Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. - Albert Einstein

Allah-Puncher
by Lee

I’m curious.  Every time I am critical of evangelicals or of organized religion I am accused of being a Christ-puncher, despite the fact that I’ve never actually had a bad word to say about religious belief in an of itself, only in the way some people manifest that belief in negative ways.  However, yesterday and today I’ve allowed people to create astonishingly derogatory images directly insulting Islam.  The reason I did this was as a form of protest, to show how stupid it is for people to get all up in arms simply because someone else happens to express a disagreement with their particular religious beliefs.

So, why is it a bad thing for Muslims to get pissed off when people cast aspersions on their religious beliefs, but perfectly acceptable for fundamentalist Christians to throw a fit and insult me for questioning the truth about the biblical account of creation?

Posted by Lee on 01/31/06 at 01:18 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 01/31/06 at 02:42 PM from United States

If you want to be picky about it, Muslims and Jews should be insulting you over your questioning the story of creation since they all use the same one as Christians.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 03:13 PM from United Kingdom

So, why is it a bad thing for Muslims to get pissed off when people cast aspersions on their religious beliefs, but perfectly acceptable for fundamentalist Christians to throw a fit and insult me for questioning the truth about the biblical account of creation?

It’s not, its completly hypocritical - although I imagine you would be called a bit worse than a Christ-puncher if you asked for offensive pictures of Jesus.

Despite this, I can understand why people get offended when their world belief is attacked or criticised, what they need to remember is there is no right to not be offended by others.

If you want to be picky about it, Muslims and Jews should be insulting you over your questioning the story of creation since they all use the same one as Christians.

I have yet to meet a Jewish person who takes Genesis literally though, in the same way I only know of one (real world) person who takes Genesis literally. I can’t say I know enough Muslims for a representative sample of any form - do Muslims take the genesis fable literally?

Posted by Kilroy on 01/31/06 at 03:16 PM from United States

Ah Deep Thoughts........

The fundamentalist are all the same.  Their beliefs system is so weak that they are afraid that any CARTOON could cause their whole belief system to come crashing down. 

Fundamentalist Christians = bad hair and two much makeup
Fundamentalist Muslims = Bombs and red beards
Fundamentalist Hindu = Worshipping my steak
Fundamentalist = Ignorance

Posted by Kilroy on 01/31/06 at 03:21 PM from United States

I can’t say I know enough Muslims for a representative sample of any form - do Muslims take the genesis fable literally?

Why you son of a bitch.  FABLE, FABLE I HOPE YOU HAVE FUN IN HELL AS SANTA FUCKS YOUR RECTUM AND YOU BLOW THAT SHE BITCH FOREVER.  I WILL KILL YOU AND SMASH YOUR SMALL BRAIN WITH A FUCKING ROCK. YOU WHORE OF BABYLON!!!!!

See fundamentalism can be fun.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 03:30 PM from United States

So, why is it a bad thing for Muslims to get pissed off when people cast aspersions on their religious beliefs, but perfectly acceptable for fundamentalist Christians to throw a fit and insult me for questioning the truth about the biblical account of creation?

Because fundamentalist Christians will just bitch and call you names and tell you all about how you’ll burn in hell. Muslims on the other hand will murder you, literally

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 03:34 PM from United States

As a Christian I’ve vehemently disagreed many times but never gotten truely and deeply pissed off.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 03:36 PM from United States

So, why is it a bad thing for Muslims to get pissed off when people cast aspersions on their religious beliefs, but perfectly acceptable for fundamentalist Christians to throw a fit and insult me for questioning the truth about the biblical account of creation?

Because when fundamentalist Christians get mad at you, they just yell at you and tell you you should stop what you’re saying.  Muslims threaten to kill you, and intimidate you physically.

When you insult a Muslim, you’re actually taking a risk. When you attack Christians, who practice their religion relatively peacefully, you’re hitting someone you know won’t hit back.

This is the same reason why it’s brave to protest in oppressive countries where you can be thrown in jail, but when you protest in America, it’s usually just a lame publicity stunt, since the government you’re protesting has guaranteed your right to protest.  You’re taking no risk, but you’re pretending to be brave.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 03:48 PM from United Kingdom

Why you son of a bitch.  FABLE, FABLE I HOPE YOU HAVE FUN IN HELL AS SANTA FUCKS YOUR RECTUM AND YOU BLOW THAT SHE BITCH FOREVER.  I WILL KILL YOU AND SMASH YOUR SMALL BRAIN WITH A FUCKING ROCK. YOU WHORE OF BABYLON!!!!!

See fundamentalism can be fun.

hehe :)

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 04:18 PM from United States

As a Christian, I certainly don’t agree with what you have to say but I beleive you have Jesus’s permission to say whatever you want. Jesus hung out with whores and tax collectors, not exactly the upper crust of society

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 04:20 PM from United States

In other words, Jesus would hang out here ;)

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 04:27 PM from Canada

Whatever you do, don’t take the Flying Spagetti Monster’s name in vain or I’ll have to pasta bomb you.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 04:28 PM from United States

So, why is it a bad thing for Muslims to get pissed off when people cast aspersions on their religious beliefs, but perfectly acceptable for fundamentalist Christians to throw a fit and insult me for questioning the truth about the biblical account of creation

Get over yourself.

When Christians get angry, you get insulted. When Muslins get angry, people go boom…

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 04:28 PM from Canada

When you think of all the bad press Satan gets, why aren’t Satanists up in arms about this?  Shouldn’t Satanist be a little more wiley?  Doesn’t say much for the religion of peace when your greatest enemy is more easy going than you are.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 04:30 PM from United States

When you insult a Muslim, you’re actually taking a risk. When you attack Christians, who practice their religion relatively peacefully, you’re hitting someone you know won’t hit back.

Indeed, someone had a great line that Kanye West was a pussy dressing up as Jesus, if he had balls he’d have gone as Mohammad.

Hell, even a fucking CARTOON image of Mohammad has gotten them all fucking wild-eyed out in Denmark.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 04:32 PM from United States

Indeed, someone had a great line that Kanye West was a pussy dressing up as Jesus, if he had balls he’d have gone as Mohammad.

See, hilarious, I’m not going to kill people because of this.

Fundamentalists are just dumb.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 04:33 PM from United Kingdom

Wohhhoooooooooo

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 04:42 PM from United Kingdom

P.s., they are talking about a constitutional bill of rights to prevent the government enacting crap like they tried today. Interesting link back to the discussion a couple of days ago.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 04:47 PM from Canada

So, why is it a bad thing for Muslims to get pissed off when people cast aspersions on their religious beliefs, but perfectly acceptable for fundamentalist Christians to throw a fit and insult me for questioning the truth about the biblical account of creation?

I have never said that people should not be able to criticize or insult other religions.  Frankly stuff like piss christ does not bother me.  What pisses me and, I am sure others, off is the double standard that islam has in the MSM.  Insult or criticism of islam is not tolerated in the MSM but criticism of christianity is celebrated as free speech.  Flushing the Bible is free speech but flushing the quran is EVIL and FACIST. 
On an other point, Lee Christians or Jews for the most part do not kill due to insult to their religion, but muslims do.  Not only that, but what exactly is it that muslims consider insult?  I think you will find that it depends on if you are a muslim or not.  This current attempt by muslims to silence their critics is just another attempt by them to exert power over us.  Which is EXACTLY what islam (submission) is all about.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 04:47 PM from United States

What was this about, padders?

Posted by Nethicus on 01/31/06 at 04:51 PM from United States

Well, Christianity tells us to forgive, turn the other cheek, all that good stuff.  I’ve only called you a Christ-Puncher in jest. While Christians may get pissy at you, they will come to forgive you.  Unless they’re nuts.

On the other hand, Muslims will actually call for your death.  Remember Salman Rushdie?  He just wrote a book, a book that was not critical of Islam, but one that invoked Muhammed as a character.  So the Ayatollah put the stink-eye on him and now he’s got to hide out or get a bomb up the ass.

Heinlen wrote a book that had Yahwah as a petulant minor god who was reprimanded by Odin.  I don’t remember the Pope calling for a crusade against Heinlen.

Even Dennis Leary had a fake “Project Greenlight” show where one of the characters was Jesus.  (Of course, Book of Daniel had a Jesus character, and some fundies went apeshit over that, but bear in mind that a vast majority of the country didn’t go apeshit.  I actually watched it and was mildly amused, but I wouldn’t consider myself a Fundie.) However, a vast majority of the Islamic world is fundamentalist light to fundie heavy.  Piss them off and you’re in trouble.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 04:51 PM from United Kingdom

There was legislation being proposed today targeting racial hatred. While most of us agree you can’t stand up and say “Going and kill that Jew” there where huge worries that bill was going to lead to stiffling of free speach, particularly the ability to offend people.

Fortunatly it did not pass. This was rather unexpected, the government completly underestimated how unpopular this legislation was.

Big demonstration today from people of all groups all wanting to maintin their ability to offend each other, brilliant :)

One down, next thing to knock out is the ID card bill. There is hope still :)

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 04:53 PM from United Kingdom

I should clarify, the ammendments just tightened up the bill to exclude humour and other such things. The government was opposed to the ammendments but they passed.

