Posted by: graemebird | April 5, 2010

The Sort Of Post PZ MYERS Found Too Confronting Too Allow On His Blog/Make-Believe Version Of Human Evolution.

I’ll get to some sort of reconstruction of this post later on. But first we must explain the wider context in which it was the case that PZ MYERS had to wipe this post that I will be attempting to reconstruct.

This universe is not big enough for the current version of evolutionary theory on the one hand …. and the theory of the Big Bang on the other. The Young-Universe creationism that the Bangers stick up for, presents not only an unscientific theory, but also a theory that clearly doesn’t allow enough time for the complexity we see in the natural world. The Big Bang has to go if evolution wants to survive.

Well-wishers of evolution, as a theory, must realise this and deep-six the Big Bang dementia. But they are not inclined to do so. Since they tend to be members of a wider science-maffia.

The people who are now wanting to cut out what ought to be friendly competition with their own theories are not just dogmatic and moronic about evolution. Putting Dawkins himself aside, the tendency is for such people to be totalitarian and absolutely idiotic about all areas of science. The totalitarian streak in this orthodoxy, and the utter lack of evidence for this orthodoxies manifold positions is astonishing……… even if the main thrust of the theory of evolution is indeed certain. This science maffia is not just a problem for biology. It is in physics, its in climate science, economic science. Its everywhere we look.

It is quite strange that a smooth and intelligent fellow like Dawkins could allow himself to be surrounded by so many mindless Gramscian nitwits. Get Dawkins out of your mind when you think about this issue. Because he is not representative of the sort of ugly low-IQ reptile that make up the ranks of the science maffia. And yet such people are incredibly thick on the ground even on his own blog. OK so the Richard Dawkins blog banned me. But they also banned “Oil Is Mastery” who was being scrupulously polite.

The science maffia sticks up for anti-catastrophism in cosmology. For special relativity, general relativity and other substitute religions of this nature. For viewing the little world as if it has no physicality. For mixing up hypothetical objects with hypothetical concepts. For giving space, which has no shape, properties that only something which had shape could possibly possess. They believe in the theory of continental drift, and yet cannot give anyone a set of force vectors which could explain the movement of these continents. Not through plate tectonics that is. They are against the theory of Abiotic hydro-carbons, not as a gentle dispute but with dogmatism. They can be relied on to deny that the centralisation of anti-Malaria policy had nothing to do with the eradication of many millions of black kids.

The science maffia sticks up for the Keynesian multiplier, with such vigor that both sides of the spectrum of Australian economists believe devoutly in this idiotic idea. They fucking better or thats their career down the toilet. Yet its a stupid idea. A childish idea. Without even the maths barrier that stupid and childish ideas in physics have for their protection.

Most dire of all is their irrational believe in the global warming scam. So strange is this intense tenet of the science maffia, that it appears to be the case that just a few tenths of a degree warming in winter for the LapLanders would be seen as a catastrophic problem the likes of which has never befallen the environment in recorded history and prior. Meanwhile it seems likely that actual catastrophes loom down on us from all sides, whilst this fantasy-catastrophe is being entertained.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now I have no intention of falling for this ruse where stupid-town gets to use Richard Dawkins as a human shield. My beef is not with Dawkins (for the most part) and few people are going to look more plausible once the camera starts rolling then Richard. And actually I think a great deal like Richard in a lot of ways. Here is an edited version of something he’s written for this blog. I’ve edited out a lot of the repetitive excuse-making and insults.

“Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It’s the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could………..

…….and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario.

……..I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet

(The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent ‘crane’ (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity………

…….Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe).”

Once the excuses and insults are edited out it can be seen that Richard Dawkins’ core reasoning is very similar to my own. Except that he is too dim, or too worried about his science maffia backing, to reject the notion that we only have “13 billion years to play with.” But the fact is that the complexity of the cell forces us, for the time being, to reject such a silly time limit. The universe is far older than 13 billion years. Far too old for science to be able to tell us how old the universe is. We have absolutely no reason to believe in this time limit in the first place. And yet the science maffia demands that we must believe.

MORE MUCH LATER.


Responses

  1. From Elsewhere:

    These people are fascists for sure. For every one taxpayer they want to rob or hurt we’ve got to exact psychic payback by wanting to sack one dozen from the public sector. A 1-12 ratio. So we can limit the nasty stuff at that. Well the occasional kick in the shins. Punch in the shoulder. But that really would have to be the limit of it.

    Public service sackings are powerfully effective too. Because for these people thats a fate almost as bad as death or losing a child.

    Imagine your average CO2-Bedwetter having to retrain as a tradesman, or manufacturing operator. We desperately need many more people working in such occupations by the way. Not so much in absolute numbers as they are needed to dramatically increase as a proportion of the population, even as the proportion of people in the finance and public service rackets need to be reduced.

    So we have to exact this sort of payback in any cases. If you don’t have at least three or more reasons for doing something its probably not worth doing.

    We have to cut back in this way and fast. But we ought to be able to do it with relish and not with regret.

  2. Tradespeople *are* employed by the public sector. You’ll probably find quite a lot of them in the largest public sector employer, defence and related industries.

