1 2 3
My my, somebody stumbled upon a dictionary it seems. Now, instead of using big, shiny words, why don't you actually give some criticism of evolution. And look up the word 'Darwinism' while you're at it, because you seem so keen to use big words that you missed the fact that the word Darwinism doesn't apply.
7/24/2010 4:02:47 AM
Yeah! You tell 'em!
7/24/2010 4:13:29 AM
> But it is becoming painfully clear that the "simple cell" is an holistic information-processing and communication system of unparalleled complexity.
Has anyone ever denied this? Yes, there's a boatload of information in DNA. Yes, cells are complex and they process the information contained in DNA.
> The "science" journals are staffed with ideological Darwinists who despise any criticism of their "theory". One can't even get a mildly critical letter to the editor of PNAS published let alone a manuscript.
Peer review isn't censorship, it's a form of quality control. Moderation of discussion forums isn't censorship, it's a form of quality control. If you want to publish your opinions, there's plenty of other, more appropriate venues for you to do so.
> SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS is what I have to say to you!
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" is what I have to say to you.
Seriously, I have no idea what "Sic semper tyrannis" does here.
> Darwinism is kept alive through censorship.
No one's censoring the opposition. The points the creationists are trying to make are already widely known.
Darwinism is kept alive because people can see the competing theories and conclude it's the best theory that has been proposed. Just because you can publish your theories it doesn't mean they'll automatically win.
> FREE SCIENCE! REGIME CHANGE NOW!
"Free science" sounds like an interesting concept - I'll give you full marks for marketing effort. But as I fancy myself an informed consumer, I'd like some more information on what this "free science" actually means. After all, this conjures images of a "free market"; while "free market" isn't a bad thing on principle, there's always people who peddle bullshit scams and we need to beware of those shady individuals. So what exactly do you propose?
7/24/2010 4:16:06 AM
If you are not educated on the subject of cellular biology, then you have ZERO ground on which to make commentary or especially criticism regarding the research done when you yourself have done none.
7/24/2010 4:16:29 AM
I read 'mildly critical letter' here as bat-shit insane fundie theoretical nonsense without evidence or logical foundation.
I suspect to do so puts the rest of your rant in its proper context.
7/24/2010 4:46:20 AM
post#124 PZ Myers wrote:
Play with "Darwin's Nemesis" like a chew toy, but he'll be clapped in irons later tonight. I just got word that he's a known troll elsewhere, and also that he was banned at the RDF for massive sockpuppetry. Don't expect much from him -- he's a repetitive and unimaginative dullard -- but maul him while you can.
7/24/2010 5:05:51 AM
Fuck off. Your bullshit has been debunked. Stop spewing your fucktarded lies to appease your pastor.
7/24/2010 5:06:57 AM
Chew toy? More like road kill.
7/24/2010 5:11:57 AM
I read about the afterlife
While you might consider yourself "Darwin's Nemesis," if Darwin was still alive -- he hardly think you worthy of the title.
7/24/2010 5:38:39 AM
There have been a few honest questions raised about evolution, such as the role of altruism (which seems to contradict survival of the fittest organism), how parental roles developed, and a few odd finds that were questioned at first, before an answer was found.
Evolution is questioned, but in the framework of understanding it.
7/24/2010 6:01:36 AM
Of course if you are an atheist-evolutionist, you are made of straw so it doesnt matter.
Darwinism is a long abandoned economic model that only American neocons still buy into.
7/24/2010 6:14:48 AM
Alchemists of the world unite! Our time has come! Down with the Chemists and Physicists! Join our Creationist brothers and set the magic free! REGIME CHANGE NOW! ARS GRATIS ARTIS!
7/24/2010 6:49:05 AM
How's about you creationists start your own sciency publication. You could call it the Fox Journal of "science."*
* My first choice would "Dumbfuckerry" but I doubt you'd go for that. The Fox name would work in that it would lend the respectability that such a project deserves.
7/24/2010 6:50:15 AM
"Yes, if you are an atheist-evolutionist it might be better to deny the information-bearing nature of DNA altiogether."
I've yet to see one of you people making this claim define this "information" in some substantial way.