Basically this bill was a political bone to the Muslim community in the run up to the last election. It extends protection of groups from racial groups to religious groups.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 06:09 PM from United States

I cannot deal with quadruple negatives like in this headline:
Courts Uphold: Partial-birth abortion ban unconstitutional...

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 01/31/06 at 07:24 PM from United States

Whacky fundamentalists on the whole are a minority in most religions. The types who take the Bible literally constantly see themselves under seige from the rest of society, particularly science. In our country, at least, they are more to be pitied than feared, in spite of threats of Godly retribution from Pat Robertson.

Posted by Poosh on 01/31/06 at 07:26 PM from United Kingdom

What’s a Jesus?

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 07:30 PM from United States

What’s a Jesus?

My gardener.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 07:38 PM from United States

Whacky fundamentalists on the whole are a minority in most religions. The types who take the Bible literally constantly see themselves under seige from the rest of society, particularly science. In our country, at least, they are more to be pitied than feared, in spite of threats of Godly retribution from Pat Robertson.

So, how do you know this, wvr?  What makes you an expert on these “types”?

Save your pity and your fear.  I doubt they are interested in either, especially your pity.  They probably pity you.

Posted by Poosh on 01/31/06 at 07:45 PM from United Kingdom

The most ignorant thing a man can say is that all religions are the same.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 07:48 PM from United States

What’s a Jesus?

My gardener.

Gripeboy, I hope you’re not insinuating that you use the services of some of illegal immigrants that you so adamantly oppose....

Posted by mikeguas on 01/31/06 at 08:00 PM from United States

What’s a Jesus?

My gardener.

Holy crap that was funny.

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 09:53 PM from United States

despite the fact that I’ve never actually had a bad word to say about religious belief in an of itself, only in the way some people manifest that belief in negative ways. 

Let’s see.  One of the core beliefs in christianity is that God created the earth, and you have bashed that belief (calling christians idiots and such) numerous times.

You see, whenever you get on your anti-ID tirades, you neglect certain things.  Sure, christians generally believe in ID and are the majority of believers in it in the states.  After all.....MOST PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY ARE CHRISTIAN!!!  Also, christians believe in ID, but so do people of other religions and also perhaps even some agnostics.  You also forget that ID doesn’t dismiss Evolution but the Big Bang Theory.  Hell, you shoot yourself in the foot when you bash people for believing in the story of the Ark where infact if you really thought about it, that story would actually help your belief in Evolution (there weren’t nearly as mainy species back then but then mutations happened causing many species yada yada yada).  Something else you fail to see is that the media twist their stories to make christians look as bad as possible.  The Schiavo case was the biggest bit of evidence in that.  Everything it was discussed, the media would say “Christian groups want her to live”, completely ignoring the fact that even a huge amount of athiest thought that she should live and that the issue wasn’t all about religion.  Other evidence of media biased is whenever ID is talked about.  The only thing that alot of believers in ID wanted was for a biology teacher to say “Some believe in ID”.....and that’s it.  But schools won’t even allow that and the media makes it sound like IDers want it to be taught for several days or even weeks.

Posted by JimK on 01/31/06 at 10:47 PM from United States

Points to Twenty2Acaciaave

Holy shit, dude, why not just post “Lee, you’re 100% right, we Christians who attack you are total fucking hypocrites.”

It would have been shorter.

(So I see that everything on the page is in italics, and I’m thinking, Okay, who is the dumb fuck who can’t use the buttons?  And it’s the fucking webmaster. — Lee)

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 10:51 PM from United States

JimK:  Where is there hypocrosy in my post?  I didn’t call Lee an idiot or any other names.  I didn’t call him stupid for his beliefs.  I just pointed out some things to him and how he’s assuming things that just aren’t true.  Another example is how he seems to think anyone who believes in ID thinks that the earth is only 6,000 old.  That is simply not true.

Posted by InsipiD on 01/31/06 at 10:52 PM from United States

Let’s fix that.

Posted by InsipiD on 01/31/06 at 10:52 PM from United States

What the hell?

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 11:30 PM from United States

Fixed

Posted by on 01/31/06 at 11:31 PM from United States

Gripeboy, I hope you’re not insinuating that you use the services of some of illegal immigrants that you so adamantly oppose....

I don’t check the greencards of all the employees of all the contractors I hire, if that’s what you mean. ;-)

Posted by Aaron - Free Will on 01/31/06 at 11:50 PM from United States

Because fundamentalist Christians will just bitch and call you names and tell you all about how you’ll burn in hell. Muslims on the other hand will murder you, literally

Bingo. Danish Muslims burned down entire neighborhoods in Arhus and held the mall there hostage for nights in a row. (This news was totally obscured by the larger French riots which took place simultaneously.) They’re beating Scandinavians in the streets of the Middle East. Flags burnt. Attacks on EU offices. A Palestinian terrorist group has ordered all Scandinavians out of Gaza. Ambassadors are being recalled.

The problem isn’t that they’re mad, the problem is that they’re about to declare a fucking jihad over *fucking cartoons*, and there doesn’t seem to be a vocal element in the middle east that cares to oppose it.

Posted by on 02/01/06 at 12:32 AM from United States

BTW, I don’t really have a problem with Lee.  He’s been civil towards me before.  I agree with Lee on most things and only really disagree with him when it comes to his opinions of IDers, his opinons on “obese” people (I’m 5’8”, 185lbs, so I’m not exactly a tub of lard), and his opinion on how Bush handled Katrina.  Other then that, I’m usually in agreeance with him.  He’s not a Hannity-like salad tosser of the Republican party.

Posted by Lee on 02/01/06 at 12:46 AM from United States

One of the core beliefs in christianity is that God created the earth, and you have bashed that belief (calling christians idiots and such) numerous times.

No, that’s not what I’ve said.  Believing that God created the Earth is totally normal and reasonable.  Believing in the biblical mechanism by which God created the Earth WHILE IGNORING ALL AVAILABLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WHICH CONTRADICTS IT is what makes you an idiot.  (Not you specifically, just a generalized you.) It’s the “ignoring science” part that makes you an idiot, not the “believes in God” part.  To put it another way, whether you believe God created the world, or that gravity is caused by fairies, or that cats steal kids’ breath, if the science contradicts your belief and you choose to ignore the science in favor of your particular belief, no matter what the subject, then you’re being willfully self-ignorant and that is what makes you an idiot.

Posted by on 02/01/06 at 01:08 AM from United States

No, that’s not what I’ve said.  Believing that God created the Earth is totally normal and reasonable.  Believing in the biblical mechanism by which God created the Earth WHILE IGNORING ALL AVAILABLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WHICH CONTRADICTS IT is what makes you an idiot.  (Not you specifically, just a generalized you.) It’s the “ignoring science” part that makes you an idiot, not the “believes in God” part.  To put it another way, whether you believe God created the world, or that gravity is caused by fairies, or that cats steal kids’ breath, if the science contradicts your belief and you choose to ignore the science in favor of your particular belief, no matter what the subject, then you’re being willfully self-ignorant and that is what makes you an idiot.

But you show no proof if IDers ignoring science.  You act like ID and evolution is totally exclusive from each other.  Again, the one theory that ID truely challenges is the Big Bang theory.  Well that and only one part of the theory of evolution which states that we came from apes.  You also seem to think that IDers believe that the entire universe was created 6,000 years ago.  Simply not true.  I myself have a theory (of the most unscientific sence, but bare with me) that perhaps different galaxies were created by different “gods”.

The thing with ID is it is the Unitarianism of the world when it comes to the creation of the wolrd.  Different types of people with completely different beliefs but all having the general belief that someone or something created this planet.

Posted by Mister Minit on 02/01/06 at 06:10 AM from Europe

infact if you really thought about it, that story would actually help your belief in Evolution

Ok then

Posted by on 02/01/06 at 07:42 AM from United States

if the science contradicts your belief and you choose to ignore the science in favor of your particular belief, no matter what the subject, then you’re being willfully self-ignorant and that is what makes you an idiot.

Unless the topic is something that you disagree with and then it’s perfectly acceptable to ignore scietific data.

Lee says anyone who ever disagrees with what a scientist says is an idiot, except when it comes to global warming, or second hand smoke, or recycling or anything else that was once a commonly accpeted scientific theroy that has since been proven wrong. But evolution is completely differnt, there is absolutely no way they can be wrong about that, even though he accepts there are great flaws in it, and that even the scientist who beleive in it can’t agree on most of it.

Yep, yep yep. Science is never wrong and to think that it ever could be is the equivelent of being like Osama Bin Laden (someone I have been compared to on this board), unless of course it’s spontanueos generation, phrenology, alchemey, bleeding (the medical practice that killed our first president), astrology, geocentric theroy…

Posted by on 02/01/06 at 08:42 AM from United States

Again, the one theory that ID truely challenges is the Big Bang theory.