    If we’re going to cut useless, unproductive wasteful industries, let’s start with defence itself, advertising, public relations, and get rid of most managers and withdraw all funding for so-called management courses at tertiary level. That’d be an excellent start.

  3. Use evidence, not drug-induced fairy-tales.

    NO YOU MISUNDERSTAND. THERE WON’T BE ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL. ITS A TOTALLY HYPOTHETICAL STORY ABOUT POSSIBLE EVOLUTION. SOMETHING THAT IF TRUE THAT COULD MAKE THE STORY THAT PZ MYERS AND OTHERS WOULD TELL PLAUSIBLE. BECAUSE YOU SEE THE MAKE-BELIEVE CHANGES BETWEEN ERECTUS AND EARLY MODERN HUMANS ARE JUST NIGHT AND DAY. SO WE HAVE TO ASSUME AN EARLIER COMMON ANCESTOR AND TRY AND EXPLAIN SOME SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT COULD HAVE MEANT THAT THE TRANSITION WAS LEFT OUT OF THE FOSSIL RECORD.

    SO IT WILL BE ENTIRELY MAKE-BELIEVE SINCE WE DON’T HAVE THE EVIDENCE FOR HOW THIS HAPPENED. WE DON’T HAVE THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE TO SHOW SUCH AN OUTRAGEOUS TRANSFORMATION. SEEMINGLY OVERNIGHT. BUT IF IT WERE BY WAY OF DARWINISM IT MUST HAVE TAKEN MANY MILLIONS OF YEARS. AND THERE HAS TO BE AN EXPLANATION FOR THAT.

  4. Not bad except for the cuts in defense. Once we get into that vortex where our weakness allows outsiders to manipulate FURTHER weakness then we are lost.

    I’ve volunteered to fight when I was younger. But I don’t want to fight now. So I want our defense to be strong enough that I don’t have to fight.

    More than that. I want us to be strong enough that no young fellow winds up having to fight in my place.

  5. You joined the military did you?

  6. I tried to join the “Ready Reserve.” I was pretty much accepted then my right eye was judged to have too much astigmatism for me to be allowed in. I had been swimming seven kilometres a day and everything. Almost ready to roll. The useless buggers were too bureaucratic to agree to give me the laser treatment and take it out of my salary.

    I was unemployed at the time. Just working casual jobs. There was really no hope of me saving for the laser treatment myself.

  7. THE POINT IS TO DISPLAY SOME SORT OF ALTERNATIVE OF WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN TO MAKE THE CRUDE VERSION OF EVOLUTION, THAT PZ-MYERS APPEARS TO HAVE FAITH IN ….. PLAUSIBLE.

    ITS A DEMONSTRATION OF HYPOTHESIS CREATION. YOU MIGHT NOT REALISE, BEING A BLOCKHEAD, THAT THERE IS NEVER ANY SUCH THING AS EVIDENCE WITHOUT AN HYPOTHESIS. HENCE THE IDEA IS TO LOOK AT THE DATA, AND FORM AN HYPOTHESIS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE DATA, AND THEN YOU START LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST IN THE DATA.

    BUT THE DATA IS NOT ITSELF EVIDENCE. AND IF YOU ARE A SCIENTIST AND NEITHER A KEYNESIAN NOR A CO2 BEDWETTER. IF YOU DON’T HOLD THE CRUDE VIEW OF EVOLUTION THAT MYERS DOES. THE FAITH-BASED VIEW, THEN YOU KNOW THAT AN HYPOTHESIS DOES NOT PROVE ITSELF.

    BUT NONETHELESS, AFTER RECOGNISING THAT AN HYPOTHESIS DOES NOT PROVE ITSELF, ONE NEEDS TO DEMONSTRATE, TO THE IDIOTS ON THE PZ MYERS STUPIDTOWN BLOG, OF HOW YOU GO ABOUT CONCOCTING AN HYPOTHESIS.

    AT THIS STAGE THE HYPOTHESIS DOES NOT NEED TO BE TRUE. ITS TERRIBLE TO HAVE TO SPELL THIS OUT TO GROWN ADULTS. ALL IT NEEDS TO DO IS NOT CONTRADICT THE DATA AS WE KNOW IT.

    CRUDE DARWINISM, FAITH-BASED AND AS ADVOCATED BY MYERS, IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE DATA. OR IF SO HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED IN ANY REASONABLE WAY.

    HAS MYERS GOT THE ANSWER TO THESE APPARENT MASSIVE LEAPS IN THE RECORD? NO HE JUST PRETENDS THEY AREN’T THERE. SINCE FATTY-PZ IS FULL OF SHIT.

  8. Truism never has much to say for himself does he. Poor lad.

  9. Graeme, how old were you when you learnt to swim? Who taught you? And have you ever been an ocean swimmer, or do you prefer the pool?

  10. The reason I ask is that I think I first swam in the ocean before I could really swim, i.e. with my father, or in a floatie or just mucking about in the shallows.

    But my first experience of swimming in a pool was being thrown into a pool (around age 6 or 7) and being given a foam board and then instructed to kick swim the length of the pool. This worked (after the initial shock and outrage) and grew confidence and from that we were weaned from the board to learn arm strokes and presto: on our way.

