I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Friday, June 02, 2006

NYC Mayor Bloomberg's commencement speech took swipe at ID

At a commencement speech at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg took a swipe at intelligent design, just as Judge John E. Jones III did at a commencement speech at Dickinson College. Mayor Bloomberg said in his speech:

Today, we are seeing hundreds of years of scientific discovery being challenged by people who simply disregard facts that don't happen to agree with their agendas. Some call it "pseudo-science," others call it "faith-based science," but when you notice where this negligence tends to take place, you might as well call it "political science.".........You can see "political science" at work when it comes to global warming........You can see "political science" at work with respect to stem cell research....... Was there anything more inappropriate than watching political science try to override medical science in the Terry Schiavo case?

And it boggles the mind that nearly two centuries after Darwin, and 80 years after John Scopes was put on trial, this country is still debating the validity of evolution. In Kansas, Mississippi, and elsewhere, school districts are now proposing to teach "intelligent design" - which is really just creationism by another name -- in science classes alongside evolution. Think about it! This not only devalues science, it cheapens theology. As well as condemning these students to an inferior education, it ultimately hurts their professional opportunities.

At least Mayor Bloomberg's speech is not as offensive as Judge Jones' speech. Bloomberg is just a politician and as such is not expected to be neutral or objective. However, judges are expected to be neutral and objective on issues that come before them, but Judge Jones' commencement speech at Dickinson College showed that he has a hostility toward organized religion that would prevent him from being neutral and objective in establishment clause cases -- he said: "The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry." (emphasis added) Jones should be disqualified from deciding establishment clause cases and his Kitzmiller decision ought to be rescinded and the case retried.

Despite Bloomberg's claim that school districts are now proposing to teach intelligent design, intelligent design was not actually being taught in Dover, Cobb County, and Tangipahoa Parish -- all places where gag orders by the courts prohibited evolution disclaimers in the public schools. The only "religion" that was and is being taught in those places is Darwinism. As for ID hurting the students' professional opportunities, that is generally not true. Most students are still being taught Darwinism, and scientists can continue to use the concepts and tools of Darwinism even while believing that all or part of it is untrue, in the same way that electrical engineers use complex-number math in the analysis of AC circuits even while being aware that the math bears little or no physical relationship to the circuits -- in particular, the reactance, which is the magnitude of the imaginary component of the impedance vector in the complex plane, is especially remote from any physical relationship to the AC circuits because the reactance is a calculated quantity based on a circuit's inductance, capacitance, and AC frequency. Also, I believe that the concept that macroevolution was driven solely by natural genetic variation and natural selection has no practical application in science or technology. I will concede that other concepts of evolution theory are useful in biology, but I feel that they are not absolutely necessary -- for example, the chronological order of fossils can be an aid in taxonomic classification, but it is not necessary to assume that species evolved into other species.

A media report on Bloomberg's commencement address is here.

Labels:

22 Comments:

Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Thank you for posting that. I knew that Bloomberg was a brilliant man. Your posting these parts of his speech show the validity of that opinion.

I had to post here otherwise this thread would fall just as flat as the others that do not discuss your mental condition. No thanks are required. I know you appreciate me.

> Despite Bloomberg's claim that school districts are now proposing to teach intelligent design, intelligent design was not actually being taught in Dover, Cobb County, and Tangipahoa Parish <

Nor did he say that it was.

> The only "religion" that was and is being taught in those places is Darwinism. <

Baseball is closer to being a religion than Darwinism. You don't seem to know what a religion is.

> scientists can continue to use the concepts and tools of Darwinism even while believing that all or part of it is untrue, <

As the position of the Catholic church took towards Copernicus. People were free to use his methods to calculate the movements of the planets in the sky as long as they are not so foolish as to claim that they go around the sun.