Uh, not quite. The only thing that ID challenges is the notion that undirected, random mutation coupled with natural selection is a sufficient mechanism to account for certain biological machines that we observe.  What people tend to ignore is that ID is very very specific in its claims. It isn’t a general-purpose “we don’t know so let’s say ‘God Did It’ and call it a theory” shoulder-shrug people misrerepesent it as.

Posted by on 02/01/06 at 08:51 AM from United States

misrerepesent

What the hell??

Should be “misrepresent”.

Yeah, I’m an idiot…

Posted by on 02/01/06 at 09:02 AM from United States

Lee says anyone who ever disagrees with what a scientist says is an idiot, except when it comes to global warming, or second hand smoke, or recycling or anything else that was once a commonly accpeted scientific theroy that has since been proven wrong. But evolution is completely differnt, there is absolutely no way they can be wrong about that

I’m not trying to pile on here, but Dirk’s point is dead-on.  Scientists are full of crap on a lot of things.  There seems to be a double-standard on which things our host agrees with scientists on, and which things he disagrees.

TV (Harry)

Posted by on 02/01/06 at 09:18 AM from United States

Where did Lee say that scientists are infallable?

He’s never said evolution is 100% accurate, global warming isn’t happening, smoke is not bad for you or any of those things. The point is, there are theories that have supporting evidence and theories that don’t. When people choose to believe in the one’s without, despite the existence of better explanations, they are suffering from self-imposed ignorance.

Call it what you want but you guys are the ones clinging to your beliefs despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Posted by Nethicus on 02/01/06 at 10:07 AM from United States

misrerepesent

What the hell??

Should be “misrepresent”.

Yeah, I’m an idiot…

Sounds like a Bushism.

Posted by Lee on 02/01/06 at 10:43 AM from United States

Dirk Steele:

Lee says anyone who ever disagrees with what a scientist says is an idiot, except when it comes to global warming, or second hand smoke, or recycling or anything else that was once a commonly accpeted scientific theroy that has since been proven wrong. But evolution is completely differnt, there is absolutely no way they can be wrong about that, even though he accepts there are great flaws in it, and that even the scientist who beleive in it can’t agree on most of it.

Harry:

I’m not trying to pile on here, but Dirk’s point is dead-on.  Scientists are full of crap on a lot of things.  There seems to be a double-standard on which things our host agrees with scientists on, and which things he disagrees.

Christ almighty.  It would be one thing if you guys simply disagreed with me, but you continually need to totally misrepresent things I have said countless times to the contrary. 

I have never said that evolution was infallible.  What I have said is that just because you find flaws in evolution that this does not inherently lend any credence whatsoever to ID.  To use an example I’ve used probably 20 times before, if you are trying to solve a murder, and you have two suspects, simply proving that one suspect didn’t do it doesn’t make the other suspect guilty.  That second suspect needs to be proved guilty on his own accord.  And, in an identical manner, finding flaws in evolution does not instantly mean than ID is correct.  Both ID and evolution could be totally wrong, and there could be an as yet undiscovered third process that is the correct answer.  All the ID folks do is find a couple of holes in evolutionary theory and say, “Aha, this proves the Bible is correct!” Which is complete horseshit, and a totally illogical way of ing a point.  If you want to pass ID off as science, then you need to support ID with science, not merely by finding flaws in competing theories.

As far as global warming goes, I’ve been one of the few people around here to state, unequivocally, that global warming is taking place, and that human beings are responsible for it to a large degree.  I’ve been remarkably critical of Republican politicians who call global warming the largest fraud ever perpetuated on the American people (or something to that effect).  Why?  Because the science shows us, clearly and indisputably, that the earth is getting warmer, and that greenhouse gasses are the most likely cause.  My position has always been that the doomsday scenarios put forth are nothing more than political interpretations of the science.  In other words, socialists who have always wanted to hamstring the US economy are now using the science of global warming to push a radical economic agenda, for which there is no scientific evidence that the agenda will have any effect.  (See?  Science works both ways.)

I’m not going to go into the specifics of secondhand smoke or recycling, except to point out a few salient facts.

1) Both of these were, like global warming, hot-button political issues driven by science. 
2) The arguments against both of these were made BY SCIENCE.  The bogus aspects to secondhand smoke were proved BY BETTER SCIENCE, not by looking at the pages of a book from thousands of years ago.  (If you can provide better science to prove ID then I’d love to hear it.  Unfortunately, since the existence of God cannot be proven, then ID cannot ever, under any circumstances, be considered a science.)
3) You don’t prove that secondhand smoke is not as bad for you as claimed by pointing out that broccoli isn’t as good for you as people think.

Posted by Lee on 02/01/06 at 10:43 AM from United States

In short, Dirk, I have NEVER claimed that disagreeing with something a scientist claimed made you an idiot.  I disagree with scientists all the time.  The distinction is that when I disagree with a scientist it’s because I have differing scientific evidence on which to base my disagreement.  What you have with ID are people who are so insecure in their own religious beliefs, and so disturbed by the indisputable fact that those beliefs are not borne out by the scientific evidence, that they are willing to REDEFINE SCIENCE so that their own personal religious biases can then be supported by the thin veneer of pseudoscience.

I am opposed to ID not because it’s religion but because it’s NOT FUCKING SCIENCE.  Why is this so hard for you numbskulls to understand?  I mean, if you want to believe that there is a divine force in the universe who created you and provided the spark for the big bang and what have you, fine, that’s completely reasonable.  What is lunacy is denying the entire weight of the scientific record simply because it happens to disagree with ludicrous allegorical creation stories written many thousands of years ago.

Believing in God is not insane.  Believing in the infallibility of the Bible (a book written by men, let us not forget) to the exclusion of scientific evidence to the contrary makes you a fool.

Now, please, feel free to continue to distort my beliefs and opinions to make me out to be some Christ-hater.  It seems to be the only way you radical religious types can derive any self-esteem these days.  You damn sure can’t do it by making a logical argument.

Posted by Poosh on 02/01/06 at 11:07 AM from United Kingdom

Believing in the infallibility of the Bible (a book written by men, let us not forget) to the exclusion of scientific evidence to the contrary makes you a fool.

Exactly, tell me using logic, for my God created logic, why I should with all my heart trust a book written by vile Humans?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/01/06 at 11:40 AM from United States

why I should with all my heart trust a book written by vile Humans?

“...the Bible tells me so...”

{/Sunday School songs}

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/01/06 at 11:43 AM from United States

But you show no proof if IDers ignoring science.

It’s not ignoring science that is the problem. It’s replacing Science’s answer of “we don’t know - yet” with “we can’t explain it, therefore it must be some ‘Intelligent Agent’ (winkwink)”. With no evidence whatsoever. While claiming that the lack of said evidence proves their case.

It is, as they say, to laugh.

Posted by on 02/01/06 at 02:17 PM from United States

All the ID folks do is find a couple of holes in evolutionary theory and say, “Aha, this proves the Bible is correct!”

This is the kind of “ misrerepesent"ation I was rerefererering to…

Posted by on 02/01/06 at 03:26 PM from United States

Dont have much time for this stuff recently, and haven’t read this whole thread, but here’s my take.

1) There’s not many Muslims here, if there were, I’m sure there would probably be more offense taken.

2) Do you post pics of mohammed talking about fucking goats, and then in the same sentence say that you don’t have a problem with Muslims?

3) It’s not so much the making fun at the expense of the religion, as it is the obsession about it. (1 out of every 3 posts seems to have something to do with it).

4) The fact that you will take an issue, and swear up and down that the only people who could possibly believe in or care about such an issue is fundementalist Christians.

---

Case in point: I’m not Christian, not really religious, more of an agnostic, but myself and many like me believe atleast in the possibility of an ‘Intelligent Design’. Yet every time you talk about Intelligent Design you assert that only wacko fundamentalist Christians believe in it.

--

Kinda like when you take a line that is against Bush, and somebody says something like ‘Only pussy-bleeding liberals believe in so and so...’ ... you going to tell me that this has never offended you? Because I sure remember some profanity laden tirades about it.

Posted by on 02/01/06 at 05:04 PM from United States

What I have said is that just because you find flaws in evolution that this does not inherently lend any credence whatsoever to ID.

My problem has never been that you or anyone on this board disagrees with me, it’s that you all disagree with me and then harass me, insult me, and try to degrade me and people like me every time you can for no apparant reason. I have been called every vile thing you can imagine including being compared to bin Laden because of my views on the origin of life.

And, in an identical manner, finding flaws in evolution does not instantly mean than ID is correct.

And you show me ONE post where I have said that the ONLY reason I disagree with evolution is because it has flaws? I have constantly linked to, and mentioned scientific evidence that paints a differnt picture of the origins of life. Maybe you disregard it, maybe you just ignore it, but it’s not as simple as “because the Bible says so”.

If you want to pass ID off as science, then you need to support ID with science, not merely by finding flaws in competing theories.

And when has that ever been my goal? I have NEVER advocated teaching ID or Creationism in school.