"But it is becoming painfully clear that the "simple cell" is an holistic information-processing and communication system of unparalleled complexity."
While it's theoretically possible to create a rudimentary computer using cells, the cells themselves are not what I would call "an holistic information-processing and communication system of unparalleled complexity."
"The "science" journals are staffed with ideological Darwinists who despise any criticism of their "theory". One can't even get a mildly critical letter to the editor of PNAS published let alone a manuscript."
Here's an idea. Publish your research on the internet. You'll be able to be peer reviewed by any scientist anywhere in the world. If you don't come off as some crank (who tend to publish their "work" on the internet for similar complaints as yours) then you'll easily be able to republish it in a respected journal and receive your Nobel Prize.
I suspect, however, that you can't get published in such places because you're a fucking lunatic who wouldn't know actual science if it sat on you.
"SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS is what I have to say to you!"
Personally, my Latin phrase of choice has always been SEMPER UBI SUB UBI UBIQUE!
"Darwinism is kept alive through censorship."
"Darwinism" has not been around for a very long time.
"FREE SCIENCE! REGIME CHANGE NOW!"
You're a putz.
7/24/2010 7:02:14 AM
What exactly is an atheist-evolutionist? You do know that there are Christians who believe in evolution, don't you? Oh right, they're not true Christians.
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
Quoting John Wilkes Booth in order to try to sound smart, are we? I can quote Latin too: E Pluribus Unum.
Darwinism is kept alive through censorship.
Just because logical & rational people don't take so-called creation scientists seriously (as nobody should) doesn't mean it's censorship. Just because nobody can come up with a valid argument to support biblical creationism doesn't mean that creationists are being censored from the scientific arena. Get some papers published which will stand up to scientific scrutiny. Of course when they don't, you'll be screaming about censorship.
7/24/2010 7:03:19 AM
Fundie to English translation:
Cells are so complicated that I can't understand how they might have evolved, so they didn't! And science publications requiring submissions to contain actual science is censorship! Wah! If I capslock some Latin maybe it'll make me look smart?
7/24/2010 7:03:54 AM
Allegory for Jesus
The criticism of evolution isn't published because most criticism has been dealt with or is stupid. Most likely both. For example, your mention of a cell being complicated completely misses the point of evolution. So...
7/24/2010 7:12:39 AM
FYI, yelling "Goddidit" is NOT mild criticism.
7/24/2010 7:15:49 AM
One can't even get a mildly critical letter to the editor of PNAS published let alone a manuscript.
All sorts of things are published that criticize pieces of evolution theory and offer rational alternatives. The problem is that virtually all arguments against the theory of evolution itself are either (1) "arguments from ignorance": the argument that I must be right because you can't answer my question; or (2) "god of the gaps" arguments: the argument that if we don't have the answer to something today, God must have done it by magic. Even the "stars" of "intelligent design", like Lehigh University professor Michael Behe, basically offer nothing but these kinds of arguments.
7/24/2010 7:28:08 AM
Didn't do well in biology, did you?
7/24/2010 7:29:10 AM
"Yes, if you are an atheist-evolutionist it might be better to deny the information-bearing nature of DNA altiogether." tl;dr...
Watson & Crick's discovery in 1953. The discovery in recent years by geneticists that we humans share at least 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees.
This is where you & all your fundie ilk are, Darwin's Nemesis:
Gaps were meant
to be filled. The above findings prove Darwin was right all along. Suck it.
"FREE SCIENCE! REGIME CHANGE NOW!"
7/24/2010 7:29:56 AM
> the editor of PNAS <
How do you pronounce that? Heh heh heh heh
7/24/2010 7:46:17 AM
If you read Genesis literally, you must deny DNA in favor of the striped-stick theory. Turn or burn, atheist-DNAist!
7/24/2010 7:46:41 AM
If intelligent design had any scientific evidence it happened at all, then you might have a point.
7/24/2010 8:12:26 AM
Your not very apropos use of Latin does nothing to enhance your argument.
Si Latine loqui vis, dic mihi et deinde possumus.
7/24/2010 8:14:43 AM
1 2 3