Comments Posted By plunge
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 24 Comments


More important question: what the heck was up with Bush saying that he'd keep Rummy on, and now saying that at the time he said that, he was arranging to have him replaced (and then becoming unhinged when a reporter suggested that this might sort of a contradiction, Bush grumbling that because he somehow hadn't had a "final" conversation with Rummy or Gates, that this somehow made his claim to be keeping Rumsfeld on not be an outright lie)

Comment Posted By plunge On 8.11.2006 @ 16:01


Or maybe the other outlets are actually doing what Fox is doing, and keeping things on the down low for a reason?

I mean, that's just a plausible. But I guess it's not as fun as just making sh*t up about people you don't like.

Comment Posted By plunge On 22.08.2006 @ 23:14


As a reward for anyone that's actually read this far, I present this gem:

On November 02, 2005, a new anti-evolution blog was begun by a retired physiologist named John A. Davidson:

Prescribed Evolution

It is possibly the funniest blog ever concieved... unintentionally.

You see, Mr. Davidson does not understand how blogs work. To him, creating a blog means posting exactly one post and then carrying on forevermore in that single comment thread. Mr. Davidson managed to respond to himself with more "posts" in that thread for days before other commenters showed up... many of whom he promptly deleted. All told, after months of operation, the blog managed to reach 881 comments before Mr. Davidson decided that this comment thread was "too cluttered."

At this point, you'd think that any sane person might then, at the very least, create a new post to continue the comment madness in. But Mr. Davidson was no sane person. Instead, he created an entirely new blog consisting, again, of a single post:

New Prescribed Evolution

It is now up to 639 gloriously insane comments.

Sadly, the trend cannot continue, as some spoilsport has already seen fit to nab newnewprescribedevolution for themselves.

Comment Posted By plunge On 20.08.2006 @ 21:17

"1) evolution is not a ‘force’ like the strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravity….the physicists (real scientists) don’t include ‘evolution’ in their fundamental forces."

That you think it would be is simply mindbloggingly stunning in its sheer denseness. Evolution is a biological process, not a force.

"2) the very definition of evolution is ‘evolving’ all the time, and is rather a mish-mash of whatever someone wants it to be."

The definition of evolution is generally pretty stable. It's been pretty stable since the last major movement: the unification of genetics and population dynamics that's called neo-Darwinism. Virtually every change to the discipline has been to make it more accurate. So?

"4) if life did not ‘evolve’ how did it get here?"

We don't know exactly how life began.

"if it did ‘evolve’ then evolution IS a force,"

No. That makes no sense. Processes are something that happen given things like forces but it makes no sense to describe them AS forces. The Krebs cycle is not a force, it's a biological process.

"and should be measured mathematically,"

it is, though there is no "one formula" for it as you seem to think there should be.

"and it should work on other inorganic things"

All evidence suggests that whatever processes began life, they were both particular to the environment of the early earth, and also of course required that there not be copius amounts of life all around ready to devour anything new that happens to crop up.

"3) so now we’re just talking about ‘biological’ evolution….but if you can’t measure evolution…then all you have is CHANCE…so chance is evolution."


"4) as far as how new species ‘evolve’ well we’re really not sure….we’re ‘open to other possibilities’"

There are many known ways for species to evolve: the debates to which you refer are mostly over additional methods which are controversial.

"Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.” – Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986"

Decent enough.

6") so evolution ‘created’ ‘evolved’ all the species, but we’re really not sure how….we have theories though!!"

Actually, we're pretty darn certain that we have most of the general details nailed down. It's the details that people argue about, but those are far less exciting.

" but they CANNNOT include God….heaven forbid…."

Well, more specifically, they cannot include any untestable claims about magic. They have to be solid testible explanations.

"I can see why you evolutionists are afraid to debate creationists. And I can see why REAL scientists (mathematicians and physicists) have so little to do with your ‘theory’ ie religion."

Again, are you really so ignorant of biology as to think that it doesn't involve math or that there aren't mathematicians working on biological problems? Heck, there are whole FIELDS and subspecialities that are basically applied math to things like genetic algorymths and so forth.

"funny you should say that….guess you’re not up on science these days:"

Do you even bother to read your own citations? This is a paper about modeling star systems: it isn't some "one equation" of star formation. You can model evolution too, and people do it, often.

"yeah, the mathematics of chance….which is all ‘evolution’ really is."

In other words, no, you haven't read a biology journal.

Comment Posted By plunge On 20.08.2006 @ 21:08

Well no, the definitions in dictionaries aren't perfect or exact, but that's why I told you to check out a real science textbook. And if you are going to cite talk-origins as an authority, why not use their definition, which is quite robust?

"since this evolution is all-pervasive,"

Can yo not read? He defines evolution broadly, and THEN talks about biological evolution: which is what we are talking about.

"plain and simple: where is the mathematical formula for new species?"

That doesn't even make any sense. That's like asking "where is the mathematical formula for star formation." You CAN model speciation entirely in math, but like any natural process, there is no one single example.

"here’s a real simple equation for ya:

Did you do what I asked and actually read a biology journal? You'll find that it's filled with math.