    However, my great love and pleasure was never pool swimming though I was professionally coached and trained intensively in pools in my early teens.

    But, it’s always been the ocean for me, body surfing in the Pacific Ocean from an early age (southern Qld beaches where the water temp is always perfect for 3-hr+ frolicks even mid-winter, on a sunny day). My current swimming place of choice and circumstance are the beaches on the mid-north coast of NSW.

  11. I seemed to know how to do it all along. Mum put me in a pool in Hamilton on holidays. I don’t think I was yet five. And I seemed to be able to do it after a fashion already.

    We went to the swimming club one year. I started in the baby pool. I must have been five. It wasn’t many weeks until they got me in the big pool at the shallow end doing widths.

    But the very first night in the big pool the lady asked me to swim a width entire when all the kids had left. And I did it so she said I ought to go up a group because none of the kids in that group could do it.

    So the next time I went up the group. I went to get in but they were all big kids and I remember freaking out and bursting into tears. But I think mum calmed me down and I got in with them.

    So it was something I could always do. When I went to the swimming champs in the under tens the first time I was 7. I had two more years in that age-group. I won the freestyle, the breastroke, set a record in the butterfly, and my brother won the backstroke. I subsequently won all races in that age-group two further years running.

    So I could always do it. But I don’t think I had the physique to ever be supremely successful with it as an adult swimmer.

    Or otherwise I would have had to do things radically different. I was just checking out this kid name of Kukla. She is only 14 but more importantly she is very short. And yet she can really move for anyone her height male or female. The thing is a person that size would normally just have to thrash about too much and being able to outsprint people over 50 metres would normally be untenable. So I am really very impressed with this kid.

    No I wasn’t real good in the ocean comparatively speaking.

  12. Thanks for that, really interesting. And yes now I remember while I was literally thrown or ordered to jump into the deep end, it was widths we first conquered and learned to do before going on to lengths.

    One thing I do strongly remember about that first institutional pool, which was at Ironside State School in Brisbane (we were a weekly foray/class from the nearby small pool-less Catholic primary school) was the antiseptic foot bath and shower we all had to pass through before entry into the pool area proper. I always found that rite of passage a combination of spooky and reassuring.

  13. Yes I do remember something similar. How interesting.

    This fellow “electric” desperately wanted to let this fellow’s playlist through.

    This fellow has a reassuringly plausible sounding British voice. But the fact is he’s a lock-step-dummy. I’ve heard all his gear. He is a big bang believer. And as plausible as he sounds he’s totally predictable and lacks evidence.

    Five minutes in and he’s busted for being a dishonest slimeball, engaged in an historical rewrite.

    • What did you find so disagreeable about potholer54’s video?

  14. My younger brother famously as a 3-4 year old rode his tricycle into a pool at a neighbour’s bbq and stayed sitting on it, perfectly upright, clutching the handlebars at the bottom of the pool, blowing bubbles. My father had some difficulty in prising his fists off and bringing him to the surface, sans beloved new Christmas toy.

    • Did you actually bear witness to this? He must have really taken a shine to that trike.

      • I vaguely remember it. I would have been 5 and only witnessed the above water, pool-side drama.

        It’s a family legend, courtesy of my father, a master story teller.

  15. YES I KNOW. FATTY PZ MYERS DESIGNED MATTERS THAT WAY. THATS THE WHOLE TECHNIQUE BEHIND THE WHIPPING-POST THREAD. THATS WHY HE LIED ABOUT ME PUBLICLY. EVEN THOUGH HE KNEW HE’D BE FOUND OUT. BECAUSE HE WAS CO-OPTING GOOGLE AS A SOURCE OF ENDLESS PROPAGANDA TO RUN ME DOWN OUT OF PURE NON-RETALIATORY MALICE.

    HE WILL PAY A HIGH PRICE FOR THIS REPULSIVE DISHONESTY. BECAUSE HE DID IT AS AN AGGRESSIVE ACT AND WITHOUT ME INSULTING HIM FIRST.

  16. Analyse this.

    Dead easy: Dull, mono-toned and -messaged, homophobic, apolitical and juvenile.

    0-10 for impact, persuasiveness, aesthetic authenticity, subversion or creativity.

  17. Its not the first time he posted it. He posted it another time as an attempt at sexual harassment.

    This happened when I first got on Catallaxy. Nabakov and Fyodor tried on all this sexual harassment. What happens then is you start all this brazen anti-queer talk to make it impossible for these guys to humiliate you. Next step after that is that the compulsive liar PZ Myers brands you as a homophobe.

    Its like these people have all the propaganda techniques really “down.” I may have to speak to PZ Myers’ boss. We’ may see how his boss likes to pick up the phone and be shouted at. See if thats on the up and up. See if that makes his day and is a winning thing for his mood.

    • WELL ITS AN EXPERIMENT. WE WILL SEE IF THE BOSS FEELS ABOUT MATTERS THE SAME WAY YOU DO.

  18. “Most people I would think would find it to be hilarious.”