Lee, my whole point is you sit here and say “all knowledge is gained through science” or something along those lines, and make the claim that if you ignore the “scientific” evidence of evolution you are an idiot, but 600 years ago science taught us the world was flat. Not everyone agreed, were they idiots for doubting “all of the sceintific data in the world” , even if there were a few holes in it?

Throughout the entire history of man, science has been wrong over and over again about topic after topic, but yet anyone who doubts evolution is automatically a knuckle dragging cave dweller afraid of his own shadow.

It seems to be the only way you radical religious types can derive any self-esteem these days. 

Religous radical? Have you ever even read my posts?

Posted by SlimyBill on 02/01/06 at 08:41 PM from United States

Throughout the entire history of man, science has been wrong over and over again about topic after topic, but yet anyone who doubts evolution is automatically a knuckle dragging cave dweller afraid of his own shadow.

BANG!!!!!

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/01/06 at 08:48 PM from United States

Throughout the entire history of man, science has been wrong over and over again about topic after topic

And exactly how did we prove it wrong?

By MORE ACCURATE DATA, not through Divine Revelation Of Truth (TM).

Posted by on 02/02/06 at 05:38 AM from United States

And exactly how did we prove it wrong?

By MORE ACCURATE DATA, not through Divine Revelation Of Truth (TM).

Point being what? You say that like it proves evolution to be more true.

I doubt evolution. There are serious evidentiary and logic gaps. Far too much of it is speculation and geuss work for me to firmly trust it, that in connection with the fact science has been wrong many many times before, still is wrong, and will be wrong again and again I think is a fair enough reason to be willing to accept other theroys.

Is creationism perfect? No. Is it 100% scienctically provable (is evolution)? No. Have I ever once advocated teaching creation is a science classroom? No. Have I ever insulted someone because they disagree with me on this topic? No. I just don’t understand why you people find it your duty to attack others that reject the unproven notion of evolution.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/02/06 at 08:41 AM from United States

I doubt evolution.

Good for you. Of course, you have something other than the lack of evidence to support this conclusion, am I right?

There are serious evidentiary and logic gaps.

Whereas the story of Genesis is perfectly understandable, logical and fits all available evidence, right? Oh, wait… I forgot to ask which of the two Creation myths found in Genesis you’re talking about.

Is {evolution} 100% scienctically {sic} provable (is evolution)? No.

Is {Creationism} even so much as 1% scientifically provable? No.

Have I ever once advocated teaching creation is a science classroom? No.

“Creationism”? No. “Intelligent Design” (as if there was a difference)? Certainly.

I just don’t understand why you people find it your duty to attack others that reject the unproven notion of evolution.

Because it is the only current theory that fits all of the available physical evidence.

but 600 years ago science taught us the world was flat.

You have the right to believe what you want. However, when you brag about believing that the Earth is flat - to the exclusion of available evidence - you have no right to whine when we point out the errors of your ways.

(And, once again, the Earth was shown to NOT be flat by improved observational data (i.e., Science), not through Divine Revelation from a burning bush.

No one is denying ID a place in schools. Nor Creationism, for that matter. Just not in the Science classrooms…

Posted by Lee on 02/02/06 at 10:02 AM from United States

3) It’s not so much the making fun at the expense of the religion, as it is the obsession about it. (1 out of every 3 posts seems to have something to do with it).

As I’ve said before, I only comment on things that are in the news.  I’m not making this shit up.  There is a well organized, well funded army of fundamentalist Christian lawyers out there who are working feverishly to use the court system to get ID installed in schools, and since this is a subject I have a strong opinion about I blogged on it.  If you don’t like reading about it, perhaps the fundamentalists could call off their attack dogs and quit trying to force their gibberish into America’s science curricula.

4) The fact that you will take an issue, and swear up and down that the only people who could possibly believe in or care about such an issue is fundementalist Christians.

No, what I have said (and if you can disprove this statement, be my guest) that the only people who are actively pushing this agenda are fundamentalist evangelical Christians.  It’s not all Christians.  It’s not Catholics pushing this, and it’s not even a majority of protestants.  It’s a small group of insecure, pathetic, evangelical fundamentalists, who aren’t happy with science contradicting their own personal superstitions and want to redefine science to serve their own ends.  THAT is what I find so offensive, and if some left-wing group was doing something similar I would be just as fucking pissed off about it.

Posted by Lee on 02/02/06 at 10:09 AM from United States

Lee, my whole point is you sit here and say “all knowledge is gained through science” or something along those lines, and make the claim that if you ignore the “scientific” evidence of evolution you are an idiot, but 600 years ago science taught us the world was flat. Not everyone agreed, were they idiots for doubting “all of the sceintific data in the world” , even if there were a few holes in it?

Throughout the entire history of man, science has been wrong over and over again about topic after topic, but yet anyone who doubts evolution is automatically a knuckle dragging cave dweller afraid of his own shadow.

Science is wrong all the time.  When have I ever claimed otherwise?  However, Dirk, in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE where science has been proved wrong, do you know what it was proved wrong by?  BETTER SCIENCE.  In other words, if you can use better science to prove that ID has greater scientific veracity than evolution, knock yourself out.  Unfortunately, the best that the ID folks can come up with is the following.

1) Point out the holes in evolutionary theory, which even its biggest proponents admit are there.

2) Make a big deal out of the word “theory”, when that word in a scientific context has a much different meaning than it does in common speech.  (Of course, most people don’t know this.)

3) Take Creationism and, through nonsense pseudoscientific drivel like “irreducible complexity” try to make an ostensibly scientific case for Creationism, but repackaging it as Intelligent Design.

4) Imply that there is just as much evidence supporting ID as there is of evolution, which is preposterous.

5) Claim parity between both ideas, because, hey, they’re both “theories” and therefore have equal validity, right?

ID is nothing more than a pathetic attempt by fundamentalist evangelical Christians to get creationism in school through the back door.

Posted by Poosh on 02/02/06 at 10:14 AM from United Kingdom

Actually, just a thought. Science “can’t be wrong” surely? It’s like maths can’t be wrong.

It’s the humans who use it that are in fact the ones that are wrong.

Posted by Poosh on 02/02/06 at 10:17 AM from United Kingdom

Point out the holes in evolutionary theory, which even its biggest proponents admit are there

Richard Twatters Dawkins an exception I’m guessing. Shit is Drumwaster abouters? I wanted to ask him about something he said yesterday or something about how all wars are based on population pressure (Starship Troopers stylee).

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/02/06 at 10:28 AM from United States

However, Dirk, in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE where science has been proved wrong, do you know what it was proved wrong by?  BETTER SCIENCE.

I already tried that point, and his attitude seems to be, “So what?"…

But on that “theory” confusion, even Dirka seems to be misusing it like they do on the cop shows, where “theory” means “wild-assed guess”.

So this definition is for you, Dirk! Pay attention.

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are “scientific law,” “hypothesis,” and “theory.”

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

So, in short, a “Theory” is not just guesswork to suggest possible explanations. It is a thoroughly (and multiply) tested explanation based on all available evidence that can be (but has not yet been) proven false. It can be used to predict future events and develop technology.

ID is NOT a “theory” in the scientific sense, whereas Evolution IS. Yes, there are gaps, and as more data becomes available, those gaps will narrow. But Science doesn’t require that we fill those gaps with some Extraterrestrial intelligence or Supernatural Agent - ID does.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/02/06 at 10:32 AM from United States

Shit is Drumwaster abouters?

I’m here, but I have appointments today, so I won’t be around very often or for long until about 4pm-ish my time (about 11pm or midnight your time)

Posted by Poosh on 02/02/06 at 10:37 AM from United Kingdom

Yeah basically, surely Islamic War i.e terrorism today is more to do with religion than population. Those Muslim Terrorists sure do kill thousands of their own population.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/02/06 at 10:57 AM from United States

Those Muslim Terrorists sure do kill thousands of their own population.

But it’s still a case of “they have it, we want it” and whoever has the best army (defined as “someone willing to fight for your side") wins. The religion or philosophy is just a tool to get the population angry enough to be willing to fight and die (or kill), instead of just sitting and complaining about the loss of privacy {and get your elbow out of my eye!}.

Without that population pressure, those “fights” would be through persuasion and enticements, not force.

Posted by on 02/02/06 at 01:20 PM from United States

There is a well organized, well funded army of fundamentalist Christian lawyers out there who are working feverishly to use the court system to get ID installed in schools

And I submit that this is ID’s biggest problem, this unyielding association it has with “fundamentalist Christianity”. This is probably why ID is identically equated to Genesis, even though ID has nothing to do with Genesis. ID will never get anything remotely resembling a fair hearing as long as this unfortunate and misguided association exists.

If “fundamentalist Christians” want to succeed in getting ID into the science classroom, the best thing they can do is walk away from it and let it enter (or fail to enter) on its own merits. Let those in the science community who see value in ID develop the hypothesis, and let it be discussed as secularly as possible by those scientists. If it goes the way of Steady State, well, c’est la vie.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/02/06 at 01:32 PM from United States

And I submit that this is ID’s biggest problem, this unyielding association it has with “fundamentalist Christianity”.

