminded that on the internet there is always some
> place where you might be perceived as a drive by stupid.
>
Sorry. Lets just say that its a reflex action. :( And one that, I am
embarrassed to admit, I have called others on, more than once, when I
wasn't so certain the person in question wasn't asking an honest, but
poorly worded, question, instead of asserting complete gibberish. We
don't get the former often enough sadly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcable com> wrote:
> Sorry. Lets just say that its a reflex action. :( And one that, I am
> embarrassed to admit, I have called others on, more than once, when I
> wasn't so certain the person in question wasn't asking an honest, but
> poorly worded, question, instead of asserting complete gibberish. We
> don't get the former often enough sadly.
In the Yahoo! Answers Religion & Spirituality room, certain questions are asked
so often (as in several times per day) that they are considered "drinking
questions." When one of these questions was posted, the regulars answered with
"drink!" The questions often try the maxim that there are no stupid questions.
Some questions earned the pinnacle status of double-drink question. Examples:
"Why do atheists come to the Religion section?" "Why do Catholics worship
Mary?" "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" That last
question really belongs in the Biology room, but young-Earth creationists aren't
known for keeping their domains straight. Bottoms up twice!
I don't hang out there much any more, so I don't know if they still do the
drinking game. I have no doubt, though, that the same questions are still being
asked, over and over again, with not a thought given to the Search button.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/27/2011 4:55 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Some questions earned the pinnacle status of double-drink question. Examples:
> "Why do atheists come to the Religion section?" "Why do Catholics worship
> Mary?" "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" That last
> question really belongs in the Biology room, but young-Earth creationists aren't
> known for keeping their domains straight. Bottoms up twice!
>
Yeah, its right up there in the logic level with, "If motorcycles where
based on bicycles, why are their still bicycles?", and similar
stupidities. Not just wrong category, but just.. like why they hell not?
Just because some of them got smarter meant that somehow the original
niche they filled disappeared? Brainless...
Usually, when those come up, on the blogs I go to, its some, "true
believer (tm)", trying to refute our horrible insistence on believing in
evolution, based on a laundry list of things they just can't believe we
could have possibly ever heard before. The "Drink!", thing is probably
more civilized. On the blogs, the usually result is a brief attempt to
explain, followed by, when the person proves impervious to that, a rapid
decline into, "Go look it up yourself, or at least try reading a damn
book that wasn't published by Answers In Genesis!", and then name calling.
We are the.. pit bull population, to some other people's attempts are
enlightened discussion. But then, we a) do get converts, who, every
place else they went, found someone patting them on the back, and
treating their clueless gibberish seriously, and b) the people running
the blogs have been shanghaied into enough "debates", in which they had
15 minutes to address one stupid assertion, semi-completely, out of the
endless fount of nonsense, half backed claims, outright lies, and
blatant misrepresentations that the creationist spewed in the same 15
minutes they had, that no one, from the blog owner, to the people that
post there, have *any* patience at all with people showing up with no
interest in learning, and a long list of objections that they mentally
photocopied off of what *we* call, "The list of worst claims, arguments,
and objections ever invented.", but which creationist sites insist on
labeling, "Unanswered questions, ideas that can't be refuted, and things
you should ask any biologist, museum owner, or other conspirator in the
spreed of the evils of Evolution."
Basically, you come to our bar with this sort of thing, and you won't
find many drunks, but you might find yourself dodging thrown bottles. ;) lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky <rickysttATyahooDOTcom> wrote:
> "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" That last
> question really belongs in the Biology room, but young-Earth creationists aren't
> known for keeping their domains straight. Bottoms up twice!
I have seen many videos with titles like "ultimate proof of the existence
of God!" and the like, and which then proceed to try to disprove evolution.
I'm like: "Wait, I thought you were going to prove the existence of God
rather than discuss biology. What gives?"
It's a rather typical argumentative fallacy.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> On 12/27/2011 4:55 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> > Some questions earned the pinnacle status of double-drink question. Examples:
> > "Why do atheists come to the Religion section?" "Why do Catholics worship
> > Mary?" "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" That last
> > question really belongs in the Biology room, but young-Earth creationists aren't
> > known for keeping their domains straight. Bottoms up twice!
> >
> Yeah, its right up there in the logic level with, "If motorcycles where
> based on bicycles, why are their still bicycles?", and similar
> stupidities. Not just wrong category, but just.. like why they hell not?
> Just because some of them got smarter meant that somehow the original
> niche they filled disappeared? Brainless...
It's actually it's wronger than that. According to cladistics(*) humans
did not "evolve from monkeys". Instead, humans and monkeys have a common
ancestor species. This ancestor species probably looked more like a monkey
than a human, but was still relatively different from either.
(Also, apes are more closely related to humans than monkeys. It seems that
creationists and other people who want to mock the theory of evolution
deliberately use the more distantly related monkeys more as a mockery than
anything else. According to cladistics humans and apes have a common ancestor
species, which in turn has a common ancestor species with monkeys.)
(*) Unlike most creationists and many other people think, the theory of
evolution does not say what species humans evolved from. The theory of
evolution describes the mechanism, not the history of evolution. For the
history you need to turn to paleontology and cladistics.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/12/2011 03:24 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Yesterday, I burned my copy of Darwin's Black Box. Just so you know.
They say every cloud has a silver lining. And in a sense, I guess that's
true.
Darwin's Black Box is a book written by an ignorant man trying to bully
you into believing his fantasies, using the flimsiest of logic. (I gave
up approximately when he started arguing that the definition of
"science" is too limiting... Anyone who doesn't understand what science
is has no business calling themselves a scientist, in my view.)
On the other hand, reading Molecular Biology of the Gene [Watson et al]
left me uninterested, yet reading Darwin's Black Box showed me just how
interesting molecular biology is, and gave me decent intuitive
metaphores for how this stuff actually works - something which the dense
scientific reference text did not.
So I guess even something evil can harbour something good...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On the other hand, reading Molecular Biology of the Gene [Watson et al]
> left me uninterested, yet reading Darwin's Black Box showed me just how
> interesting molecular biology is, and gave me decent intuitive
> metaphores for how this stuff actually works - something which the dense
> scientific reference text did not.
If you want to read two interesting books about biology and science,
try "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins and "The Demon Haunted
World" by Carl Sagan.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