You know, in the end, people like you just make me sad. You are woefully confused and ignorant of what you are talking about, and yet you aren't even interested in learning or seriously reading anything. I could build a computer program that could make more convincing arguments than you (mostly, I'd just have to make it go hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha after saying some random nonsensical thing)

Comment Posted By plunge On 19.08.2006 @ 11:41

"the above disproves evolution not that it matters to TRUE BELIEVERS!"

You can claim all sorts of things disprove evolution. But if they are lousy arguments, then they don't. You can also laugh and scream and carry on and say this or that about things being dogma. But unfortunately, just saying it doesn't make it so.

"there are fossils that disprove evolution, but OF COURSE they are ‘fake’!!"

If all you have are conspiracy theories and allegations that the reasons given are all lies, then hey, knock yourself out. Honest people can look at the evidence, and the evidence is all on our side.

"because a cat can’t reproduce with a dog, it shows the limits of genetics….in other words genetics will NEVER ‘evolve’ one life form into anything else….a dog WILL ALWAYS BE A DOG… willl NEVER EVER EVER ‘evolve’ into a ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ life form…..duhhhhhhhhhhhh"

The irony here is that this statment is 100% right: a dog will never have anything other than dog ancestors... and yet the fact that you think evolution says otherwise is a demonstration that you have no idea what you are talking about. All mammals have mammal descendants. all vertebrates have vertebrate descendants. That's how evolution works: descent with modification. NOT saltation. Modern cats don't evolve into modern dogs. It's a primitive line of carnivores that diversified into both lines.

"seriously, how stupid are you? you act as though evolution just ‘evolved’ a couple of years ago. it has a long history, which you ignore to serve your lies. really pathetic."

I don't need to ignore it, especially not when you use it in a profoundly stupid and obviously misinformed manner. I pointed you to some pretty hard to argue with sources. How self-destructive do you have to be to still want to argue with that? That you can find some random quote about someone talking about evolution in the sense of "change" only serves to show everyone that you have no clue.

"btw: where IS your paper on the Second Law? your words mean nothing!"

You know, given that you've chickened out on all my questions to you, you're hardly in a place to be demanding things from me. But I already said: I don't need to cite anything on the Second Law: we're talking about stuff so basic and so commonly understood that any layperson can grasp it if they put in the effort. Unfortunately, you have not. But here's a primer:

You might even learn something if you bother to read and think about it. Check out the part "Complex systems and the Second Law" especially and then the section about self-organization.

Comment Posted By plunge On 17.08.2006 @ 23:35

Lol. I guess you got pretty angry when I told you that a boatload of random quotes from things you've never bothered to read or learn yourself don't mean anything, because you sure went crazy with the quotes!

"There are a million different ways to disprove it

really? name one."

Okay. If bird fossils are conclusively shown to show up in the Cambrian era, evolution is disproven. If a cat reproductively gives birth to a dog, evolution is disproven. And so on.

"All of science used to beleive the universe was eternal,"

And then, guess what: that was disproven. See, it wasn't so hard (though actually, it's not that simple, since in the BB, time never really "starts")

"and the big bang was thought to be a death blow to evolution, since there was not enough time for all of these ‘chance’ things to happen, to evolve life from inorganics and make it as complex as it is."

Thought to by whom? Creationists? What difference does THAT make? You guys have been incoherently declaring that everything under the sun is a "death blow" to evolution for centuries now.

"Funny that you would diss George wald:George Wald
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1967"

I'm not dissing the guy, though why you think he's a relevant expert is beyond me, and why you think quoting his opinion in a magazine from 60 years ago is a convincing final word on the state of the field today is truly amusing.

"again you’re a liar. the depths to which you go to defend your faith are admirable! "

Oh no, I cited a DICTIONARY and an ENCYCLOPEDIA and told you to READ A SCIENCE TEXTBOOK to get an idea of what evolution is instead of a random quote from a book published 4 decades ago. I'm so incredibly depraved and loony!

(next you'll quote "I'm so incredibly depraved" all by itself and claim that I said this seriously)

"but evolution ‘evolved’ just like it always does, to fit any fact that comes along and threatens it…."

Well, if some aspect of evolution is shown to be wrong, then yes, that is tossed out and a better explanation is found. What could be more honest than that? Darwin was completely wrong about the mechanism of heredity. It was falsified. It was tossed out! And then genetics came along, and that fit evolutionary theory even better. So, what is your point exactly? That scientists are TOO honest?

If evidence is amassed showing that creatures didn't evolve but were actually beamed in by the Enterprise and just made to LOOK like they evolved, then we'll have to toss out evolution. But since you can't seem to back up any of your fairy stories, we'll stick with what the evidence shows, time and time again.

Comment Posted By plunge On 17.08.2006 @ 19:51

"toilet plunger: the point of miller-urey is that evolution has always been about the EVOLUTION OF LIFE….ie you’re a liar. get it?"

No, because that doesn't make any sense. Miller-Urey were scientists working on a scientific problem: the origin of organic compounds on the early earth. They discovered something really interesting. How that demonstrates that the "point" of evolution "has always been" the origin of life you haven't made any sort of coherent case for.