Well yeah, that and the fact that there is nothing at all in the way of physical evidence to support it, just arguments of “it can’t have happened that way, so it simply MUST have happened this way”.

Prove the existence of your “Intelligent Designer/Agent”, and we’ll talk.

Posted by on 02/02/06 at 02:03 PM from United States

there is nothing at all in the way of physical evidence to support it

The subcellular machines are the evidence. When experimental data prove how these machines could have evolved by a Darwinian model, ID is falsified.

If we landed on the moon and discovered a black monolithic slab precisely 11’3” tall by precisely 5’0” wide by precisely 1’3” thick, we would assume it to be the product of intelligence, not natural geological forces. Yet, when we discover microscopic nanotechnologies in the form of information replicators, rotary motors, and cascades with feedback loops, we assume the opposite, even though we cannot prove it (yet).

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/02/06 at 02:41 PM from United States

The subcellular machines are the evidence.

Prove that random chance couldn’t have done it.

You yourself have admitted that extraordinarily improbable events can and do happen regularly (or nobody would ever win the lottery - and the most friendly odds I’ve ever seen for those were on the close order of 7 million to one against), yet you claim that the whole of your evidence is the improbability of those instances…

You postulate an Intelligent Designer, specifically and solely to fill in the gaps in your own knowledge or the lack of your own imagination, yet provide nothing else as evidence except, “I can’t see any other way for it to happen, so that must be the Truth.”

Posted by on 02/04/06 at 07:06 PM from United States

Prove that random chance couldn’t have done it.

Just as soon as you prove that random chance could produce Mount Rushmore’s quartet of faces.

It’s not about proving negatives, but evaluating evidence. Evidence we have now, not evidence we may have tomorrow.

Yes, improbable events happen all the time. Toss a coin 100 times and the particular pattern of Hs and Ts you happen to get has a small chance of happening, yet it did.  Write down that sequence of Hs and Ts.

Now, get another coin and duplicate that pattern.

What you now have is an example of specified complexity—the pattern of Hs and Ts is the specification. If your new coin duplicates that pattern with regularity, then attributing it to chance seems less warranted, doesn’t it? Saying that someone or something designed that coin to duplicate that pattern seems more plausible, no?

Your new coin is the evidence of design.

Posted by Lee on 02/04/06 at 07:12 PM from United States

What you now have is an example of specified complexity—the pattern of Hs and Ts is the specification. If your new coin duplicates that pattern with regularity, then attributing it to chance seems less warranted, doesn’t it? Saying that someone or something designed that coin to duplicate that pattern seems more plausible, no?

Interesting that you would use this example.  It is an absolute statistical fact that, on a long enough timeline, it is impossible to win.  This is the principle on which casinos operate:  that while the customer may win on occasion, in the aggregate it is impossible for the gambler to beat the house.

Say, on a coin flip, heads is considered a win.  If you flip a coin ten times you might end up winning.  If you flip it again you might get licky and win again.  But if you keep doing it long enough you will never, ever, ever, ever end up winning.

So, since this is a perfect example of a regular pattern of behavior in something completely random, and without any alternate explanation, do coin flips prove the existence of God?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/04/06 at 07:46 PM from United States

What you now have is an example of specified complexity—the pattern of Hs and Ts is the specification. If your new coin duplicates that pattern with regularity, then attributing it to chance seems less warranted, doesn’t it? Saying that someone or something designed that coin to duplicate that pattern seems more plausible, no?

Your new coin is the evidence of design.

Doesn’t work that way, gumdrop.

Y’see, it’s a matter of finding something that works and keeping it, while adding to it and seeing if THAT works better.

If you have a specific list of 100 heads/tails, and I’m allowed to flip the coin until I get your first specified head-or-tail, whereupon I record that result as having “worked”, then adding to it by flipping that coin until I get the second pre-specified result, adding that, going onto the third, and so on until we finish up with that 100th matching result, the process would be totally random, yet still manage to provide your specific desired result (to whatever degree you wish) with only a few “evolutionary sidetracks” along the way.

Posted by on 02/04/06 at 11:30 PM from United States

Y’see, it’s a matter of finding something that works and keeping it, while adding to it and seeing if THAT works better.

We’re talking about different things. You’re discussing the entirety of the evolutinary process at the level of the entire organism (apples) while I am talking about the contruction of subcellular machines (oranges).

We will never agree on this. Let’s let it drop.

Posted by Lee on 02/04/06 at 11:32 PM from United States

We will never agree on this.

Translation:  “I will never let logic get in the way of my dogma.”

Posted by on 02/04/06 at 11:37 PM from United States

Lee, you are simply wrong.

Or maybe talking about yourself.

I am trying to be civil. You guys are getting into personal attacks.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/04/06 at 11:49 PM from United States

You’re discussing the entirety of the evolutinary process at the level of the entire organism (apples) while I am talking about the contruction of subcellular machines (oranges).

And the entirety of the evolutionary process will, one tiny step at a time, create those subcellular machines that make up the total organism.

Given millions of chances over hundreds of millions of years, are you SURE that random chance couldn’t possibly manage it?

If not, then you are being deliberately obtuse and (as Lee points out, quite rightly) not letting anything get in the way of your dogmatic conclusions.

Still waiting for the proof of your Agent (which would be required for it to be Science, and should be quite easy, given that said Agent is entirely natural and not at all divinely unprovable), by the way. Not that I expect you to actually put up.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/04/06 at 11:50 PM from United States

If not, then you are being deliberately

That should read: “If you are, then...”

Posted by on 02/04/06 at 11:51 PM from United States

So, since this is a perfect example of a regular pattern of behavior in something completely random, and without any alternate explanation, do coin flips prove the existence of God?

I am doing my best to not be insulting, but it seems you didn’t get what my example was illustrating. It isn’t about indivisual coin tosses, it’s about the specific pattern of 100 tosses (X number of Hs and 100-X number of Ts). It’s about having a coin that repeats that (apparently random) pattern over and over again.

Such a coin is not operating on the laws of chance.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/04/06 at 11:52 PM from United States

Or maybe talking about yourself.

Translation: “I know you are but what am I?”

Posted by on 02/04/06 at 11:53 PM from United States

And the entirety of the evolutionary process will, one tiny step at a time, create those subcellular machines that make up the total organism.

Prove it can.

The best minds in the scientific community have thus far been unable to do so. Some even admit this (not IDers, but actual Darwinists).

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/04/06 at 11:58 PM from United States

It’s about having a coin that repeats that (apparently random) pattern over and over again.

Repeating the same pattern over and over again does not show design, it shows the lack of genetic change from one generation to the next. In terms of life, such things would basically mean that each generation are exact copies of the preceding one.

But that isn’t what you were arguing.

Saying that someone or something designed that coin to duplicate that pattern seems more plausible, no?

No. You can postulate it all you want, but without some method of testing, your whole argument boils down to “I hold The Truth, so trust me”.

If you were trying to reach a specific outcome, evolving into it, one small step at a time (one might call the abortive attempts nothing fancier than “rehearsals") using pure chance over long periods explains it all without having to resort to unprovable religious teachings.

Posted by on 02/05/06 at 12:04 AM from United States

Still waiting for the proof of your Agent (which would be required for it to be Science, and should be quite easy, given that said Agent is entirely natural and not at all divinely unprovable), by the way.

The irreducibly complex nanomachines are the evidence of this agent.

Unless and until you can show otherwise, you are simply engaging in faith/dogma to claim that random chance “did it”. There is no evidence to show that random chance did it. It’s just dogma to insist that random chance did it.

You don’t insist that random chance produced the Eiffel Tower, right? Or electric motors. Yet you will insist that a reversable rotary motor made out of proteins instead of metal must be the result of random chance “because Darwin told me so.”

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/05/06 at 12:05 AM from United States

And the entirety of the evolutionary process will, one tiny step at a time, create those subcellular machines that make up the total organism.

A million monkeys banging away at a million typewriters CAN produce a script for Hamlet, if they are given time and each stage that “works” (i.e., manages to live long enough to pass on the information accumulated) is allowed to be kept (conservation of traits), while other variations that might also “work” in their environments will also be allowed to continue.

Pretty soon (as planetary ages go), you’ll not only have Hamlet but the entire contents of the NYC Public Library system.

Posted by on 02/05/06 at 12:09 AM from United States

Repeating the same pattern over and over again does not show design, it shows the lack of genetic change from one generation to the next.

No, it shows design. I am not using this pattern to illustrate generations of organisms, I am using it to illustrate the concept of specified complexity.  100 tosses does not represent 100 generations, it represent 100 coin tosses.

If you have coin that repeats that “random” series of 100 tosses over and over again, random chance is not taking place.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/05/06 at 12:10 AM from United States

The irreducibly complex nanomachines are the evidence of this agent.

Bullshit, and you know it. You have been given several examples of how your “irreducibly complex machines” could have been brought about by pure random chance, and have survived only because it worked better than previous alternatives. Including processes that were optional at an early stage becoming mandatory in later stages.

No Secret Agent needed.

Unless and until you can show otherwise, you are simply engaging in faith/dogma to claim that random chance “did it”.