    Then my condolences to you. How unfortunate to live in this world with such people as your social template.

    Why is it homophobic?

    Does it not imply, infer, suggest that Blair and Bush were in mutual physical lust? And snigger at that suggestion, first and foremost?

    Even if they were, who cares and of what consequence is that?

    Sexual preference and desire, despite what you have obviously deeply imbibed from the tv soapies, tabloids and pulp fiction is not, repeat not, the motive force of history.

  19. Sorry if I’m taking awhile to respond Philomena. These people have IP number-generators or else he’s spending a fortune roaming from internet chatrooms and all around his campus. Could even be going around a dorm asking to borrow one computer after another.

    You can go to hidemyass and get a few alternative numbers. But I’ve never seen anything quite like it. The number of science maffia propagandists may be much smaller then people imagine. It could be a relative handful of King Lear’s Edmunds. Like a bunch of nihilists getting off on trying to steer matters to ill effect.

  20. Graeme, you’ve made your point. That site doesn’t seem to have a lot going for it or be very interesting. Sometimes it is best to let things go. You made your mark and got up people’s noses. I don’t agree with a lot of your ideas but I defend to the death your right to express them and it’s never nice to be mobbed.

    Time to move on to worthier more challenging opponents, or here’s a thought, engage with likeminded ones. So much less agitating, eh?

    • I don’t think I’m going to let him get away with flat out lying. If I was in America I’d have lawyers send him the letter already. If he didn’t do something I’d stand the chance of buying the house in Malibu. Tim Lambert has never pulled a stunt even close to that. This is because Tim is in the same city as me I suppose. Or it might be that Tim prefers to be misleading, but will stop short of flat out lying. Tim as annoying as he is isn’t a flat out lying pig like PZ Myers has turned out to be. And this wasn’t retaliatory on his part.

  21. “its not the first time he posted it. He posted it another time as an attempt at sexual harassment

    That Bush-Blair clip was posted here before? Do you remember when?

    • One time PZ Myers was invited to this Christian affair to do with some movie about how these Christians were being persecuted in some way. Well Myers family was there. Richard Dawkins was there. Richard Dawkins’ family members were there. So it was an open meeting and all the radical religion haters were there as well. No-one was asked to leave. Except for one person. They got security to make sure Myers left. He was standing there right next to Richard Dawkins. Well my outsiders interpretation is that they were being reasonable. And they recognised Dawkins for having some odd priorities, but for basically being a gentleman. Whereas they knew PZ Myers was a lying pig and they made him leave on that basis alone.

      Thats what I’m getting anyhow.

      • Come on, lets be accurate about this. Myers and Dawkins both had tickets to the launch of the propaganda movie “Expelled”. The organisers hilariously “expelled” PZ Myers

        GOOD SO FAR

        but didn’t recognize Richard Dawkins.

        HOW DO YOU FIGURE THAT LOGICALLY YOU DUMB SHIT. OF COURSE THEY WOULD RECOGNIZE DAWKINS. YOU ARE A MORON. NO-ONE WITHIN THAT SORT OF DEBATE WOULDN’T RECOGNIZE DAWKINS. YOU DON’T HAVE TWO NEURONS TO RUB TOGETHER YOU DUMB FUCK. THERE WOULD BE NO POINT IN EXPELLING DAWKINS. WHY WOULD THEY EXPEL DAWKINS? THEY EVEN LET DAWKINS SPEAK COMPLAINING ABOUT THE EXPELLING OF MYERS. SO YOU SEE YOU THINK YOU HAVE SECOND SIGHT BUT REALLY YOU ARE JUST MAKING IT UP.

      • Here’s the truth about it Graeme.

        HERE IS DAWKINS AND MYERS TALKING ABOUT WHEN MYERS GOT EXPELLED. NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY DIDN’T RECOGNIZE DAWKINS OR WOULD HAVE EXPELLED HIM IF THEY DID. KEEP MAKING YOURSELF USEFUL AND DON’T BE A PRICK. YOU ARE WASTING BOTH YOUR TIME AND MINE TRYING TO SOURCE 50+ IP ADDRESSES. MY BLOG DOOR IS ALWAYS OPEN EVEN TO THE MODERATED. DON’T ACT LIKE A COMPLETE CUNT AND YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE ACCESS. THIS IS PARTICULARLY GOOD BECAUSE ITS FIRST-HAND INFORMATION.

        BUT ITS SIMPLY NOT CREDIBLE THAT THIS CROWD DID NOT RECOGNIZE DAWKINS. SO THEY THREW MYERS OUT ALONE AND PROBABLY BECAUSE HE IS A WICKED LYING DISHONEST PRICK. I’M GRAEME BIRD AND I APPROVED THIS MESSAGE.

        AUTHORIZED.

      • NO THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE PROPOSITION AT ALL. ITS A REASONABLE SPECULATION ON DAWKINS’ PART. BUT THATS JUST AS LIKELY ON THE BASIS THAT DAWKINS DOESN’T REALISE WHAT A LYING DISHONEST PRICK PZ MYERS IS. I MAY KNOW SOMETHING THAT DAWKINS DOES NOT.