Now you proceed to demonstrate your lack of understanding of Physics:

> in the same way that electrical engineers use complex-number math in the analysis of AC circuits even while being aware that the math bears little or no physical relationship to the circuits <

That is true. Math bears no physical relationship to anything. It does accurately describe real physical quantities such as reactance, whose magnitude can be calculated by equating it to the imaginary component of the impedance vector in the complex plane. It can also be calculated without complex numbers. They are a convenient method for this calculation.

> especially remote from any physical relationship to the AC circuits because the reactance is a calculated quantity based on a circuit's inductance, capacitance, and AC frequency. <

You could just as well say that the inductance or capacitance are calculated quantities since either can be calculated using the other parameters. You could say that density has no physical meaning since it is the ratio of mass to volume. Now here is an interesting problem. Is your brain so dense because it consists of unusually heavy material, or is it of normal weight but so small?

Friday, June 02, 2006 1:48:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Wilderness said ( 6/02/2006 01:48:35 PM ) --

>>>>>Thank you for posting that. I knew that Bloomberg was a brilliant man.<<<<<<

Bloomberg is a politician. Even he himself might not believe what he says.

>>>>>>Your posting these parts of his speech show the validity of that opinion.<<<<<

So something is automatically valid just because I disagree with it? This is the first time that I have ever heard something like that.

>>>>>> Despite Bloomberg's claim that school districts are now proposing to teach intelligent design, intelligent design was not actually being taught in Dover, Cobb County, and Tangipahoa Parish <

Nor did he say that it was.<<<<<<<

I never said that he said that it was, either. But because of the lawsuits, Dover, Cobb County, and Tangipahoa Parish were supposedly the worst cases of the intrusion of intelligent design and/or anti-Darwinism into our public schools, and yet only Darwinism was actually taught in all those places.

>>>>>Baseball is closer to being a religion than Darwinism. You don't seem to know what a religion is.<<<<<<

Darwinism has a lot of the trappings of religion: dogma, blind faith, a priesthood (scientists), censorship, persecution of non-believers and heretics, etc..

>>>>>> scientists can continue to use the concepts and tools of Darwinism even while believing that all or part of it is untrue, <

As the position of the Catholic church took towards Copernicus. People were free to use his methods to calculate the movements of the planets in the sky as long as they are not so foolish as to claim that they go around the sun.<<<<<<

It is impossible to correctly calculate the movements of the planets in the sky without assuming that the planets orbit the sun. And retrograde motion -- where a planet changes direction in relation to the background of stars -- is direct evidence that planets orbit the sun.

>>>>>Math bears no physical relationship to anything. <<<<

Wrong. A number can be a direct analog to a physical quantity.

>>>>> It does accurately describe real physical quantities such as reactance, whose magnitude can be calculated by equating it to the imaginary component of the impedance vector in the complex plane. It can also be calculated without complex numbers. They are a convenient method for this calculation.<<<<<

Just as Darwinism is convenient for interpreting biological phenomena -- but that does not necessarily mean that Darwinism is true.

>>>>>You could just as well say that the inductance or capacitance are calculated quantities since either can be calculated using the other parameters. You could say that density has no physical meaning since it is the ratio of mass to volume. <<<<<

Wrong. Density has a direct physical meaning -- it is the mass of a unit volume (cubic inch, cubic centimeter, etc.) of a given material. However, reactance bears no physical relationship to any single physical quantity of an AC circuit -- two AC circuits with different inductances, capacitances, and AC frequencies can have the same reactance. The reactance is the quantity wL + 1/wC, where C is the circuit capacitance, L is the circuit inductance, and w is the radial AC frequency.

Friday, June 02, 2006 4:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> Bloomberg is a politician.<

Bloomberg is a politician and a brilliant man.

> So something is automatically valid just because I disagree with it? <

No. I didn't say that either. I hadn't seen Bloomberg's speach until you posted these parts here. Those parts are what show his brilliance. Your disagreement is only a minor plus for Bloomberg.