"I notice you darwiniacs don’t have any answers…not that it matters, faith is never swayed by logic."

lol. I've answered all of your questions and you just keep tossing out new scatterbrained ones at lightning speed. But so what? You can't answer my questions with any sort of coherency.

"mr. ‘scientist’ (toilet plunger) I notice you have ZERO ZIP NADA references."

If you want references, you could, I dunno, go like read a science textbook? Nothing I'm saying is in the least controversial or even all that challenging. If you want a specific citation for a specific claim, just ask and I'll be happy to provide. But there's no reason I should waste my time tracking down citations for such basic material unless you specifically require some.

"You say things, define evolution, for example, but have nothing to back up what you say…"

Well, that's because, like anyone can type "evolution" into wikipedia or a dictionary or what have you and see that I'm correct. Do you really need me to do that for you? Okay:
(definition 4a is the one biologists use)

"I am derided as ‘anti-science’ but I have the quotes and references."

What you have are known as copy-paste quote mines. They are, if anything, the exact opposite of references. You didn't read all or probably even any of the things they are taken from. You have no idea what they are talking about, who said them, whether they are current or outdated, or whatever. That's not the way scientists do research or anyone honestly supports arguments. Citations in science are to actual evidence, not to quips, quotes, and opinions.

"its simple: evolution doesn’t happen. random changes do not lead to new life forms."

Not on their own, no. That's what natural selection is all about.

"The information does not increase from mutations."

It's trivially easy to see that it must. If information can decrease because of mutation (and if you acknowledge that there are detrimental mutations, then you must agree to this) then it can increase in just the same way. Mutation is not biased towards only harmful mutations. It's random.

"Evolution is this supposed grand force that created life, and all the living animals today, but it cannot be measured,"

Ever even HEARD of the field of population genetics? Ever actually READ a single journal article on evolution? This claim is just so laughable that it's not even funny.

"and it cannot be disproved…"

There are a million different ways to disprove it. The problem for you is that they never end up happening in reality... which is exactly what you would expect from a theory that is accurate.

"..the whole notion that something as complex as life can self-organize is as believable as computers can self-organize, whats laughable is you darwiniacs laugh at that notion, but totally believe life can self-organize."

Computers do not reproduce with differential heredity, so why would they evolve? (unless of course, you use a computer to simulate this, in which case we DO see virtual evolution happening just as predicted!).
You are trying to apply the idea to a case in which many of the key elements are missing. That just makes you look ignorant of what evolution even is in the first place.

"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. “The origin of life” Scientific American August 1954 p.46"

The scientific american is not a science journal, but a popular magazine in which lots of different people state their opinions. It's pretty laughable that you'd quote it, and no less, quote something from 1954: before we had any sort of good grasp of genetics, before Miller-Urey, etc. Are you really that desperate that this was the best you could find?

"go ahead and laugh at me all you want. I will state it plainly, the Bible is true, There is a God in Heaven who created all life forms, and the entire universe, and Darwin, and you darwiniacs are liars!!"

I don't know what a darwiniac is, but I think that your outright disdain for critical thought and the sloppy careless way which you approach a subject is just as bad as lying, even if you aren't knowingly lying.

"Darwinism serves as a basis for social values and morals, Hitler would not have slaughtered the jews, had he considered them created by the same God who created him, but darwinism gave him the justification to slaughter those he considered ‘sub-human’....yes you supporters of darwinism have much to answer for."

As I already pointed out, just google Martin Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies" Martin Luther founded the Protestant movement. His book is a virtual outline of the holocaust, and Hitler cited it far far more than he ever cited Darwin.

Again, this whole line of debate is pointless. Evolution isn't a theory of morals, its a description of the biological world. If people tried to build a moral system out of it, then their understanding of evolution was just as poor as yours.

Comment Posted By plunge On 17.08.2006 @ 12:35

He really must believe that somewhere in the Constitution it says that Rick Moran must provide space and pay for the bandwidth for someone to call him childish names. I mean, anything less would violate his right to free speech!

Comment Posted By plunge On 16.08.2006 @ 17:04

"every hear of miller-urey??? its one of the icons of evolution…"

Yes I've heard of them, and no, Wells' "Icons of Evolution" is not convincing. Wells tries to pretend that the Miller-Urey experiments were thought to prove more than they did, and then ignores the implications of what they did prove.

Before their work, most people didn't think that the spontaneous formation of ANY of the basic organic compounds was very likely. M-U's experiments, however, demonstrated that in fact given a few simple conditions, these basic building blocks WOULD form.

Wells tries to make a lot of hay out of the idea that this doesn't prove that life did form this way and other irrelevant nonsense. Well, no, the experiments don't prove any of that, but then no one ever claimed that they created life in a test tube: they just demonstrated that it wasn't so unthinkable and that it may well have been pretty plausible.

Comment Posted By plunge On 16.08.2006 @ 10:07

Powered by WordPress


Next page »

Pages (3) : [1] 2 3

«« Back To Stats Page