        DAWKINS BEING A GENTLEMAN, THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO EXPEL HIM. DAWKINS CAN WIN ARGUMENTS THROUGH INTELLIGENCE AND BY HIS QUICK WIT. HE DOESN’T NEED TO PULL LYING STUNTS LIKE WHAT WE KNOW MYERS HAS DONE.

    • He posted it a number of times just then. But I’ve been busy whacking him on moderation, copying his new number, taking it to moderation and going back and forth like that. Sorry I’ve been a bit slow in my responses. But they’ve been keeping my act really busy.

  22. Well, it’s the relationship of forces thang. Argue against him if you want, hell we love to exercise that muscle don’t we, but best to do it coldly, with no emotion or vested interest involved. Tough call I know. But you can do it.

    • Sonofabitch appears to be a non-entity in the world of ideas. Unlike Dawkins for example. Fortunately Dawkins, (hopefully) only thinks of his selfish gene as a metaphor. Whereas others went right overboard. But it was a useful idea. I cannot find any real contribution from PZ-Myers. I don’t know what he’s famous for. As an academic he’s a rather aging associate Professor. So it looks like he’s a bit of an opportunist and demagogue of some sort. The predictability and lock-step nature of his ideas appears to be total. But his edge is to be a little bit more nasty to Christians then anyone else.

  23. I’m not religious today either, despite being indoctrinated from age 4-5 till 17 with Catholicism.

    But I agree, Dawkins has got the wrong end of the stick with regard to religion. I’ve written about this before and the fact that some of the people I most admire and respect intellectually who have critiqued Dawkins on religion are Marxists and leftists including from the Catholic tradition, such as Terry Eagleton and Karen Armstrong.

  24. “No, the video was just poking fun, it’s not meant to be serious.

    Ah, the “it was just a joke Your Honour defence (not).

  25. Yeah it is a bit funny. But still I consider him a serious intellectual. Unlike fatty-Myers. I cannot see the point in coming down on Christians if you are too frightened to give these Muslims a bit of a serve.

    • Graeme, they have given Muslims “a serve”.

      THATS BETTER KNOB-HEAD. NOW MAKE YOURSELF USEFUL AND STOP BEING A PRICK. I’M GRAEME BIRD AND I APPROVED THIS MESSAGE. DAWKINS THROWING LIGHT ON ISLAM.

  26. Here is the Ben Stein movie. Expelled. Looks pretty good stuff to me so far.

    I don’t see why people have to be so damned tribal about this. I like Ben Stein. I like listening to Richard Dawkins any chance I can get. I think PZ Myers is a blockhead. I don’t see why one would have to take sides here.

    But radical leftist atheism is immensely dangerous. For starters it seems to turn people moronic. Thats not a logical consequence. I just have picked that up by experience. You would think it would be the other way around.

  27. This is a magnificent movie. Its really throwing the light on the science-maffia. They are not just this way to do with evolution. They are lunatics in all aspects of science.

    Yesterday I explained to a friend why the Gaede-rope theory of light and gravity was clearly superior. He understood right away. I tried that on science-blogs, and they were claiming I was a lunatic. Because science-blogs is a science-maffia enterprise.

  28. NO THATS NOT RIGHT. DAWKINS IS A VERY SMART MAN. BUT I’M AT LEAST AS SMART AS DAWKINS. IN FACT HIS ANTI-RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS ARE PRETTY OLD HAT TO ME. THEY WERE THE SAME ARGUMENTS I MADE AS A TEENAGER. I MIGHT EVEN BE THE ONE TO SHOW HIM WHERE HE IS COMING OFF THE BEAM.

    FOR EXAMPLE, ITS JUST A FACT THAT THE BIG BANG AND EVOLUTION ARE NO LONGER COMPATIBLE. THIS YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM THAT BIG BANG THEORY REPRESENTS, PRESENTS TO US A UNIVERSE WAY TO YOUNG TO EXPLAIN THE COMPLEXITY WE HAVE VIA EVOLUTION. NOW IT OUGHT TO BE PRETTY EASY TO EXPLAIN THIS TO DAWKINS. BUT THE FACT IS THAT HE DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE NUTTED THIS OUT FOR HIMSELF.

    PLUS HE DOESN’T SEEM TO HAVE FIGURED OUT THE IMMENSE HARM OF VARIOUS SECULAR-RELIGIONS. OTHERWISE HE WOULDN’T BE SO NUTTY WHEN IT CAME TO CHRISTIANITY. AND I THINK I’D BE QUALIFIED TO MAKE THIS CASE TO HIM.

    IT HARDLY MATTERS IF HE THINKS I’M A NUT WHEN I’M PROBABLY SMARTER THAN HIM.

  29. Magnificent. Stein comes over to talk to Berlinski. This just gets better.

    Here is a link to me explaining the clear superiority of Gaede-Rope theory of gravity and light on science-blogs. Everyone but the blog owner was talking to me like I ought to be in a straight-jacket.