> Darwinism has a lot of the trappings of religion: dogma, blind faith, a priesthood (scientists), censorship, persecution of non-believers and heretics, etc.. <

While there are scientsts, they do not act as priests. None of the other things you mention have anything to do with Darwinism except in your mind.

> It is impossible to correctly calculate the movements of the planets in the sky without assuming that the planets orbit the sun. <

But you might say that assumption may be made for the purpose of calculation only while at the same time believing that the earth is flat.

<< Math bears no physical relationship to anything. >>

> Wrong. A number can be a direct analog to a physical quantity. <

There is no relationship between these two statements.

> Just as Darwinism is convenient for interpreting biological phenomena -- but that does not necessarily mean that Darwinism is true. <

Just as heliocentrism is convenient for interpreting biological phenomena -- but that doesn't necessarily mean that the earth is not flat.

> Wrong. Density has a direct physical meaning -- it is the mass of a unit volume (cubic inch, cubic centimeter, etc.) of a given material. <

Then you are agreeing that reactance has a direct physical meaning.

> reactance bears no physical relationship to any single physical quantity of an AC circuit -- two AC circuits with different inductances, capacitances, and AC frequencies can have the same reactance. <

Just as two objects with different masses and volumes can have the same density.

> The reactance is the quantity wL + 1/wC, where C is the circuit capacitance, L is the circuit inductance, and w is the radial AC frequency. <

Are you saying that capacitance, inductance, and AC frequency have no direct physical meaning? Any of them can be calculated from the others in a circuit.

I forgot. In your world nothing has physical meaning.

Friday, June 02, 2006 4:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> blind faith <

Darwinism does not have to be supported by blind faith. There are perfectly good scientific reasons to believe in it. Many have been posted on this blog. It is a shame that you are unable to understand them.

> especially remote from any physical relationship <

You have been completely remote from a physical relationship with anything other than your hand.

Voice, don't let him use his usual tactic of changing definitions to try to escape the obviousness of his error. Pin him down on the meaning of "physical relationship." Otherwise it will change from post to post.

Friday, June 02, 2006 5:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

That last was a good post but I didn't make it. It obviously isn't the work of Larry? What is happening?

Friday, June 02, 2006 6:57:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Wilderness said ( 6/02/2006 04:39:06 PM ) --

>>>>>> Bloomberg is a politician.<

Bloomberg is a politician and a brilliant man.>>>>>

How do you know? He might not believe a word he says.

<<<<<> So something is automatically valid just because I disagree with it? <

No. I didn't say that either. I hadn't seen Bloomberg's speach until you posted these parts here. Those parts are what show his brilliance. Your disagreement is only a minor plus for Bloomberg.<<<<<<<

Your initial statement implied something much stronger -- you implied that my disagreement with these parts of his speech was what validated your opinion that he is a brilliant man: "I knew that Bloomberg was a brilliant man. Your posting these parts of his speech show the validity of that opinion." If you did not wish to imply that, your second sentence should have simply said, "These parts of his speech show the validity of that opinion," leaving out the fact that I had posted them (as you know, I posted them because I disagreed with them).

>>>>>While there are scientsts, they do not act as priests.<<<<<

Not true -- Darwinist scientists want to try for heresy those who disagree with them.

>>>>> None of the other things you mention have anything to do with Darwinism except in your mind.<<<<<<

-- and in the minds of the judges who banned evolution disclaimers in public schools.

>>>>Then you are agreeing that reactance has a direct physical meaning.<<<<<

Not really. There are big fundamental differences between density and reactance.

Density is a basic, intrinsic physical property of matter. It is not dependent on any extrinsic factors. It is one of the basic thermodynamic properties of fluids (i.e., liquids and gases) -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_properties

On the other hand, the reactance, which is based on the inductance, capacitance, and AC frequency, is not an intrinsic property or characteristic of a circuit. The inductance and the capacitance are intrinsic characteristics of a circuit, but the AC frequency is an extrinsic, variable factor. A circuit cannot be described as having a characteristic reactance. Furthermore, the reactance is only part of the impedance to AC current -- the other part of the impedance is the "resistance," which is the same as the resistance to direct current, and the DC resistance and the reactance are not numerically additive but are added vectorially as perpendicular vectors to form the impedance vector in the complex plane. The magnitude of the reactance has virtually no direct physical relationship to the circuit.