It isn’t a “faith” to say “this is what we know, and this is what we can prove”. I’ll ask you AGAIN (I’ve lost count on how many times I’ve asked) what differences exist between Evolution and ID, if not for replacing “Don’t Know” with “God must have done it”.

Look up the concept of “evidence”, and quit wasting my time.

Posted by on 02/05/06 at 12:12 AM from United States

A million monkeys banging away at a million typewriters CAN produce a script for Hamlet, if they are given time and each stage that “works” (i.e., manages to live long enough to pass on the information accumulated) is allowed to be kept (conservation of traits), while other variations that might also “work” in their environments will also be allowed to continue.

Where is the experimental evidence to support this oft-repeated claim?

A million monkeys banging away at a million typewriters might produce something that is “readable” “meaningful” text, but Hamlet specifically? There is simply no evidence of this.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/05/06 at 12:16 AM from United States

No, it shows design.

No, it shows a static gene pool.

If you have coin that repeats that “random” series of 100 tosses over and over again, random chance is not taking place.

No shit, Sherlock. Are you saying that genetic changes don’t happen? Why does the concept of “incremental changes” so frighten you?

One more time. You have a record of 100 tosses, and you keep switching back and forth between arguing the specific pattern and the number of heads and tails.

The specific pattern can be eventually recreated if (as I said above, since you aren’t paying attention) totally random choices occur until you get the first “hit”, which works so well that you move onto the second one, then the third, and the fourth, and so on… Sooner or later you DO get Hamlet.

The second (simply the number of heads and tails per 100 throws) is nothing more than a Bell curve distribution.

(Did you ever study statistics? Because if you did, you should demand a refund.)

Posted by on 02/05/06 at 12:18 AM from United States

differences exist between Evolution and ID, if not for replacing “Don’t Know” with “God must have done it”.

Darwinian evolution replaces “don’t know” with “Random Chance must have done it”.

ID says “This is obviously a designed artifact. At least it would be considered obvious in any other context.”

Posted by on 02/05/06 at 12:19 AM from United States

ID believers:  They are either religious fundamentalists trying to sneak God into science class.  Or, they are Raeliens.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/05/06 at 12:20 AM from United States

There is simply no evidence of this.

If they are allowed to bang the keys until they hit the first letter (which they get to keep), then continue banging away until they get the second letter (similarly kept), then the third, etc., etc., then sooner, rather than later, you will have Hamlet.

How do you choose which letters are kept? Simple. The environment (random interactions of sun and wind and water and cosmic radiation) decides which letters “work” and which do not.

And you’re denying possibilities for “lack of evidence”? Puh-leeze.

Posted by on 02/05/06 at 12:22 AM from United States

The specific pattern can be eventually recreated if (as I said above, since you aren’t paying attention) totally random choices occur until you get the first “hit”, which works so well that you move onto the second one, then the third, and the fourth, and so on… Sooner or later you DO get Hamlet.

I am not talking about “sooner or later”.

I am talking about immediately.

And again. Immediately.

If your coin repeated the specific pattern HTTHTTHHTHHTTTHHTHTHHHTTHTTH over and over again, you would not assume random chance.

Would you?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/05/06 at 12:24 AM from United States

Darwinian evolution replaces “don’t know” with “Random Chance must have done it”.

No, it doesn’t, it says “don’t know”. The remaining evidence is still overwhelming.

ID says “This is obviously a designed artifact. At least it would be considered obvious in any other context.”

While refusing to actually provide any evidence that the “Designer” actually exists.

Oh, right, those “better mousetraps"…

A million monkeys banging away at a million typewriters might produce something that is “readable” “meaningful” text

However, an IDer would say “those million monkeys would only be able to produce “readable” “meaningful” text if they had a zookeeper there to direct their efforts.”

You’d better get your story straight…

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/05/06 at 12:24 AM from United States

I am talking about immediately.

As in “less than 6,000 years”, am I right?

Posted by on 02/05/06 at 12:25 AM from United States

If they are allowed to bang the keys until they hit the first letter (which they get to keep), then continue banging away until they get the second letter (similarly kept), then the third, etc., etc., then sooner, rather than later, you will have Hamlet.

If you have a (specified) template with which to comapare, and if you had an intelligent agent doing the comparison, yes.

Random Chance has neither the template nor the comparing agent.

Posted by on 02/05/06 at 12:27 AM from United States

As in “less than 6,000 years”, am I right?

Cute.

But yes. Immediately is indeed less than 6000 years from now.

Posted by on 02/05/06 at 12:29 AM from United States

No, it doesn’t, it says “don’t know”.

Because it replaces it with “Random Chance Did It”, like I said.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/05/06 at 12:36 AM from United States

If you have a (specified) template with which to comapare, and if you had an intelligent agent doing the comparison, yes.

You’re still missing the point. I have to assume that it is deliberate at this point.

I’ve already explained the “sorting agent” (random changes in the environment having nothing to do with any supernatural Entities) and the “comparing” is only done at the end, but I will - AGAIN - point you to the Law of Large Numbers: with a large enough sample many odd coincidences are likely to happen. Link

Posted by on 02/05/06 at 01:06 AM from United States

You’re still missing the point. I have to assume that it is deliberate at this point.

No, I understand the Darwinian model. Random mutations follwed by natural selection. I get it.

I’m just not convinced that this model produced the machines in question.

Posted by on 02/06/06 at 10:24 AM from United States

While refusing to actually provide any evidence that the “Designer” actually exists.

The artifact IS the evidence.

Are you saying that genetic changes don’t happen?

No, I am saying that they don’t account for everything.

Why does the concept of “incremental changes” so frighten you?

It doesn’t. I just recognize its limitations.

Why does that frighten you?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/06/06 at 10:45 AM from United States

The artifact IS the evidence.

That’s circular logic. “See The World. It exists. That existence proves that there must have been a Creator. That Creator we call {fill-in-the-blank}. Bow down and worship Him, for His works proclaim His might.”

That would cause you to flunk your first pop quiz in Logic 101.

I just recognize its limitations.

There aren’t any limitations to the number of big changes that can take place by adding up lots of little ones.

Take a look at one of your old baby pictures. Take a look at the most recent photo you own. If you look very carefully, you might be able to see the resemblence, but the changes are drastic and dramatic in both type and degree.

But to someone who was there watching those changes on a day-by-day, or hour-by-hour, basis, each day causes a change that is so incremental it is almost impossible to catalogue any real differences from day-to-day, but only on a longer time scale - weeks, months, perhaps years.

It’s the same with evolution. Each change from one generation to the next is often times in very minor increments, but take it enough “generations”, and the changes are irrefutable.

It depends on your possible time scales. If you ignore genetic mutations (of the three basic types - beneficial, harmful/lethal, and neutral), you can similarly ignore the point that those incremental changes that make it easier for the mutation to conserve itself into succeeding generations, then it’s no wonder you have to postulate your “Intelligent Designer”.

But that isn’t an explanation, any more than “thunder is the gods playing ninepins” is. It is replacing “I don’t know” with “It must’ve been God/Yahweh/Allah/Extraterrestrials/Intelligent Agents!”

Religion attempting to masquerade itself as Science.

Posted by on 02/06/06 at 11:09 AM from United States

That would cause you to flunk your first pop quiz in Logic 101.

Actually, no.

ID isn’t saying, “See The World. It exists. That existence proves that there must have been a Creator.”

That’s just your straw man.

ID is saying, “See this machine. It cannot have evolved via Darwinian means. This machine, IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT would be seen as a product of design, ergo, in this context, it is also a product of design.”

There aren’t any limitations to the number of big changes that can take place by adding up lots of little ones.

Take a hunk of iron, a hunk of copper, and a hunk of carbon, and evolve these hunks of material into a working electric motor. Each little change must produce a functioning device of some sort.

Take your time. Let there be ten thousand changes. You must therefore have ten thousand functioning devices.

Including the very first step.

Posted by on 02/06/06 at 11:21 AM from United States

Take a hunk of iron, a hunk of copper, and a hunk of carbon, and evolve these hunks of material into a working electric motor. Each little change must produce a functioning device of some sort.

Take your time. Let there be ten thousand changes. You must therefore have ten thousand functioning devices.

Here are some hints.

The device(s) can be extremely simple. For example, some of the copper can break off and form a long copper wire. That wire qualifies as a functioning device.

The iron will have to break itself into seperate pieces, and some of those pieces will have to mix with some of the carbon to form steel. Some of that steel will need to form springs to hold the brushes (also a mixture of iron and carbon, but a different ratio) in place.

The springs would also qualify as functioning devices.

But you still need to have a reason for brushes to exist outside of a motor, or they have to evolve from something else entirely.

And you need functioning devices from the start.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/06/06 at 11:44 AM from United States

The difference between

“See The World. It exists. That existence proves that there must have been a Creator.”

and

“See this machine. It cannot have evolved via Darwinian means. This machine, IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT would be seen as a product of design, ergo, in this context, it is also a product of design.”

is precisely the same as the difference between

“Cut and run”

and

“immediately terminate military operations and strategically redeploy over the horizon”.