    So this is an immensely important problem in science. This is a very valuable of flik.

    http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2010/04/theres_a_classic_problem_in.php

  30. RIGHT. I LINKED THE WRONG THREAD. CHECK THE THREAD PRIOR TO THAT ONE. THE THREAD ABOUT LIGHT.

  31. DEAL? YOU AINT GOT NO KIND OF DEAL AT ALL AROUND HERE FELLA. FOR ONE THING YOU’VE LAID A STRING OF INSULTS AT PHILOMENA. MOST OF WHICH I’VE BEEN ABLE TO WIPE IN TIME. THAT SORT OF CANCELS ANY KIND OF NEGOTIATING POSITION YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD. PLUS YOU’VE MADE ME RECORD UPWARDS OF 50 IP ADDRESSES ON MY MODERATION PAGE. WHEN IT WAS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY BECAUSE YOU CAN HAVE ACCESS EVEN IF MODERATED.

    WHAT SORT OF DEAL WERE YOU IMAGINING IN YOUR LITTLE MIND? WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO OFFER? YOU HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER.

  32. I’ve got no real beef with Dawkins. The leftist idiots in this story are putting up Dawkins as a human shield. My issue is with incredibly stupid people like Myers and the idiots on both the Dawkins and the Myers blog.

  33. ELEKTRA YOU ARE A CLASSIC CASE OF THE DUNNING-KRUGER EFFECT. HAVE YOU HEARD OF THAT?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

    YOU THINK YOU KNOW THINGS YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW. WHAT YOU INTERPRET, IN ERROR, TO BE KNOWLEDGE IS SIMPLY GROUP NORMS.

  34. NO LYING ON THIS BLOG DUMMY. I DIDN’T CLAIM HE DID THINK THIS. HE’S PROBABLY TOO STUPID TO TAKE THE PROPOSITION SERIOUSLY.

    Refer here to this analysis of Expelled by Richard Dawkins himslef.

    NO YOU DON’T GET TO POST THAT LINK UNTIL YOU CAN POINT OUT WHERE IN THE LINK IT IS BACKING UP THE CLAIM YOU ARE MAKING. YOU ARE NOT SENDING MY READERS ON WILD GOOSE CHASES. YOU ALREADY SENT ME ON ONE.

  35. I must say that Dawkins comes across as pretty moronic in print. Not anything like this smooth fellow who can think so well on his feet.

    I may have to conclude that he really is indicative of the moronic types that had me banned from his blog.

    Most of the issue of me being banned from his blog was to do with arguments with people who refused point blank to prove the Hubble doctrine as defined by me.

    The logic of the Hubble doctrine goes like this:

    1. The Doppler effect causes red shift.

    ERGO

    2.ONLY the Doppler effect can ever cause red shift.

    Utterly illogical of course. Particularly in view of the fact that none of these blockheads know what light is.

  36. “Maffia”?
    Is that related to raffia

    IS THAT A JOKE? YO’ MOMMA IS A JOKE. WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THIS POST?

  37. I will just have to see how well the science maffia does on this question. You would think they would have the competence to put this one to rest very quickly.

    From elsewhere:

    Well if the evidence clears vaccines thats great. So lets have one of you guys present that evidence. It ought to be a very simple matter. No doubt it is. So no need for all these complaints, putdowns and whining. Just present the evidence straight.

    Posted by: Graeme Bird | April 6, 2010 12:08 AM
    75
    Hypothesis: Vaccines definitely make no contributing cause to the problem of autism

    Evidence:……. what? Where is it?

    Unlike with the global warming racket, here we can now jump ahead. We have the hypothesis clearly stated above. Its all pretty simple. Since we have formulated the hypothesis, we are able to submit evidence in favour of this hypothesis. Great. Lets have it.

    It would be magnificent to be able to prove that the bully-boy science maffia at least had one thing right.

    Posted by: Graeme Bird | April 6, 2010 12:14 AM

    • NO WE ARE NOT HAVING ANY LIES ABOUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF HERE. NO-ONE GETS A HANDICAP. IF YOU WANT TO POST LINKS YOU CAN DO SO WITHOUT LYING ABOUT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

  38. Enourmous resources in the oceans. But not the property rights to get their exploitation started.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_ballard_on_exploring_the_oceans.html

  39. From elsewhere:

    Which do you think is the best study? The one that proves the hypothesis without any ambiguity?

    The way people are talking this will be a very quick matter to put to rest.

    Here is the hypothesis again. Just to keep you focused:

    “Vaccines definitely make no contributing cause to the problem of autism.”

    Now Travis says something very interesting.

    “Only a few studies have indicated there may be any link between vaccines and autism….”

    We can dispense with the word “only” up front because it doesn’t change the meaning of what Travis is saying.

    So Travis’ statement boils down to:

    “A few studies have indicated there may be any link between vaccines and autism.”

    A few usually means more than two. You get the same result three or more twice the results are repeated more than twice.

    So immediately we see Travis lies and claims that the results are not repeatable.

    Already you people are beginning to look suspicious. So where is this arrogance coming from. If you were right, then its a very simple matter of proving it.

    Now there are kids involved here. You’ve got to make your case, without lying, handwaving, or just abusing people.

    Can you make this case or not?

    If you are not going to be scientists fine. Then stop being so arrogant.