>>>>>Are you saying that capacitance, inductance, and AC frequency have no direct physical meaning? Any of them can be calculated from the others in a circuit. <<<<<

Individually they have meaning -- but what I am saying is that the magnitude of the reactance, which is the imaginary component of the impedance vector in the complex plane, has no direct physical relationship to the circuit.

The reactance, capacitance, inductance, and AC frequency are all related by an equation, so if three of these four quantities are known, the fourth quantity can of course be calculated from the others. Some quantities may already be known from the components used to build the circuit. There are instruments that measure capacitance, inductance, AC voltage, AC current, and of course DC resistance (which is also useful to know). An oscilloscope can be used to determine phase shifts. An unknown circuit could be tested at several different AC frequencies to develop simultaneous equations for calculating the quantities.

Anyway, even if my analogy between Darwinism and AC circuit analysis is bad, my point is still valid -- scientists can use the concepts and tools of Darwinism even while believing that all or part of Darwinism is untrue.

Saturday, June 03, 2006 3:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> How do you know? He might not believe a word he says. <

His statements are brilliant. Perhaps someone is putting the words into his mouth. Perhaps you are actually brilliant and have chosen for some reason to sound like the idiot that you appear to be.

> Your initial statement implied something much stronger <

That is a big part of your problem. You think that people are saying something other than what they actually say. My conclusion that he was a brilliant man was based on his word. You are reading something into it that wasn't there. That is why you fail to understand nearly everything.

> If you did not wish to imply that <

No change of wording would keep you from believing that I am implying all sorts of things. The implications are in your mind, not my words.

> your second sentence should have simply said <

Now you want to write my posts like you have written under many other names.

> Darwinist scientists want to try for heresy those who disagree with them. <

Show me where this is the case.

> and in the minds of the judges <

You are back to your misconception about the judges. Nothing that any judge has said that I have seen would indicate that Darwinism is a religion, as is ID.

> There are big fundamental differences between density and reactance. <

There are big fundamental differences between all sorts of things that have physical meaning. Are you saying that capacitance and inductance have no physical meaning? Do you say that velocity has no physical meaning? They are not basic, intrinsic physical properties of matter.

You are now throwing in the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic factors to further prove your lack of understanding.

> The magnitude of the reactance has virtually no direct physical relationship to the circuit. <

There you go again repeating a false statement in the hopes that it will make it true.

> the magnitude of the reactance, which is the imaginary component of the impedance vector in the complex plane <

No it isn't. It can be calculated in that way. You can't tell the difference between a method of calculation and what is being calculated.

> Anyway, even if my analogy between Darwinism and AC circuit analysis is bad, my point is still valid <

Thanks for admitting your error but your point is still not valid.

> scientists can use the concepts and tools of Darwinism even while believing that all or part of Darwinism is untrue. <

As you can use a heliocentric model to predict the motions of the planets while knowing that it is actually flat and lies on the backs of four elephants who are standing on a giant tortoise.

Saturday, June 03, 2006 6:47:00 AM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

<< Bloomberg is ... a brilliant man. >>

Are you sure that's true (or relevant)? He doesn't seem to notice when he is too far out on a slippery slope. One of the things he said was:

"Was there anything more inappropriate than watching political science try to override medical science in the Terry Schiavo case?"

That's a poor description of what went on in that case. I have to give the point to the "Christian fundies" ... who fought against letting the state execute a helpless innocent handicapped woman (and by a method which would never be allowed for even the most heinous felon).

It can be argued that it never should have gotten to Congress in our Federal system. But that happened only because everyone else dropped the ball. In particular, Florida Governor Jeb Bush had the authority (and arguably the duty) to prevent it, and half-tried, but allowed Judge Greer to steamroll him.