Look at it semanitically… If you can.

“See this machine {World}. {It exists.} It cannot have evolved via Darwinian means. This machine {world}, IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT would be seen as a product of design, ergo, in this context, it is also a product of design. {That Creator/Designer we call (fill-in-the-blank), so bow down and worship Him for His works proclaim His might.}

Sounds like the same to me, but let me go outside and ask my sanitation removal engineer and see what he thinks…

Posted by on 02/06/06 at 12:09 PM from United States

Sounds like the same to me

The fact that you cannot (will not?) see the differences doesn’t prove that those differences aren’t there.

Your “cut and run” analogy is inappropriate. You are obviously ignoring the IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT part.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/06/06 at 12:29 PM from United States

You’re still missing the point. The “IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT” argument is irrelevant, since we’re talking about THIS CONTEXT.

And the semantics show that the two statements are entirely the same. You’re just using synonyms and sesquipedantic phrasing, such as “machine” for “world” and “it must have been designed” instead of “it must have had a Creator”.

Posted by on 02/06/06 at 01:07 PM from United States

The “IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT” argument is irrelevant

No, it’s entirely relevant.

When an artifact exhibits evidence of design, it exhibits evidence of design. Darwinists simply choose to ignore that evidence and cling to the dogma that “Random Chance Created It”.

Like I said before, if we went to the moon and found a monolithic slab precisely 11’3” tall by precisely 5’0” wide by precisely 1’3” thick, we would assume it to be the product of design, not random chance. Why? Because it exhibits evidence of design, that’s why. What evidence? Specified complexity, in the form of precise geometric shape combined with a ratio of 1:4:9 (squares of the first three integers) in its dimensions.

Specified complexity is evidence of design.

Like the specific pattern of coin tosses. Has nothing to do with generations of organisms, so please don’t fall into that trap again. A specific pattern of tosses is an example of specified complexity. If yuor coin exhibits that pattern over and over again, with no noise in between, you r coin is not exhibiting randomness, but design.

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 03:29 AM from Europe

cbass,

You asked

Where is the experimental evidence to support this oft-repeated claim?

A million monkeys banging away at a million typewriters might produce something that is “readable” “meaningful” text, but Hamlet specifically? There is simply no evidence of this.

It’s not hard to prove it to yourself. Suppose we shorten the question to the statement “To be or not to be”. That’s 13 letters. Now, to get that by random chance we must consider that there are 26 to the 13 possibilites, which means that we will probably find the solution after around 1.2 x 10^18 attempts.

Now suppose we preserve each letter as soon as we get it right, because believe it or not, not all the components have to develop in the same ‘trial’. We will get each letter after, on average, 13 attempts, and there are 13 letters, so we will on average find the solution around the 169th attempt.

That’s a 7 x 10^15 fold improvement. Seriously, you don’t find that impressive?

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 04:11 AM from Australia

Take a hunk of iron, a hunk of copper, and a hunk of carbon, and evolve these hunks of material into a working electric motor. Each little change must produce a functioning device of some sort.

Last time I checked, hunks of iron, carbon and copper didn’t self-replicate. To get evolution, you need the following three conditions:

1) A self-replicating object (or collection of inter-related objects).
2) An imperfect replicating process which has the potential to introduce errors.
3) Competition between the objects for a finite set of resources.

Condition three allows for selection, which reduces the odds of an object evolving from point A to point B by a remarkable amount (thanks Patrick for putting numbers to that).

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 09:36 AM from United States

Now suppose we preserve each letter as soon as we get it right, because believe it or not, not all the components have to develop in the same ‘trial’.

That’s my point exactly, the fact that “a million monkeys banging away at a million typewriters” does not have this feature that you have now introduced.

Darwinists pull this goal post moving stunt all the time.  A million monkeys banging away at a million typewriters don’t have the advantage of knowing when they get the first letter right, so they have no way of holding on to it. Nevertheless, I keep hearing the claim that a million monkeys banging away at a million typewriters could produce Hamlet.

Your shortened example is illustative. “To be or not to be” does represent 26^18 possible combinations, but Hamlet would require vastly more. There are 32,241 words in the play, and assuming a conservative estimate of two letters per word, that’s approximately 64,000 characters, not including spaces. My Windows XP calculator can only handle 26^30000, which is approximately 1.6 x 10^42449, which is a huge number. Is the Universe even that many years old?  That many seconds old?

Given these numbers, it would obviously take a hell of a long time for those million monkeys to produce Hamlet. If they started at the Big Bang, they still wouldn’t have come close by now.

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 09:42 AM from Europe

a million monkeys banging away at a million typewriters” does not have this feature that you have now introduced

I agree entirely. But the real world does - there is no reason why the results of any reaction will be eradicated just because they were not ‘sucessful’.

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 09:50 AM from United States

A self-replicating object (or collection of inter-related objects).

And how do you get this self-replicating object in the first place? That’s the crux.

The purpose of my exercise was to illustrate how difficult it would be for the Darwinian model to produce an electric motor, even if iron, copper and carbon could replicate. The problem with a motor is that it requires several parts coming together more or less simultaneoulsy (unless, of course, you can show otherwise). Darwin’s model is linear. That’s the whole issue behind irreducible complexity, and why Darwin’s model cannot account for it.

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 09:55 AM from Europe

Darwin’s model cannot account for it.

I don’t think it attempts to - surely it is concerned with the evolution of life, not the abiogenesis of your electroc motor? These are two entirely separate fields.

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 09:57 AM from United States

I agree entirely. But the real world does

So why do people continue to use the million monkeys analogy, if, as you seem to agree, it doesn’t apply to the real world?

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 10:02 AM from United States

These are two entirely separate fields.

The problem is that the bacterial flagellum is very much like an electric motor. It is indeed a rotary motor, and it’s reversible. The main difference is that it runs on amino acid instead of electricity, and is made out of various proteins instead of various metals.

So yes, Darwin’s model does attempt to account for it. And no, so far there is no sufficiently detailed explanation, backed by experimental evidence, to account for how this biomolecular machine came to be.

Yet Darwinists insist that random chance produced it.

Can random chance produce an electric motor?

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/07/06 at 10:06 AM from United States

Is the Universe even that many years old?  That many seconds old?

Two things.

One, you ignore the whole “survival of the fittest” part of Evolution. If every little while (a few letters or words), the monkeys output was subjected to testing to “kill off” any failed attempts (too slow, too stupid, too weak), the time required is drastically reduced, as Patrick showed.

Two, it doesn’t matter how many seconds old the universe is, you’re still limiting your thinking to just your local circumstances.

How many planets exist in the baryonic universe? How many particles of hydrocarbons exist on those planets? How many atomic/molar interactions have occured between all of those particles that could potentially produce what we call “life” (even though it doesn’t necessarily have to be carbon-based - which only increases the potential pool of useful particles)? How many hundreds of billions of “planet-years” do we have to work with?

Are you starting to understand the numbers involved now? Or are you the type who would have trouble counting to 21 by yourself without unzipping your pants?

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 10:10 AM from United States

Are you starting to understand the numbers involved now? Or are you the type who would have trouble counting to 21 by yourself without unzipping your pants?

Why do you insist on persoanl attacks?

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 10:11 AM from United States

One, you ignore the whole “survival of the fittest” part of Evolution. If every little while (a few letters or words), the monkeys output was subjected to testing to “kill off” any failed attempts (too slow, too stupid, too weak), the time required is drastically reduced, as Patrick showed.

I’m not ignoring anything. You are mixing metaphors.

Monkeys on typewriters don’t produce words that can “kill” anything.

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 10:14 AM from United States

How many planets exist in the baryonic universe? How many particles of hydrocarbons exist on those planets? How many atomic/molar interactions have occured between all of those particles that could potentially produce what we call “life” (even though it doesn’t necessarily have to be carbon-based - which only increases the potential pool of useful particles)? How many hundreds of billions of “planet-years” do we have to work with?

Compare “hundreds of billions” to 10^42449.

By comparison, “hundreds of billions” is virtually zero.

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 10:16 AM from Australia

And how do you get this self-replicating object in the first place? That’s the crux.

It’s not that hard. DNA and RNA both do it, they’re just molecules (rather complex ones, admittedly). In theory, any polymer could do it by the chain splitting in half - like some types of worms, where if you cut them in half you end up with two worms.

As to your rather pointless argument about the electric motor, it has very little to do with evolution.

The problem is that the bacterial flagellum is very much like an electric motor. It is indeed a rotary motor, and it’s reversible. The main difference is that it runs on amino acid instead of electricity, and is made out of various proteins instead of various metals.

Those are big differences. Amino acids and proteins are much more ordered than a random lump of metal. A better way of putting it would be “is made out of various proteins instead of various components (brushes, wires, etc)”.

Incidentally, you should stop saying “Darwin’s model”. We’re now well into neo-Darwinism, which has extended the basic principle that Darwin came up with far beyond anything he could have imagined. I think the primary difference between evolution and creationism is that the theory of evolution is still being examined, tested and modified. The theory of creation has remained unchanged for a remarkably long time, and it’s showing the cobwebs.

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 10:19 AM from Australia

Monkeys on typewriters don’t produce words that can “kill” anything.

Good thing they’re not drawing cartoons.

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 10:26 AM from Japan

cbass - you are arguing that evolution and ID are mutually exclusive ideas aren’t you?

I actually don’t think they are. Evolution doesn’t actually seek to describe the origin of life but the way it developed and changed over time.

If you want to describe the scientific concept for the origin of life, you need to be talking about abiogenesis.

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 10:28 AM from United States

As to your rather pointless argument about the electric motor, it has very little to do with evolution.

Amino acids and proteins are much more ordered than a random lump of metal. A better way of putting it would be “is made out of various proteins instead of various components (brushes, wires, etc)”.

You contradict yourself by illustrating my point quite nicely, said point being that amino acids and proteins are themselves composed of simpler molecules, just as wires and springs are composed of base metals. Those proteins and amino acids had to come from something. Well, in the electric motor, that something is the base metals.

I even gave hints about springs and wires qualifying as devices in their own right.

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 10:30 AM from United States

you are arguing that evolution and ID are mutually exclusive ideas aren’t you?

Actually, no. What ID claims is simply that neo-Darwinism cannot account for everything, even if it can account for 90% of it.

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 10:34 AM from Australia

You contradict yourself by illustrating my point quite nicely, said point being that amino acids and proteins are themselves composed of simpler molecules, just as wires and springs are composed of base metals. Those proteins and amino acids had to come from something. Well, in the electric motor, that something is the base metals.

It’s absurd to suggest that an electric motor “evolved” from its component parts. There’s no observed mechanism by which it could happen. There is an observed mechanism by which genes can evolve - imperfect replication coupled with natural selection.

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 10:37 AM from Australia

Actually, no. What ID claims is simply that neo-Darwinism cannot account for everything, even if it can account for 90% of it.

So we fill in the other 10% by saying that space aliens, or invisible pink unicorns did it? That’s ridiculous.

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 10:37 AM from Japan

Actually, no. What ID claims is simply that neo-Darwinism cannot account for everything, even if it can account for 90% of it.

So 90% exclusive? This raises a large number of questions for me:

But if God created life, then couldn’t he/she/it automatically speed things up evolutionary-wise? Why would ID need to make any claim about evolution at all? Why do ID supporters spend so much time arguing against evolution, when as you say, 90% of it is there, when the real issue should be abiogenesis? Why would God create a system that was 90% incomplete?

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 10:43 AM from Europe

So why do people continue to use the million monkeys analogy, if, as you seem to agree, it doesn’t apply to the real world?

I don’t know… I would guess it’s a good way of beginning a discussion, especially because you can then adjust it (by including selection) to show how the odds are tipped in favour of abiogenesis. But you’re right, it’s not the best analogy.

It’s absurd to suggest that an electric motor “evolved” from its component parts

Again, I agree. But then, as Orpheus noted, the component parts are not replicators and cannot therefore improve themselves over time.

Posted by Drumwaster on 02/07/06 at 10:49 AM from United States

By comparison, “hundreds of billions” is virtually zero.

Perhaps I misspoke.

Let’s see the facts, as shown by current science.

There are roughly 80 billion galaxies visible to the Hubble Deep Space Telescope. (That does not include those too faint, too far away or not emitting in the visible spectrum, so 80 billion is just the verifiable low end.)

The Milky Way (our own Galaxy) has been described as a medium-sized galaxy (as such things go), with a diameter of only about 100-120,000 light-years, but contains an estimated 400 billion stars. Some galaxies will contain more, some will contain less, so let us accept that as an average.

So far, we are up to 32 billion trillion stars. On average.

If we further postulate an average of (say) 3 planets circling each sun’s “liveable zone” (neither too close nor too far away), that would bring it up to about 100 billion trillion planets.

That’s 10 ^ 20, and we’re just getting warmed up. How many years old is the universe? Estimates range about 14 billion. That brings us up to 1.4x10^30, just to give the number of “planet-years” we have to work with. (But it’s a good thing that the Designer who put all that together has concentrated His entire attention on the third rock from the sun, isn’t it?)

You’re also still ignoring old Mother Nature, “red of tooth and claw”, eliminating anything that doesn’t meet the demands of the random environmental hazards. I have heard of species of bacteria that propagate three generations a day, giving LOTS of time for mutations to accumulate.

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 11:17 AM from Europe

cbass, if you’re still around, this might be of interest to you…

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 12:53 PM from United States

It’s absurd to suggest that an electric motor “evolved” from its component parts.

I’m not saying it did. What I am doing is telling you (hypothetical) to evolve one as a mental exercise:

Take a hunk of iron, a hunk of copper, and a hunk of carbon, and evolve these hunks of material into a working electric motor.

Twisting that into a claim on my part that motors “evolved” is a non sequitur.

There’s no observed mechanism by which it could happen.

Another non sequitur.

What I am asking for is a step-by-step Darwinian model of how an electric motor can “evolve” from hunks of copper, iron, carbon, etc., as a mental exercise to show the difficulties involved.

Writing it off as “absurd” is fine, but that doesn’t give me any reason to not write of neo-Darwinism as equally absurd.

There is an observed mechanism by which genes can evolve - imperfect replication coupled with natural selection.

But there is no “observed mechanism by which [bacterial flagella] can evolve”, and that’s the point.

Yes, I am aware of TalkOrigins’ “refutation” page, which contains a “just so” story of how bacterial flagella could evolve. Well, show us a detailed model with experimental data to back it up.

There is one peer-reviewed scientific paper which suggests that type-III secretion systems are merely degenerate flagella. Also, the “just so” stories fail to explain the presence of three equally spaced, coordinated such flagella on the E. Coli.

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 01:04 PM from United States

So we fill in the other 10% by saying that space aliens, or invisible pink unicorns did it? That’s ridiculous.

No more ridiculous than to insist that blind dumb luck did it. After all, if Darwinism is true, there is no reason for “space aliens” to not exist, right?

Do you consider Arthur Clark’s 2001: A Space Odessey to be “ridiculous”? After all, that novel does indeed suggest ID as the reason we exist. In that novel, the man-apes that would one day evolve into Homo Sapiens were “on the road to racial extinction”, and were starving to death. If it weren’t for the intervention of extra-terrestrials via their monolith, Man would never have existed.

Was Carl Sagan being “ridiculous” when he was advocating SETI?

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 01:33 PM from Europe

What I am asking for is a step-by-step Darwinian model of how an electric motor can “evolve” from hunks of copper, iron, carbon, etc., as a mental exercise to show the difficulties involved.

It doesn’t work like that, cbass! One electric motor cannot create another… I can’t make it any simpler!

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 01:47 PM from United States

It doesn’t work like that, cbass! One electric motor cannot create another… I can’t make it any simpler!

One human cannot make another human either.

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 01:54 PM from Europe

One human cannot make another human either.

Yes, because that’s sexual reproduction, which only serves to increase the variation within a population. That gives more possibilities for selection, and thus speeds the evolutionary process.

Anyway, I’m sorry but I have to go now. See you tomorrow…

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 01:56 PM from United States

It doesn’t work like that, cbass!

Why not? It supposedly works like that in nature wrt bacterial flagella, which are very similar.

One electric motor cannot create another…

I’m not asking it to.

A bacterial flagellum cannot create another—the host bacterium has to reproduce.  Ergo, the fact that an electric motor cannot create another is irrelevant.

I can’t make it any simpler!

Exactly.

The same applies to the bacterial flagellum, your TalkOrigins page notwithstanding.  Yet we are expected to believe that stepwise gradual refinement could produce those, when you yourself admit that you cannot make it any simpler and have functionality.

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 02:16 PM from United States

Yes, because that’s sexual reproduction, which only serves to increase the variation within a population. That gives more possibilities for selection, and thus speeds the evolutionary process.

It’s 2 different mechanisms when put together (along with a lot of help from other things) can create a new human.

Put a series of electric motors together, with rods and wires and connectors and some electricity, and they can make a brand new series of electric motors with rods and wires and connectors and electricity.

Of course, if something happens (an environmental anomaly) that causes the created series of motors and wires and stuff to be slightly different than those that created them, when this new set of components makes another new set, that other new set is probably going to be different, and the difference is going to be a result of the effect of the environment on it’s parent and/or on the creation process.

In other words, it will evolve.

In nature, when left basically unchecked for billions of years, it could create some wonderful and exciting things.

In the manufacturing plant, the defect would be noted, the result will be discarded, and the offending parent will either be cured or killed. Like an enforced master race of machinery! Who knows… maybe if people didnt fix their robotic machinery, we would end up with some wondering and exciting new machines that dominate the Universe in a few billion years!

Posted by on 02/07/06 at 02:20 PM from United States

*more likely we would end up with a bunch of rusted carcasses, and a global tetnus pandemic, but it was an almost plausible theory!

Next entry: Up Your Butt, Sotu

Previous entry: Banging Away

<< Back to main