    Posted by: Graeme Bird | April 6, 2010 3:56 AM

  40. I’M PRETTY HAPPY TO HEAR ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE TRANSFORMATION TO EARLY MODERN HUMANS THAT YOU HAVE ON THE FLY.

    I’M MOST HAPPY FOR ANY EXPLANATION YOU CAN OFFER ME FOR THE COMPLEXITY OF THE CELL, AND HOW THAT COULD HAVE EVOLVED IN SUCH A SHORT TIME.

    MY CONTENTION IS THAT IF YOU CANNOT DO THAT, YOU WILL HAVE TO ACCEPT FOR THE MOMENT THAT I MUST BE RIGHT. Lets go back to normal typing.

    I’ve gone straight out on the net and said that the bully-boys have to drop either the Big Bang or evolution. They cannot hold onto both. This universe isn’t big enough for the both of them. There is not enough time in 13 billion years for that amount of complexity. Once people get to realise evolution must, as of necessity, be a multi-planet affair, then we have removed a whole massive set of obstructions in science.

  41. Graeme, will you be running for parliament this year?

    • I’ll think about it. I won’t be running hard, I can tell you that now. When do you expect the election to be roughly? I haven’t been reading the papers much.

      Its all about education. If it only costs me about 700 dollars to run and it helps with the general education of people that may be worth it. In the case of science, I’ve got to communicate the absolutely critical fact that we have to get rid of publicly financed scientific research, some very small projects, mostly to do with defense, excepted….

      … As well as public education. Now we can find ways to quickly bring down the costs in both areas. It also goes without saying that upon introducing these changes, there has to be generous increases in the tax free thresholds for parents trying to educate their kids…….. But we cannot have these things publicly funded. Thats where the mistakes get locked in.

      If anyone wanted to help me on this campaign it might be useful just to have some sort of internet setup where I can answer everyones questions personally online. Like if someone wanted to know if I supported abortion, or this or that. Or if I would cut off old peoples pensions …. or any questions that you might want to ask me.

      Anyone who wanted to help out at that sort of level would be welcome. But I’m unlikely to go out there, takes weeks off work, launch some sort of massively funded campaign, kiss babies and this sort of thing. Plus kissing babies is a bit scary these days in my view. There are just so many sicko’s around. You pick the little girls up when they are crying and then they stop crying. The big girls too. I don’t know whether I’d want to get into this weird habit that politicians have where they kiss babies. What is that all about? I’ve never understood it.

      Mostly I want to convince people that we can make a lot of changes smoothly without hurting people. The changes don’t need to be vicious and wrenching. The two groups of people that will be hit the hardest by “A Better World” policies would be those higher-ups in the public service that didn’t wind up getting really great jobs in the private sector …… And also those bigshot banking executives..

      Most of the other public servants would do OKAY and they would have excellent tax exemptions. Most banking staff would do better than they are doing now but just few of the top guys. It is possible that under my policies we could grab hold of the world banking market the same way that little Holland did when she chartered the Bank Of Amsterdam. So even in the case of banking it is at least possible that they could do alright.

      As a general principle, sell banking shares if you think it looks like I’m gaining influence. I say this to point out that even banking shareholders would get plenty of lead-time.

      The toughest gig would be people with a lot of debts and mortgages. Because in the first instance it would look like monetary reform would make their debts harder to pay off, and reduce the capital value of their houses by two thirds.

      But I’ve developed a generalised policy for this sort of change. And we would work hard to make sure that people weren’t beaten up on both cash-flow and capital value AT THE SAME TIME when it came to radical reform. If it was necessary to make both principle and interest tax deductible for up to 5 years for people really caught in that sort of bind then this is on the cards, under a Birdian policy transition. If we have to time it that rental income is tax-free for 30 years, to mitigate the situation wherein people have been trashed both as to cash-flow and capital value, well thats okay too.

      Getting rid of the capital gains tax for one neighbour selling out to another could be arranged. Because then this allows consolidation and economies of scale with regards to high-rise.

      Normally speaking while tax exemptions to solve a transition problem, would be given the benefit of the doubt, direct stealing and transferring would not. But I would consider, if there really was a situation of all these poor mortgage holders trashed and their lives ruined, like what happened in the US in 2008 and 2009, if they declared bankruptcy, gave up all their assets, and walked away, I would consider a sweetener since bankruptcy and debt cancellation is incredibly healthy. And we want to make it less of a heartbreak. So if they just would walk away I’d consider something akin to a grant for bond, rent, transport, and a bit of slush-fund to help them cope with the heartbreak. But normally speaking every policy option would reduce stealing as a package.

      • I really think you should. Chances are it’s going to be a double dissolution election sometime early in the second half of the year so the quota for the Senate will be lower, too. You really should run hard.

      • How many votes did you get last time? Would you be running as in independent?

        Kissing babies isn’t mandatory, in fact you’d be better off staying away from children completely with your physique and fat face, don’t wanna give em nightmares.