Be careful what you ask for -- you may get it.

Saturday, June 03, 2006 1:00:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Wilderness said ( 6/03/2006 06:47:53 AM ) --

<<<<<> Your initial statement implied something much stronger <

That is a big part of your problem. You think that people are saying something other than what they actually say. My conclusion that he was a brilliant man was based on his word.<<<<<

I interpreted your statement the way that any reasonable person would interpret it. You did not say that his word showed the validity of your opinion that he is brilliant -- you said that my posting his word showed that validity. Your statement sounded snide to me.

>>>>>Now you want to write my posts like you have written under many other names.<<<<<

It looks like you could use some help in expressing yourself properly.

>>>>>> Darwinist scientists want to try for heresy those who disagree with them. <

Show me where this is the case.<<<<<<

Panda's Thumb has lots of such cases. I have even heard that Sleazy PeeZee Myers, a PT blogger who is a professor at the Univ. of Minn., said that he would vote against granting tenure to anyone who opposes Darwinism.

>>>>>You are back to your misconception about the judges. Nothing that any judge has said that I have seen would indicate that Darwinism is a religion, as is ID.<<<<<

Then apparently you have not seen Kitzmiller, Selman, and Freiler. I'll give the courts a pass for Edwards because that case did not just involve an evolution disclaimer but involved a law that gave equal time to creation science.

>>>>>You are now throwing in the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic factors to further prove your lack of understanding.<<<<<

I said that the AC frequency is not only extrinsic to the circuit but is also variable. I called it extrinsic because it is not an inherent, fixed characteristic of the circuit. OK, I take back what I said about this variability and extrinsic quality of the AC frequency being a reason why the reactance has no physical relationship to the circuit. The simple fact is that the reactance is a calculated quantity that does not correspond in magnitude or in any other way to the physical quantities of the circuit -- not the voltage, current, DC resistance, capacitance, inductance, AC frequency, phase angles, etc.. The reactance is just the imaginary component of the impedance vector. The reactance is a completely abstract quantity. I just used AC circuit analysis by complex-number math as an example of something that engineers apply even though they know that it has no connection to reality, and then asked why Darwinism cannot be regarded in the same way when applied in science. If you don't want to accept my analogy between Darwinism and AC circuit analysis, then don't accept it, but I still contend that scientists can use the concepts and tools of Darwinism even while believing that all or part of Darwinism is untrue.

<<<<<>Anyway, even if my analogy between Darwinism and AC circuit analysis is bad, my point is still valid <

Thanks for admitting your error but your point is still not valid.<<<<<<

Where did I admit error? And you accuse me of putting words in your mouth?

Saturday, June 03, 2006 1:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> I interpreted your statement the way that any reasonable person would interpret it. <

How would you know what a reasonable person would do?

> you said that my posting his word showed that validity. <

No I didn't. Read it again.

> It looks like you could use some help in expressing yourself properly. <

There you are! Projecting again.

> he would vote against granting tenure to anyone who opposes Darwinism. <

So would I. We don't need irrational professors. This is not trying someone for heresy. This is using common sense. I would hope that he would also not vote for tenure for a geography professor who claims, as you do, that the earth is flat.

> Then apparently you have not seen Kitzmiller, Selman, and Freiler. <

None of these would indicate that Darwinism is a religion. You are misreading their comments as usual.

> The simple fact is that the reactance is a calculated quantity that does not correspond in magnitude or in any other way to the physical quantities of the circuit <

Wrong. Reactance is as much a physical quantity of the circuit as the others you state. Fake Voice was right about this. You are trying to change the definition.

> The reactance is a completely abstract quantity. <

No more than the other physical quantities in the circuit.

> I still contend that scientists can use the concepts and tools of Darwinism even while believing that all or part of Darwinism is untrue. <

As someone can use the heliocentric model to calculate that the movements of the planets while knowing that the flat earth sits on the backs of elephants.

> Where did I admit error? <

"OK, I take back what I said about this variability and extrinsic quality of the AC frequency..."

Your brother makes some very good points. How about answering him? As you did with others, I will make an imperial pronouncement that your failure to answer him is an admission that he is correct.

Saturday, June 03, 2006 1:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

> Your brother makes some very good points. How about answering him? <

Larry is still pretending that the real Dave is fake and vice versa. He may respond by making more posts as the fake dave but they will be as obvious as his previous attempts.

Saturday, June 03, 2006 2:01:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

BTW, the real reason why I am heckled so much -- with many of the hecklers following me to my own blog -- is that some commenters are just plain jealous of the excellence of my posts, which have cogent, insightful arguments and lots of supporting references. I have known this for a long time but was too modest to mention it.

(Heh heh -- a little psychology can work wonders. I wonder why I didn't think of this before.)

Saturday, June 03, 2006 3:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> the excellence of my posts, which have cogent, insightful arguments and lots of supporting references. <

Now that is not fair! Some is posting drivel under Larry's name to make him look like a witless delusional lunatic. Even Larry is not crazy enough to have made this post.

Saturday, June 03, 2006 11:19:00 PM  
Anonymous al gore said...

(Reporting from Saudi Arabia)

< You can see "political science" at work when it comes to global warming. >

I am glad to see that Michael Bloomberg (like the Europeans) lives in a highly urbanized area. This disposes him to accept the truths that (A) Food comes from a can, (B) All the energy that is needed is the electricity to run the subways, (C) There are ample untapped renewable energy resources (such as Nancy Pelosi's hot air).

Sunday, June 04, 2006 4:52:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Reply to Voice In The Wilderness ( 6/03/2006 01:53:00 PM ) --

BTW, Voice In the Wilderness, what happened to VoiceInWilderness?

<<<<<> you said that my posting his word showed that validity. <

No I didn't. Read it again.<<<<<

Here it is again --

"Bloomberg was a brilliant man. Your posting these parts of his speech show the validity of that opinion."

>>>>>This is not trying someone for heresy. <<<<<

Sleazy PeeZee Myers regards anyone who disagrees with him as a heretic.

<<<<<> Then apparently you have not seen Kitzmiller, Selman, and Freiler. <

None of these would indicate that Darwinism is a religion. You are misreading their comments as usual.<<<<<<

Wrong. In all three of those court cases, Darwinism was being taught but no challenges to Darwinism were being taught. In only two of the cases, a challenge to Darwinism was actually mentioned by name, and in only one of the cases did it appear that there might be an endorsement of a challenge to Darwinism. So here we have dogma, anathema, censorship, persecution of heretics, etc., all marks of a religion, and a particularly oppressive religion at that. Darwinism not only looks like a state religion but looks like a Taliban-type state religion.

>>>>>> The simple fact is that the reactance is a calculated quantity that does not correspond in magnitude or in any other way to the physical quantities of the circuit <

Wrong. Reactance is as much a physical quantity of the circuit as the others you state. Fake Voice was right about this. You are trying to change the definition.<<<<<<

Who is the "Fake Voice" here? You did not even use Voice's usual posting name. And what did "Fake Voice" say that you think is right?

Anyway, I am not going to argue any further in support of my analogy between Darwinism and AC circuit analysis -- I have pretty much exhausted that subject.

<<<<<> I still contend that scientists can use the concepts and tools of Darwinism even while believing that all or part of Darwinism is untrue. <

As someone can use the heliocentric model to calculate that the movements of the planets while knowing that the flat earth sits on the backs of elephants.<<<<<<<

If someone comes up with the right answers, what does it matter what that person believes?

Furthermore, I assert that scientists can come up with the right answers in biology without using Darwinism at all. In biology, it is not necessary to assume that one species evolved into another. It is certainly not necessary to assume that such evolution was driven solely by natural genetic variation and natural selection.

<<<<<<> Where did I admit error? <

"OK, I take back what I said about this variability and extrinsic quality of the AC frequency..."<<<<<

If it will make you happy, next time I will not concede points that are not necessary to support my contentions.

>>>>>Your brother makes some very good points. How about answering him?<<<<<<

You mean that impostor impersonating my brother.

>>>>> As you did with others, I will make an imperial pronouncement that your failure to answer him is an admission that he is correct. <<<<<<

I made such an "imperial pronouncement" only in response to a commenter who posted maybe about a dozen comments on one thread without ever addressing the issues. As for myself, I never promised to respond to every comment and it is unreasonable to expect me to respond to every comment. In fact, if you go to Panda's Thumb, you will find that the bloggers there generally participate very little in the discussions of their articles -- there is certainly nothing there approaching my level of participation here.

Sunday, June 04, 2006 12:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Rahmatullah Hashemi said...

< Darwinism not only looks like a state religion but looks like a Taliban-type state religion. >

Does Godwin's Law extend to Taliban references?

Sunday, June 04, 2006 2:35:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

>> < Darwinism not only looks like a state religion but looks like a Taliban-type state religion. > <<

>> Does Godwin's Law extend to Taliban references? <<

Not in it's present form, but I don't see why we can't introduce a corrolary (we could call is "Hameshi's Corollary" after the person who first proposed it) covering references to the Taliban.

Sunday, June 04, 2006 6:06:00 PM  
Anonymous anonymischievous said...

Thanks, Rob. I was afraid that Larry and I between us had killed off this blog.

N.B. -- "Hashemi" is the notorious Yale Taliban (and my temporary nom de plume).

Sunday, June 04, 2006 6:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> BTW, Voice In the Wilderness, what happened to VoiceInWilderness? <

Check back a few posts.

> Read it again.<

Read it yourself. It is the parts of his speech that show his brilliance. Your misunderstanding does add validity to it however. You are like a compass that reliably points South.

> Sleazy PeeZee Myers regards anyone who disagrees with him as a heretic. <

Your childish names are not an argument. If you have one, show me.

> In all three of those court cases, Darwinism was being taught but no challenges to Darwinism were being taught. <

This has nothing to do with making Darwinism a religion. You are trying to be evasive because you have no real answer.

> Who is the "Fake Voice" here? You did not even use Voice's usual posting name. And what did "Fake Voice" say that you think is right? <

"Fake Voice" is someone who once posted as me. He tripped up when he forgot who he was pretending to be and addressed me:

"Voice, don't let him use his usual tactic of changing definitions to try to escape the obviousness of his error. Pin him down on the meaning of "physical relationship." Otherwise it will change from post to post. <

We are waiting for you to define "physical relationship". Since you are a virgin we are not asking for a definition of that type of physical relationship.

> Anyway, I am not going to argue any further in support of my analogy between Darwinism and AC circuit analysis -- I have pretty much exhausted that subject. <

Yes, you lost that one. No use beating a dead horse.

> If someone comes up with the right answers, what does it matter what that person believes? <

True, nobody cares that you believe in a flat earth.

> next time I will not concede points that are not necessary to support my contentions. <

So when you are proven wrong, you won't admit it. This can be seen in your continuing pretense that the person proven to be your brother is an imposter. By the way, why don't you keep your poor old mother out of disputes with him? It is also shown by your claim that you don't know Bill Carter. He sure knows you!

Sunday, June 04, 2006 11:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

The real Dave said...

> Thanks, Rob. I was afraid that Larry and I between us had killed off this blog. <

I don't get it. Larry is getting more and more interesting with his latest claims that people are jealous. It is the final step in mental disintegration.

As for you, your posts are excellent, second only to Rob Serrano, so I don't get your point.

Sunday, June 04, 2006 11:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very pretty site! Keep working. thnx!
»

Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find some information here.

Saturday, July 22, 2006 12:34:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home