        YOU HAVE A POINT. BUT MY FACE ISN’T ALWAYS THAT FAT. I WAS SUFFERING FROM SLEEP DEPRIVATION AND WORKING NIGHT SHIFT. I’D PUT OFF GETTING THE PHOTO TAKEN AND THEN HAD TO DO SO IN A HURRY. SURE ITS TRUE AT THE TIME I LOOKED LIKE THAT FIRST THING IN THE MORNING. I DON’T LOOK IN GREAT SHAPE ITS TRUE. BUT THATS A PARTICULARLY BAD PHOTO.

  42. No I won’t be running hard. I don’t have the resources for it and there is no point. I’m looking at it just for the education side of things alone. Maybe I’ll run this time, and the next on that basis. And try and get where I can put up a serious and spirited campaign three or four elections hence.

    I know I talk like at any minute I’ll be granted supreme executive power. But in reality I’m just trying to educate people. And thats going to be the case for at least the next three elections and maybe beyond that.

  43. open letter to Richard Dawkins explaining that although you find him to be intelligent, (not as smart as you, mind) you’d like to set him straight on a number of issues regarding evolution and his outspoken atheism.

    WHY WOULD I WANT TO SET HIM STRAIGHT ON THAT? I’M AN ATHEIST MYSELF. I’D WANT TO SET HIM STRAIGHT ON THE SCIENCE MAFFIA HE IS PALLING AROUND WITH. THE SAME DICKHEADS LIKE MYER WHO THINK THAT DEFICIT SPENDING EMPLOYS PEOPLE AND DOESN’T THROW THEM OUT OF WORK. THE NUTTINESS OF THE BIG BANG. THE SILLINESS OF ALLOWING YOURSELF TO BE EMBARASSED TO ADMIT THAT EVOLUTION IS PROBABLY A MULTI-PLANET OPERATION.

    THESE ARE THE SAME SCIENCE-MAFFIA WHO ARE INSISTING ON A MAKE-BELIEVE CO2-BASED DISASTER, YET EXCLUDE ABSOLUTELY THEORIES TO DO WITH REAL CATASTROPHES THAT ARE AS WE SPEAK BEAMING TOWARDS US LIKE SOME PRE-DESTINED DOPPLEGANGER ASSASSIN MAKING HIS WAY FROM THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE.

    AFTER ALL DAWKINS ADMITTED THAT NO-ONE COULD EXPLAIN THE BEGINNING OF LIFE. HE THOUGHT ABOUT THE IDEA OF ALIENS SEEDING THE PLANET. WHAT THIS IMPLIES IS A LOT MORE TIME IS NECESSARY THAN THE 13-15 BILLION YEARS THAT STUPIDTOWN IS WEDGED TO FOR NO REASON AT ALL.

    I’D WANT TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT THE DANGERS OF LOCKED IN STUPIDITY AND BIGOTED ATHEISM, OF A TYPE THAT DIDN’T CONCENTRATE ALMOST SOLELY ON BASHING ISLAM.

    Of course you should put in detailed explanations for others to critique in a friendly and objective manner.

    I’M NOT A BIOLOGIST I’M NOT GOING TO DO THAT. IF I GET SOME OF THE DETAIL WRONG STUPID-TOWN WOULD CONCENTRATE ON THAT RATHER THEN THEIR OWN LACK OF EXPLANATION FOR THE BEGINNING OF LIFE, OR FOR THE MASSIVE LEAP TO EARLY MODERN HUMANS.

    IT WASN’T LONG AGO THAT I CLAIMED THAT THERE MUST BE SOME LEMARKIAN MECHANISMS GOING ON. THIS HAS RECENTLY BEEN PROVEN. BUT PRIOR TO THAT, THIS WAS YET ANOTHER MATTER THAT PUT YOU BEYOND THE PALE AMONGST THE VERY STUPID.

  44. SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT BELIEFS BLOCKHEAD. I WASN’T PROPOSING TO LOOK INTO DAWKINS’ MIND. STOP PUTTING HIM FORWARD AS A HUMAN SHIELD YOU DIM BULB.

  45. What LEMARKIAN MECHANISMS have been proven?

    WHERE DIABETES IS COMMON IN A FAMILY IT CAN USUALLY BE TRACED BACK TO A FAMINE. A FAMINE WHEREIN THE MALE IN THE LINEAGE WAS HIT BEFORE PUBERTY, AND THE FEMALE IN THE LINEAGE WAS AFFECTED WHILE IN THE WOMB.

  46. http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2394

    Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It’s the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could………..

    …….and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario.

    ……..I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet

    (The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent ‘crane’ (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity………

    …….Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe).

    MUCH BETTER. I CUT OUT A LOT OF HIS EXCUSES. YOU WILL SEE THAT HIS REASONING IS A LOT LIKE MINE. EXCEPT THAT HE IS TOO DIM OR TOO WORRIED ABOUT HIS SCIENCE-MAFFIA BACKING TO REJECT THE NOTION THAT WE ONLY HAVE 13 BILLION YEARS TO WORK WITH. THE FACT IS THE COMPLEXITY OF THE CELL FORCES US FOR THE TIME BEING TO REJECT THAT TIME LIMIT. WHICH IS GOOD BECAUSE WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO BELIEVE THIS TIME LIMIT IN THE FIRST PLACE.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: