Chris Comer comes back
WHAT? NOT NEUTRAL? WHO? ME?
There is a resemblance.
I thought that we heard the last of Chris Comer, but apparently not.
A news article says,
AUSTIN – A former state science curriculum director on Wednesday sued the Texas Education Agency and Education Commissioner Robert Scott, alleging she was illegally fired for forwarding an e-mail about a lecture critical of the movement to promote intelligent design in science classes.
Christina Comer, who lost her job at the TEA last fall, said in a suit filed in federal court in Austin that she was terminated for contravening an "unconstitutional" policy at the agency. The policy required employees to be neutral on the subject of creationism – the biblical interpretation of the origin of humans, she said.
The policy was in force, according to the suit, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that teaching creationism as science in public schools is illegal.
"The agency's 'neutrality' policy has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion, and thus violates the Establishment Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, the lawsuit said.
Imagine -- "The agency's 'neutrality' policy has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion." Sheeeesh. The Darwinists are getting more and more aggressive.
More information is on the website of the National Center for Science Education. A copy of the complaint filed at the court is here.
This blog has several articles about Chris Comer (she has her own post label in the sidebar).
.
Labels: Chris Comer
posted by Larry Fafarman | 7/03/2008 06:25:00 PM
54 Comments:
Larry wrote, "Imagine -- "The agency's 'neutrality' policy has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion." Sheeeesh. The Darwinists are getting more and more aggressive."
Except you argued as such in an earlier post. Not sure what your point is here; earlier posts have your arguing for her reinstatement, against her dismissal in the first place, and against the reasons for her dismissal. Then again, we have never expected logic from you.
>>>>> Larry wrote, "Imagine -- "The agency's 'neutrality' policy has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion." Sheeeesh. The Darwinists are getting more and more aggressive."
Except you argued as such in an earlier post. <<<<<
I never argued that. Why would I argue that?
>>>>>> Not sure what your point is here; earlier posts have your arguing for her reinstatement, against her dismissal in the first place, and against the reasons for her dismissal. <<<<<<
That was because the policy was unclear and this was a first offense.
Imagine -- "The agency's 'neutrality' policy has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion." Sheeeesh. The Darwinists are getting more and more aggressive.
I am wary of a metaphorical approach, since you are stupid, but let us consider an alternative case.
Let us say the agency declared it was similarly "neutral" on other topics. For example, let us say they were neutral on hermetical alchemy as influenced by the kabbala.
This approach to alchemy remains alive, and has adherents who think it is just as valid as chemistry. They don't have anywhere near as effective as a PR system and little to do with modern Christianity, however, so they lack creationism's clout. But let us hypothetically say that Augustine of Hippo spent a lot of time on it and now there is a manufactured controversy over whether or not the modern atomic theory of chemistry was accurate or whether alchemy was accurate.
Wouldn't you condemn the agency for being "neutral" in such a situation, rather than following scientific procedure and stating that alchemy was unfalsifiable and accordingly unscientific? Wouldn't you expect that of an educational agency that is supposed to teach science, rather than spending time on such clear nonsense and caving to prominent religious figures?
If you would not condemn them, then I would be surprised.
If you would, then please tell me how creationism - associated with religion and determined not to be science - differs from my hypothetical?
Well put, Phae, religious bigots are always very keen to have their version of nonsense made 'official' while rejecting views that are just as nonsensical but don't happen to be so popular. Science is about reasoned argument supported by fact, and religious ideas like creationism have no place in it.
And what's this obsessive use of the word 'Darwinists', Larry? The term you're looking for is scientists. You know, Larry, the people who've done more to benefit humankind in 200 years than religion did in the previous 2,000.
Phae driveled,
>>>>>> I am wary of a metaphorical approach, since you are stupid, but let us consider an alternative case. <<<<<<
If I am so stupid, then why do you want my opinions, dunghill?
>>>>> Let us say the agency declared it was similarly "neutral" on other topics. For example, let us say they were neutral on hermetical alchemy as influenced by the kabbala. <<<<<<
The lawsuit's complaint said,
"The agency's 'neutrality' policy has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion, and thus violates the Establishment Clause"
Could a TEA policy of neutrality on chemistry v. alchemy have the "purpose or effect of endorsing religion"? You yourself said that alchemy has "little to do with modern Christianity." There is no constitutional separation of bad science -- or pseudoscience -- and state. The issue of teaching bad science or pseudoscience in the public schools is outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
valdemar squelch said...
>>>>> Well put, Phae, religious bigots are always very keen to have their version of nonsense made 'official' while rejecting views that are just as nonsensical but don't happen to be so popular. <<<<<
Many creationists want only creationism or criticisms of Darwinism to be taught in the public schools, but many Darwinists want only Darwinism to be taught in the public schools.
>>>>>> And what's this obsessive use of the word 'Darwinists', Larry? <<<<<<
When Darwinists celebrate Darwin's birthday, use "I love Darwin" stuff (stickers, T-shirts, mugs, etc.), confer "Friend of Darwin" certificates, etc., they are not in a good position to complain about others calling them "Darwinists."
Phae driveled,
>>>>>> I am wary of a metaphorical approach, since you are stupid, but let us consider an alternative case. <<<<<<
If I am so stupid, then why do you want my opinions, dunghill?
>>>>> Let us say the agency declared it was similarly "neutral" on other topics. For example, let us say they were neutral on hermetical alchemy as influenced by the kabbala. <<<<<<
The lawsuit's complaint said,
"The agency's 'neutrality' policy has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion, and thus violates the Establishment Clause"
Could a TEA policy of neutrality on chemistry v. alchemy have the "purpose or effect of endorsing religion"? You yourself said that alchemy has "little to do with modern Christianity." There is no constitutional separation of bad science -- or pseudoscience -- and state. The issue of teaching bad science or pseudoscience in the public schools is outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
valdemar squelch said...
>>>>> Well put, Phae, religious bigots are always very keen to have their version of nonsense made 'official' while rejecting views that are just as nonsensical but don't happen to be so popular. <<<<<
Many creationists want only creationism or criticisms of Darwinism to be taught in the public schools, but many Darwinists want only Darwinism to be taught in the public schools.
>>>>>> And what's this obsessive use of the word 'Darwinists', Larry? <<<<<<
When Darwinists celebrate Darwin's birthday, use "I love Darwin" stuff (stickers, T-shirts, mugs, etc.), confer "Friend of Darwin" certificates, etc., they are not in a good position to complain about others calling them "Darwinists."
If I am so stupid, then why do you want my opinions, dunghill?
You've asked me about my motivations before, and I told you the same thing then: you amuse me. Capering about, ramming randomly into the computer to generate semi-coherent sentences, desperately refusing to read things... you're like my personal retarded hamster.
The lawsuit's complaint said,
"The agency's 'neutrality' policy has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion, and thus violates the Establishment Clause"
Could a TEA policy of neutrality on chemistry v. alchemy have the "purpose or effect of endorsing religion"? You yourself said that alchemy has "little to do with modern Christianity." There is no constitutional separation of bad science -- or pseudoscience -- and state. The issue of teaching bad science or pseudoscience in the public schools is outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
I said that RIGHT NOW it does, then proceeded to lay out a hypothetical. Let us say it was a big part of Christian history and made it into modern Christianity. If Answers in Ecclesiastes or whatever agency took up the cause and trumpeted that the atom was "just a theory" (as indeed it is) and that alchemy should be taught, would you be okay with that? Let us say that in Kansas they try to teach alchemy alongside of science as two "valid theories," would that be fine with you?
And I really do have to disagree about the courts. The issue was not the quality of the science, after all, it was the fact that it wasn't science, and this particular brand of pseudoscience was just creationism in drag. The courts have every right to rule on the application of the establishment clause when it comes to government school boards, which are not permitted to teach creationism as science by the Constitution.
Many creationists want only creationism or criticisms of Darwinism to be taught in the public schools, but many Darwinists want only Darwinism to be taught in the public schools.
Inasmuch as I am aware, it is the only solid scientific theory to explain the origin of species. It would be pretty weird if a scientist wanted nonsense taught, rather than science.
When Darwinists celebrate Darwin's birthday, use "I love Darwin" stuff (stickers, T-shirts, mugs, etc.), confer "Friend of Darwin" certificates, etc., they are not in a good position to complain about others calling them "Darwinists."
The use of "Darwinist" is a pretty transparent attempt to imply that belief in evolution by the means of natural selection is a cult of personality, or something of a similar nature.
I would suggest that the identification with Darwin is more of a result from the unending attacks on science, with him as a figurehead, by the religious right. If the religious right decided that vaccines were the worst thing, you'd be calling us "Salkians" and we'd all be wearing shirts with his face on it instead.
Anyone who isn't as uninformed as Larry, of course, knows that there really is no such thing as a "Darwinian" except colloquially. Darwin didn't know about DNA or an enormous host of other things that make up modern evolutionary theory. It's just a smear tactic. Larry and his ilk have little else.
> I am wary of a metaphorical approach, since you are stupid <
You are wasting your time, Phae. There is no evidence that Larry has ever understood a metaphor, while making absurd metaphors himself (for example the "Best Butter" one where he is unable to realize that he is the March Hare).
Barbara Forrest's lecture was not about creationism per se but was about her conspiracy theory (which she called "Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse" in the title of her book) that intelligent design is really just creationism in disguise and is just a means of sneaking creationism into public schools. Even if the TEA is not required to remain neutral on creationism, the TEA is required to remain neutral on questions concerning ID's scientific merits and ID's relationship to creationism. The only thing that the complaint offered in support of the idea that ID is just creationism is the following quote from Kitzmiller v. Dover:
The complaint says on page 9,
In Kitzmiller, the court ruled that intelligent design is "creationism re-labeled." 400 F. Supp. 2d at 722.
Of course, that is just the opinion of a single federal district court judge and has virtually no precedential value.
IMO Comer's ouster was unfortunate because it has made her into a Darwinist martyr.
Barbara Forrest's lecture was not about creationism per se but was about her conspiracy theory (which she called "Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse" in the title of her book) that intelligent design is really just creationism in disguise and is just a means of sneaking creationism into public schools.
Conspiracy theory?
Have you ever heard of "cdesign proponentsists?" That's the evolutionary link between "creationists" and "design proponents;" when the famous Of Pandas and People textbook was being revised after it was determined that creationism could not be taught, they just cut and pasted "design proponent" in most of the areas that had said "creationist." But they screwed up on one draft, and so they got that mangled term above - introduced as evidence in Kitzmiller.
And I'm sure you're familiar with the Wedge Document... do I even need to go into that one?
There is no substantive difference between creationism and intelligent design, except the former at least has the courage of its convictions. After all, what alternate "intelligent designer" could there be than God? It's creationism in a really poor disguise, and not science, to boot. Surely you are aware that during the Kiztmiller trial, Behe had to reluctantly admit that astrology would also be considered science under the definition he proposed in which to include ID.
It's a crude ploy, and an obvious one. A lecture on that topic, exposing the fact that creationism and intelligent design are the same thing, would be absolutely appropriate for a science educator to endorse.
Even if the TEA is not required to remain neutral on creationism, the TEA is required to remain neutral on questions concerning ID's scientific merits and ID's relationship to creationism.
Why the hell would an educational agency be required to remain neutral on questions of scientific merit? That is their purpose... if a teacher proposed teaching spontaneous generation, don't you think the TEA is supposed to speak up? Or should they remain neutral on that, too?
And since ID has no scientific merits, because it's not science, they would be justified (and should already have) condemned it. It is unfalsifiable, and widely-derided by the mainstream scientific community for not having coherent theories or any evidence.
Also, this may be news to you, but if something is religion then schools aren't supposed to teach it as science, so whether or not ID is creationism is kind of important to a school agency.
The only thing that the complaint offered in support of the idea that ID is just creationism is the following quote from Kitzmiller v. Dover:
The complaint says on page 9,
In Kitzmiller, the court ruled that intelligent design is "creationism re-labeled." 400 F. Supp. 2d at 722.
Of course, that is just the opinion of a single federal district court judge and has virtually no precedential value.
Virtually no precedential value? It IS precedent. And that's why there isn't much on the topic of equating ID with creationism... it's a nonissue. Everyone knows it, and now it's precedent in law. Should it be brought up again during the trial, then it may become a question again, but in a filing they are citing reasonability... why would they get into it now? I guess we'll add "law" to the ever-growing list of things you know nothing about.
IMO Comer's ouster was unfortunate because it has made her into a Darwinist martyr.
At least she actually LOST her job. One of the few ID "martyrs," Sternberg, didn't lose anything yet still tried to prostrate himself like he was bleeding from his palms during Expelled. Comer standing up for her beliefs has infinitely more merit.
I see you're again trying to avoid my other questions. You have failed to answer about how you would feel if alchemy were proposed as a valid alternative to chemistry and the atomic theory, if it hypothetically were a traditionally Christian concept rather than a fringe kabbalic one. Would you support it or no, and why?
Phae barfed,
>>>>>If I am so stupid, then why do you want my opinions, dunghill?
You've asked me about my motivations before, and I told you the same thing then: you amuse me. <<<<<<
Well, I have no intention of amusing you, dunghill. That makes it very simple -- I don't need to respond to any more of your drivel.
As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls.
Phae said...
>>>>>>Anyone who isn't as uninformed as Larry, of course, knows that there really is no such thing as a "Darwinian" except colloquially.<<<<<<
Well, if you think about it, a 'Darwinian' or 'Darwinist' is someone who proposes Darwin's original, unmodified theory - but utterly rejects all the refinements, alterations, and further evidence discovered since then. This means there are, in fact 'Darwinists' but, somewhat paradoxically, these people are actually creationists, as it makes it easier to attack evolution if you propose the original theory, before attacking it, and ignore the vast amount of evidence that directly or indirectly reinforces evolution that has arisen since Darwin's time.
CowardLarry:
Well, I have no intention of amusing you, dunghill. That makes it very simple -- I don't need to respond to any more of your drivel.
As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls.
That's cool. Of course, my points are mercilessly reasonable, so this is a very handy excuse for you to avoid having to think. I'm not sure it's going to fool anyone, since after trying to avoid them and pretend they weren't asked, now it's going to be very obvious that you have no answers. But you can always try.
Zmidponk:
Well, if you think about it, a 'Darwinian' or 'Darwinist' is someone who proposes Darwin's original, unmodified theory - but utterly rejects all the refinements, alterations, and further evidence discovered since then. This means there are, in fact 'Darwinists' but, somewhat paradoxically, these people are actually creationists, as it makes it easier to attack evolution if you propose the original theory, before attacking it, and ignore the vast amount of evidence that directly or indirectly reinforces evolution that has arisen since Darwin's time.
It's a historical straw man, you're correct. It's all Larry has to go on, since with us 21st century people he has to run away.
It's now national news -- the lawsuit was reported in USA Today. Comer quit eight months ago, so why did she wait until now to sue?
phae said, "let us say they were neutral on hermetical alchemy as influenced by the kabbala."
Intelligent design, doesn't identify who or what the designer is. So the "neutrality" would never go that far because they say it goes beyond the limitations of science.
The main two principles in intelligent design are; "irreducible complexity" and CSI: Containing Complex and Specified Information. These two principles can be tested in a lab.
Now on the other hand in evolution: Wimps: Weakly Interacting Massive Particles cannot be tested in the lab nor has any scientist seen one, nor has it been detected but it's certain to exist. This hypothetical is considered as fact for now by evolutionists. The concept of WIMPS is not science but rather it's storytelling which is allowed in the evolutionist model because the conclusion is natural.
In answer to Larry's question who never had to deal with an injustice at work, there is a waiting period. For example, a friend of mine was demoted because of his race, and gender. He cannot file a complaint with the EEOC for a number of months. Currently, he is still doing the work that they claimed he couldn't do while he was promoted. They are basically paying him less doing the same work. He will be filing a complaint soon.
So I can understand why the suit took so long in the Comer case.
Forrest's lecture was extremely one-sided. It is not as if Comer sent out an announcement of a public debate on the topic.
Ousting Comer was a very bad idea because she is a jerk and her ouster makes her look like a martyr.
The fact that she wasn't fired but quit without protest will likely hurt her suit -- she deceived the TEA about her intentions, like in entrapment or bait-and-switch.
> Well, I have no intention of amusing you, dunghill. That makes it very simple -- I don't need to respond to any more of your drivel. <
You have proven that you can't respond to Phae without showing yourself to be a jackass. If you can't answer, why do you try?
So far Phae has beaten you at every turn. So far Kevin has beaten you at every turn. I suppose censorship will be next.
Why did you ban ViW? Certainly Keven has done a better job of making a fool out of you than ViW ever did. In fact, you seem better at making a fool out of yourself than anyone can.
Michael:
Intelligent design, doesn't identify who or what the designer is. So the "neutrality" would never go that far because they say it goes beyond the limitations of science.
It's true that intelligent design doesn't "identify the designer" as God, but the definition they provide doesn't fit anything else. It is a really transparent relabeling of creationism, because that's what it is, just with a different term.
What else could the designer be? Aliens? If that were the case, they would have to be at least as complex as us, so they would have needed to have had a designer as well. The only possible match for the role is what any reasonable person would call a God.
The main two principles in intelligent design are; "irreducible complexity" and CSI: Containing Complex and Specified Information. These two principles can be tested in a lab.
This is a pretty clear statement, but could you please explain how IC (which is how I will abbreviate irreducible complexity) could be tested in a lab, as well as the latter? You have stated as such, but I am hard-pressed to imagine how.
Now on the other hand in evolution: Wimps: Weakly Interacting Massive Particles cannot be tested in the lab nor has any scientist seen one, nor has it been detected but it's certain to exist. This hypothetical is considered as fact for now by evolutionists. The concept of WIMPS is not science but rather it's storytelling which is allowed in the evolutionist model because the conclusion is natural.
Incorrect, sorry. WIMPS and other particle physics theories of a similarly esoteric nature generally are testable, but we sometimes do not yet have the ability to run the test. As new technology becomes available, more tests can be run. For example, just recently relativity - hard to prove experimentally for the most part - correctly predicted variation in signal between two supermassive pulsars. We are working on extremely powerful neutrino microscopes, and they should be able to help test the notion of WIMPS and MACHOS.
I believe you are correct about quantum string theory, however. To date, no test has been designed. That's why many scientists view it dubiously and do not consider it a sound theory.
I can understand how people might that ID isn't treated with as much leniency as something like string theory. And that is the truth; ID shouldn't even be given the benefit of the doubt. That's because it is so obviously religion in a paper hat. It was conceived in bad faith by people who broke one of the fundamental laws of science: you can't start from the results you want and make up an untestable theory.
CowardLarry:
Forrest's lecture was extremely one-sided. It is not as if Comer sent out an announcement of a public debate on the topic.
I would expect a similarly one-sided lecture if she was talking about alchemy. There aren't always two right answers.
Ousting Comer was a very bad idea because she is a jerk and her ouster makes her look like a martyr.
At least she actually lost her job makes her at least more of a martyr than someone like Sternberg, and I doubt she'll try to climb up on the cross in a movie like he did.
The fact that she wasn't fired but quit without protest will likely hurt her suit -- she deceived the TEA about her intentions, like in entrapment or bait-and-switch.
Then you will have nothing to worry about, although I tend to disagree.
Also, you have still failed to answer about how you would feel if alchemy were proposed as a valid alternative to chemistry and the atomic theory, if it hypothetically were a traditionally Christian concept rather than a fringe kabbalic one. Would you support it or no, and why?
How long are you going to try to hide from that question, coward?
Never have I seen such utter hypocrisy and double standards. It's OK for Zachary Blount to ignore simple, basic questions about the Cit+ E. coli experiment, but it is not OK for me to ignore rude, stupid comments from trolls. It is OK for other bloggers to censor my polite, serious, and on-topic comments, but I must tolerate rude, frivolous, and off-topic comments from trolls.
Never have I seen such utter hypocrisy and double standards. It's OK for Zachary Blount to ignore simple, basic questions about the Cit+ E. coli experiment,
He didn't. He answered you, you just were too dumb to understand. That's why I showed it to you, step by step. You moron.
but it is not OK for me to ignore rude, stupid comments from trolls. It is OK for other bloggers to censor my polite, serious, and on-topic comments, but I must tolerate rude, frivolous, and off-topic comments from trolls.
It's entirely okay, but you're just pretty lousy with your made-up reasons. It's pretty obvious that you answer questions and comments if you have an answer, and you hide when you don't behind this facade of trolling.
Also, you have still failed to answer about how you would feel if alchemy were proposed as a valid alternative to chemistry and the atomic theory, if it hypothetically were a traditionally Christian concept rather than a fringe kabbalic one. Would you support it or no, and why?
How long are you going to try to hide from that question, coward?
> How long are you going to try to hide from that question, coward? <
Indefinitely. He has no answer. Pretty soon he will start censoring your comments.
Phae,
"I doubt she'll try to climb up on the cross in a movie like (Sternberg) did."
Did he really? How utterly tasteless and stupid! Have they no shame? I'd think serious Christians would be the first to protest -- loudly!
I haven't seen the movie and don't intend to, so I don't actually know.
which is how I will abbreviate irreducible complexity) could be tested in a lab, as well as the latter? You have stated as such, but I am hard-pressed to imagine how.
Generally, irreducible complexity is tested if it two or more parts are required to for the object to function. Remove one part, and it destroys the function which then destroys the object. An irreducible complex object requires all it's parts living no room for mutation. The object one could do this with in the lab, is a living cell with it's machinery.
The other principle is "specified complexity." Defined as something having information like a code in DNA that is useful, organized with a purpose.
The two principles work together in ID, not as two different theories. The data in ID is not disputed, for example, there is no argument that the machinery in the living cell resembles human machinery. However, as you know, the conclusions are the type of things which are highly debated. One says the resemblance of human machinery is a mark of intelligent design, and goes no further in the ID camp. The other sees it as design also, but as an unthinking process by chance over billions of years.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous:
Did he really? How utterly tasteless and stupid! Have they no shame? I'd think serious Christians would be the first to protest -- loudly!
I haven't seen the movie and don't intend to, so I don't actually know.
It was pretty shameless of Sternberg. He and Stein walked around the Smithsonian, and Sternberg pointed at an office and said dolorously, "That's where my office was." And Stein said, "Before?" "Yes."
Of course, he kind of shied away from mentioning that they gave him a promotion and he was transferred from that office to a bigger one at his own request.
Michael:
Generally, irreducible complexity is tested if it two or more parts are required to for the object to function. Remove one part, and it destroys the function which then destroys the object. An irreducible complex object requires all it's parts living no room for mutation. The object one could do this with in the lab, is a living cell with it's machinery.
That would not seem a valid test. Intrinsic to the "theory," inasmuch as I understand, is the notion that the component parts have no separate utility prior to their current use. The main argument Behe proposed for this is the flagellum, which he claimed would not work without any of its components, and that those components couldn't have had any other prior use. And indeed, if you remove the shaft, for example, the flagellum doesn't work. That would conclude, under your logic, that the flagellum is irreducibly complex.
However, another biologist has pointed out that the flagellum, absent one of its motor parts, is functionally almost identical to another cell's mechanism that serves as an injector. The rigid shaft, fastener, and so on are all present, but there are a few motor components missing (please excuse all the analogy language, but it's the best I can do). Accordingly, it would be entirely viable absent a part or two.
The other item often cited is the eye. I hope I don't need to go into this one, as it has been repeatedly and completely debunked through numerous examples of eyelike stages throughout the animal kingdom.
I take it, however, you see the essential flaw in your reasoning. Taking away parts from something might make sure it doesn't work, but it also might have little bearing on whether or not it is irreducibly complex.
The other principle is "specified complexity." Defined as something having information like a code in DNA that is useful, organized with a purpose.
You state it as a tautology. Clearly if DNA is "organized with a purpose," then it had to have been done so by a being with a purpose. It's true because it's true, in other words.
However, there has been not even a hint of decent proof for this, and you don't state any sort of test. I submit to you that you still have not shown ID to be testable, but rather implied further the opposite.
The two principles work together in ID, not as two different theories. The data in ID is not disputed, for example, there is no argument that the machinery in the living cell resembles human machinery. However, as you know, the conclusions are the type of things which are highly debated. One says the resemblance of human machinery is a mark of intelligent design, and goes no further in the ID camp. The other sees it as design also, but as an unthinking process by chance over billions of years.
It is incorrect to say "by chance." In fact, it is "chance," or random mutation, carried out over the course of steps that are themselves inherently neutral or beneficial, whose alleles are then selected for by the process of natural selection.
This sort of stuff is kind of confusing, admittedly, but I hope you see my point: ID is not testable, and any proof that is given forth is generally either an attack on the current incompleteness of the theory of evolution (as with all theories). It's not science, it's creationism with wishful thinking slapped on.
Larry:
You have still failed to answer about how you would feel if alchemy were proposed as a valid alternative to chemistry and the atomic theory, if it hypothetically were a traditionally Christian concept rather than a fringe kabbalic one. Would you support it or no, and why?
How long are you going to try to hide from that question, coward?
>>>>>> You have still failed to answer about how you would feel if alchemy were proposed as a valid alternative to chemistry and the atomic theory, if it hypothetically were a traditionally Christian concept rather than a fringe kabbalic one. Would you support it or no, and why?
How long are you going to try to hide from that question, coward?
<<<<<<<
If my alleged failure to answer your question is improper, then why was Zachary Blount's failure to answer my questions about the Cit+ E. coli evolution study not improper? Can you answer that?
> If my alleged failure to answer your question is improper <
Your failure is not just alleged and has nothing to do with anyone else. It is your failure and your cowardace alone.
Phae:
I am reluctant to respond to you because I don't like you in general and, in particular, because you refuse to acknowledge that Zachary Blount failed to properly answer my questions about the Cit+ E. coli experiment (he did not answer my questions about glucose cycling at all and used bibliography bluffing to answer my questions about whether Cit+ evolution was a goal). However, I will answer your question just to make some points.
For starters, how could I answer yes or no when alchemy is neither an alternative to chemistry nor a criticism of chemistry? Alchemy does not claim that chemistry does not adequately explain certain things. The best-known goal of alchemy was to transform common metals into gold and silver, but we now know that elements can be changed only by nuclear fission and fusion.
The basic issue in the Comer case is the issue of the Texas Education Agency's neutrality. What can be unconstitutional about neutrality towards religion? Suppose there were an upcoming public hearing on whether to have a moment of silence in Texas public schools and some TEA employee sent out an official TEA announcement of a lecture about a conspiracy theory that moments of silence are a way of sneaking prayer into the public schools. Would it be OK for a TEA employee to do that? One reason why the TEA needs to be neutral is that the TEA implements the state standards. I think that another reason is that the TEA conducts public hearings on the state standards.
As I said, ousting Comer was a mistake because it has turned her into a Darwinist martyr.
Larry RunningFarFarAwayMan belched...
>>>>>>Phae:
I am reluctant to respond to you because I don't like you in general and, in particular, because you refuse to acknowledge that Zachary Blount failed to properly answer my questions about the Cit+ E. coli experiment<<<<<<
Well, the main reason he did not concede that is because it's not true.
>>>>>>For starters, how could I answer yes or no when alchemy is neither an alternative to chemistry nor a criticism of chemistry?<<<<<<
Yes, it was. It was around before chemistry was, and was, in many ways, the forerunner to chemistry, but differed from it in a few fundamental ways, the most notable being that alchemists viewed the various aspects of substances, which are now the purview of chemists of various types, as metaphors for spiritual entities and transformations, and some considered what we now call chemical reactions the result of the work of such spiritual entities. There was some overlap, in the 18th century, between the beginning of chemistry proper and the dying out of alchemy, so, for a time, the two competed directly.
>>>>>>Alchemy does not claim that chemistry does not adequately explain certain things.<<<<<<
Yes, it did, actually.
>>>>>>The best-known goal of alchemy was to transform common metals into gold and silver, but we now know that elements can be changed only by nuclear fission and fusion.<<<<<<
Let's repeat this and replace a few things, shall we?
'The best-known claim of creationism was that God directly created all life on Earth, but we now know that it evolved.'
Do you not see the parallel?
>>>>>>The basic issue in the Comer case is the issue of the Texas Education Agency's neutrality. What can be unconstitutional about neutrality towards religion?<<<<<<
When the 'neutrality' involves requiring teachers not to dismiss the 'science' of creationism as an utterly unproven conjecture based on a 4000+ year old story, of dubious provenence, between the author or authors and a being who may not even exist, apparantly because creationists want it to be 'science', yet hide behind it being 'religion' when it comes to scrutinising the actual evidence of it.
>>>>>>Suppose there were an upcoming public hearing on whether to have a moment of silence in Texas public schools and some TEA employee sent out an official TEA announcement of a lecture about a conspiracy theory that moments of silence are a way of sneaking prayer into the public schools. Would it be OK for a TEA employee to do that?<<<<<<
What if, during this moment of silence, the teacher donned a minister's robes and stole, placed a cross upon the desk, and solemnly lifted his/her hand in a gesture of blessing over the class? That would be, effectively, prayer, whilst being technically a 'moment of silence', in much the same way that ID is, effectively, creationism, whilst technically being 'Intelligent Design'. The 'Designer' that ID proposes is defined in such a way that it is, basically, God by another name (or, more accurately, God by no name), so getting ID into schools is getting creationism into schools, which is getting religion into schools, which is a breach of the Constitution.
Zmidponk barfed,
>>>>>>Phae: . . . . you refuse to acknowledge that Zachary Blount failed to properly answer my questions about the Cit+ E. coli experiment.
the main reason he did not concede that is because it's not true. <<<<<<<
It is true, dunghill, and I said why it is true.
>>>>>> There was some overlap, in the 18th century, between the beginning of chemistry proper and the dying out of alchemy, so, for a time, the two competed directly. <<<<<<<
Do the two compete today? And if not, why should alchemy be considered to be an alternative to chemistry? Anyway, what anyone thinks of the answers to those questions does not matter here -- what matters here is the neutrality of the Texas Education Agency towards an issue that is the subject of a future public hearing.
>>>>>>Alchemy does not claim that chemistry does not adequately explain certain things.
Yes, it did, actually. <<<<<<
You say "it did," but does it claim that today, as I already asked? Anyway, as I said, that issue is irrelevant here.
>>>>>> When the 'neutrality' involves requiring teachers not to dismiss the 'science' of creationism <<<<<<
The neutrality here does not concern anything that the teachers are required to do -- the neutrality here is towards an issue of an upcoming public hearing.
>>>>>> What if, during this moment of silence, the teacher donned a minister's robes and stole, placed a cross upon the desk, and solemnly lifted his/her hand in a gesture of blessing over the class? <<<<<<
That is a ridiculous straw man argument. It is like saying that some teacher might stomp on a bible while teaching evolution and therefore evolution should not be taught in the public schools. Anyway, your question has nothing to do with the neutrality of the TEA towards an issue of an upcoming public hearing.
Larrytherunningman slevered...
>>>>>>It is true, dunghill, and I said why it is true.<<<<<<
No, you just provided further evidence that spoonfeeding you the information, simplified practically to gradeschool level is not enough to get you to understand it.
>>>>>>*various ravings about the alchemy analogy not being relevant*<<<<<<
Well, the reason that chemistry and alchemy don't compete today is that alchemy severely lacked evidence, and chemistry had one hell of a lot. Still don't see the parallel? the fact you entirely omitted that question in your answer, and suddenly decided it wasn't relevant suggest you possibly did, and it scared you that you might, in fact, be proven wrong. Again.
>>>>>>The neutrality here does not concern anything that the teachers are required to do -- the neutrality here is towards an issue of an upcoming public hearing.<<<<<<
From the article you have linked to in your blog post - 'A former state science curriculum director on Wednesday sued the Texas Education Agency and Education Commissioner Robert Scott, alleging she was illegally fired for forwarding an e-mail about a lecture critical of the movement to promote intelligent design in science classes.'
So it is about what teachers are required to do. She forwarded the e-mail, which the TEA said was 'endorsing the views of the speaker', and the views of the speaker were that ID should not be taught in science classes.
>>>>>>That is a ridiculous straw man argument.<<<<<<
Nope, that is a pretty accurate analogy of what's going on with ID/creationism.
>>>>> No, you just provided further evidence that spoonfeeding you the information <<<<<<
Not answering and bibliography bluffing are not spoonfeeding, dunghill.
>>>>> Still don't see the parallel? <<<<<<
The only parallel is that both are controversies -- but one is in the past and one is in the present, and that is a big difference.
>>>>> suddenly decided it wasn't relevant <<<<<<
I didn't "suddenly" decide that it wasn't relevant -- that has been my position from the beginning.
>>>>> So it is about what teachers are required to do. <<<<<
No, it is not about what teachers are required to do -- it is about what teachers might be required to do. The purpose of the upcoming public hearings is to help determine what teachers will be required to do. Intelligent design, the weaknesses of evolution, "teach the controversy," etc. are entitled to a fair hearing. Chris Comer is now showing her true colors, that she thinks those things do not deserve a fair hearing. She is showing that she is not fit to be science director of the TEA. However, as I said, IMO her ouster was unfortunate because it has turned her into a Darwinist martyr.
>>>>> Nope, that is a pretty accurate analogy of what's going on with ID/creationism. <<<<<<
OK, so a good analogy is that teaching evolution should be prohibited because some crazy teacher might stomp on a bible while saying, "evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology --the bible is full of crap."
I am reluctant to respond to you because I don't like you in general
Hey, if you had humiliated me as publicly and repeatedly as I have done to you, I wouldn't like you either, sweetcheeks. So I entirely understand.
and, in particular, because you refuse to acknowledge that Zachary Blount failed to properly answer my questions about the Cit+ E. coli experiment (he did not answer my questions about glucose cycling at all and used bibliography bluffing to answer my questions about whether Cit+ evolution was a goal).
He pointed you to the relatively easy-to-find information in the paper. In a post the other day, I walked you through it. I took you to the recent paper to which he directed your generalized methodology question, then I took you by the hand and led you to the cited information. Or did you still not read the paper?
For starters, how could I answer yes or no when alchemy is neither an alternative to chemistry nor a criticism of chemistry? Alchemy does not claim that chemistry does not adequately explain certain things. The best-known goal of alchemy was to transform common metals into gold and silver, but we now know that elements can be changed only by nuclear fission and fusion.
The staggering level of ignorance in this response boggles the mind. It's like your a child. Actually, maybe Larry's grandkids got on the computer. KIDS! LISTEN TO ME! TRY TO FIND A BOOK! IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO START SAVING YOURSELVES!
Classical alchemy held that everything was made up of a composition of classical elements. Over the years, the cited elements changed, but essentially the theory denies the atomic theory because it holds you can change one element into another through physical changes like crushing or boiling, or through repeatedly combining and distilling it. It is entirely incompatible with chemistry, and if you think differently, I invite you to take some antimony, boil it with the herb moly, and see if you can make it turn into another element.
No, wait, I have a better idea. Find a chemist and propose that alchemy and chemistry aren't contradictory theories. Bring a camera.
But even if you disagree, ASSUME that they ARE in opposition (i.e. the truth) and answer the question.
The basic issue in the Comer case is the issue of the Texas Education Agency's neutrality. What can be unconstitutional about neutrality towards religion?
They weren't. They were neutral towards teaching it as science. And that they are not supposed to be neutral about: they are supposed to be opposed to it. You moron.
Suppose there were an upcoming public hearing on whether to have a moment of silence in Texas public schools and some TEA employee sent out an official TEA announcement of a lecture about a conspiracy theory that moments of silence are a way of sneaking prayer into the public schools. Would it be OK for a TEA employee to do that?
Your proposed example is absurdly far away from the actual case. Let us consider instead a better example, fitting yours more to the case. Let us say that the schools had an official policy of having a moment of silence during science class. And let us say that the TEA was officially neutral on that policy, neither opposing nor supporting it. Much closer, you see? Now, if the employee sent out an email about a lecture in which a speaker was going to talk about how that moment of silence was inappropriate because it endorsed religion, then would they be justified?
Yes.
One reason why the TEA needs to be neutral is that the TEA implements the state standards. I think that another reason is that the TEA conducts public hearings on the state standards.
The Mormons say that Jesus came to America and taught a tribe of white people here about stuff, then their civilization was lost. Does the TEA have to remain neutral on this theory, and insist that the history class teach that as an alternative to the accepted timeline of human migrations to North America? After all, they are supposed to be neutral as a state agency. ;)
So now two questions for Larry:
(1) You still haven't replied on the alchemy thing. Let us assume that your batshit insane nonsense is true, and that alchemy and chemistry are in harmony. If they were not, but were contradictory, would you support the alternative teaching of alchemy?
(2) Is there anything that would convince you evolution might be true? You still have avoided this one, over and over. It's almost like you believe ID on faith...
Phae barfed,
>>>>> if you had humiliated me as publicly and repeatedly as I have done to you, I wouldn't like you either <<<<<
"Humiliated me"! LOL Only in your dreams, dunghill.
>>>>> He pointed you to the relatively easy-to-find information in the paper. <<<<<
One of my new commenting rules is that I don't tolerate blatant, clearcut lies about objective facts. Blount never responded at all to my questions about the purpose(s) of the glucose cycling. If you repeat the above claim, your comment will be censored.
>>>>>> but essentially the theory denies the atomic theory <<<<<<<
Alchemy does not deny atomic theory, because there was no atomic theory when alchemy was introduced. Anyway, as I said, the question is moot because the issue here is the neutrality of the Texas Education Agency about an issue of upcoming public hearings.
>>>>>> Let us say that the schools had an official policy of having a moment of silence during science class. And let us say that the TEA was officially neutral on that policy, neither opposing nor supporting it. Much closer, you see? <<<<<
Closer to what? What does a moment of silence have to do with science classes?
>>>>>(1) You still haven't replied on the alchemy thing. Let us assume that your batshit insane nonsense is true, and that alchemy and chemistry are in harmony. <<<<<
You say that I didn't reply to the alchemy thing and you are already talking about my reply, bozo. And I never said that alchemy and chemistry are in harmony.
>>>>> (2) Is there anything that would convince you evolution might be true? <<<<<<
Is there anything that would convince you that evolution might be false? Or that intelligent design -- or other criticisms of evolution -- might be true?
>>>>>> It's almost like you believe ID on faith <<<<<
It's almost like you believe Darwinism on faith.
> One of my new commenting rules is that I don't tolerate blatant, clearcut lies about objective facts. <
I guess you don't want the competition?
Larry flounced...
>>>>>>One of my new commenting rules is that I don't tolerate blatant, clearcut lies about objective facts. Blount never responded at all to my questions about the purpose(s) of the glucose cycling. If you repeat the above claim, your comment will be censored.<<<<<<
So, I guess that your much-touted 'no censorship' policy is ended because you don't like the truth when it is so obvious it fundamentally disagrees with what you claim is the truth.
One of my new commenting rules is that I don't tolerate blatant, clearcut lies about objective facts. Blount never responded at all to my questions about the purpose(s) of the glucose cycling. If you repeat the above claim, your comment will be censored.
I already took you by the hand to show you how he responded to that. He answered you by directing you to the information. Here, I will repeat myself: "p7905 of the newest paper notes methodology, and directs those interested in the details of the overall experiment to the first paper, as I have said to you. Note the reference to the footnote about it, after the first sentence in ''Materials and Methods.'' Following the reference to the '91 paper now on JSTOR, which should have been incredibly easy for you since I have told you where it was previously and linked you there (not that you were willing to read it) - even had it not been in the quite obvious publication list to which I also linked you - we come to the '91 paper, which immediately summarizes the whole of the experiment's intent. You see the methodology and the purpose for the glucose cycling, and then on page 1316 is a very clear summary of the intent of the experiment, expressed "metaphorically" rather than technically for the convenience of idiots (hint: you). Notice that citrate is not mentioned."
I take it, incidentally, that you are disbanding your Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers? Since you pretty clear state that all that will be censored on your non-censoring blog are "threats, libel, impersonations that misrepresent the views of others, invasions of privacy, unintelligible garbage." Since you hold this statement to be of so little value, it would seem reasonable to just disband the whole thing.
Alchemy does not deny atomic theory, because there was no atomic theory when alchemy was introduced.
You do realize that the theory of the atom comes from ancient Greece, courtesy of such philosopher-scientists as Democritus, right? And you do realize that makes you so tremendously wrong that I want to frame it as an example of inaccuracy?
Anyway, as I said, the question is moot because the issue here is the neutrality of the Texas Education Agency about an issue of upcoming public hearings.
I am trying to draw a parallel, you raging idiot. I am pointing out that the TEA could just as well be neutral about alchemy, and asking if you would be okay with that. Would you support them being neutral towards the teaching of alchemy as science, or not? It's a really simple question that you have been straining immensely to try to hide from.
Closer to what? What does a moment of silence have to do with science classes?
Closer to an analogous situation. You were creating an analogy for the current situation, remember? Do I really have to explain your own examples to you?
You say that I didn't reply to the alchemy thing and you are already talking about my reply, bozo. And I never said that alchemy and chemistry are in harmony.
Great! So then: if alchemy was espoused by Christian theology, would you want the TEA to be neutral towards the teaching of alchemy in schools as science, or not?
Is there anything that would convince you that evolution might be false? Or that intelligent design -- or other criticisms of evolution -- might be true?
The very last time I asked you this, you said the same thing. And I told you the same thing: that if the Lenski experiment, for example, had yielded no results, it would begin to be evidence against evolution. And I gave an example about how if there was a massively improbable code sequence in the human genome that was a signature or something recognizable, it would begin to be evidence for intelligent design.
So now, for about the eighth time, I am asking you the question that you have ducked over and over: is there anything that would convince you that the theory of evolution by natural selection was true, and what would that be?
It's almost like you believe Darwinism on faith.
Just a few days ago, we were talking about the Lenski experiment that provided evidence for evolution. There is an absurd amount of other evidence, such as transitional fossils, strata-consistent chains of fossils, antibacterial-resistant microbes, and so on. It is the farthest thing from faith imaginable. Yet you can't state a single reason to believe in ID. Not one. Not a single one, my dancing puppet.
Credo quia absurdum.
>>>>> He answered you by directing you to the information. <<<<<<
Unless you can show exactly where Zachary Blount responded to my question about glucose cycling, I am the one who decides whether or not he responded. And he did not even use bibliography bluffing.
>>>>> I take it, incidentally, that you are disbanding your Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers? Since you pretty clear state that all that will be censored on your non-censoring blog are "threats, libel, impersonations that misrepresent the views of others, invasions of privacy, unintelligible garbage." <<<<<
I could call it the Association of Non-Arbitrarily-Censoring Bloggers, but that title would be too long. I am entitled to have reasonable rules for non-arbitrary censorship. You are a big hypocritical double-standardist for condemning my reasonable censorship practices while excusing the arbitrary censorship practiced by Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Sleazy PZ Myers, Wesley "Ding" Elsberry, other Panda's Thumb bloggers, the bloggers of Florida Citizens for Sciences, etc.. Those bloggers often censor merely because they disagree with a comment.
>>>>>> You do realize that the theory of the atom comes from ancient Greece, courtesy of such philosopher-scientists as Democritus, right? <<<<<<
Wrong. Today, the term "atomic theory" normally refers to a concept of the atom as consisting of a nucleus of protons and neutrons surrounded by orbital shells of electrons. The ancient Greeks had no such concept.
>>>>> I am trying to draw a parallel, you raging idiot. I am pointing out that the TEA could just as well be neutral about alchemy, and asking if you would be okay with that. Would you support them being neutral towards the teaching of alchemy as science, or not? <<<<<<
You might as well ask if I would support teaching that the earth is flat, dunghill. Your question is a straw man type of question. Do you know what a straw man is? My printed dictionary defines it as "a weak argument or opposing view set up by a politician, debater, etc. so that he may attack it and gain an easy, showy victory." My actual position is that the TEA should be neutral towards questions that are topics of future pubic hearings, and one of those questions is whether criticisms of evolution should be taught. Since the issue of whether alchemy should be taught as science is not a topic of future public hearings, your question raises a straw-man issue.
Here is a counterquestion: would Chris Comer have forwarded an announcement of a lecture claiming that there was a conspiracy to introduce the teaching of alchemy as science in the public schools? That reminds of the following joke about a captain and a midshipman:
Captain: What would you do if you saw a stampeding herd of buffalo bearing down on your ship?
Midshipman: I would stop them with a landslide, sir.
Captain: And where might you get this landslide?
Midshipman: The same place where you got your stampeding herd of buffalo, sir.
>>>>>>Is there anything that would convince you that evolution might be false? Or that intelligent design -- or other criticisms of evolution -- might be true?
The very last time I asked you this, you said the same thing. And I told you the same thing: that if the Lenski experiment, for example, had yielded no results, it would begin to be evidence against evolution. <<<<<<
So by your standards, the Lenski experiment came very close to being evidence against evolution -- the citrate-eating trait appeared in only one line of bacteria out of twelve in 20 years.
Unless you can show exactly where Zachary Blount responded to my question about glucose cycling, I am the one who decides whether or not he responded. And he did not even use bibliography bluffing.
Er... no, sorry. You don't get to unilaterally decide things like that. I mean, you can believe it, but it's pretty obvious you didn't even bother to look as he indicated and I asked, since you never bothered to read the papers. Have you done so yet?
I could call it the Association of Non-Arbitrarily-Censoring Bloggers, but that title would be too long. I am entitled to have reasonable rules for non-arbitrary censorship.
Sure. And you list some of the reasons you will censor people above in your statement regarding the blog. I am just assuming that since you are also going to censor any posts you think aren't true, that you should probably disband it altogether.
You are a big hypocritical double-standardist for condemning my reasonable censorship practices while excusing the arbitrary censorship practiced by Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Sleazy PZ Myers, Wesley "Ding" Elsberry, other Panda's Thumb bloggers, the bloggers of Florida Citizens for Sciences, etc.. Those bloggers often censor merely because they disagree with a comment.
I have no familiarity with the reasons you were banned from those blogs. If it was unjust, then I condemn it. I'm not going to go back and read over all your comments there previously, and since I don't read those myself I would have to condemn it based on your word alone. And clearly, that's a bit ludicrous.
I would note, however, that they at least didn't create a little association with a forthright credo against a practice that they now say they will engage in.
Wrong. Today, the term "atomic theory" normally refers to a concept of the atom as consisting of a nucleus of protons and neutrons surrounded by orbital shells of electrons. The ancient Greeks had no such concept.
That is the modern atomic theory, certainly. But the theory of the composition of matter, as made up of atoms, dates back thousands of years. And it hasn't been compatible with chemistry since the inception of that science, since alchemy is non-reproducible, an essential feature of all modern sciences.
If you disagree, then I invite you to try to distill some lead down to its quintessential natures and produce gossamer. I can show you a recipe in middle greek to follow.
You might as well ask if I would support teaching that the earth is flat, dunghill. Your question is a straw man type of question. Do you know what a straw man is? My printed dictionary defines it as "a weak argument or opposing view set up by a politician, debater, etc. so that he may attack it and gain an easy, showy victory." My actual position is that the TEA should be neutral towards questions that are topics of future pubic hearings, and one of those questions is whether criticisms of evolution should be taught. Since the issue of whether alchemy should be taught as science is not a topic of future public hearings, your question raises a straw-man issue.
By your logic, absolutely any hypothetical is a straw-man.
You seem to not understand what a straw-man actually is. See, if I set forth a fallaciously weak example of ID beliefs and then attacked it, THAT would be a straw-man. The notion behind the metaphorical term is that one is creating a weak dummy version of opposing beliefs to easily defeat.
What I proposed was a "hypothetical." That is an example drawn not from reality, but from a comparable situation, designed to illustrate a point about the common principles involved.
I know this stuff is tough for you, but you'll get it.
Here is a counterquestion: would Chris Comer have forwarded an announcement of a lecture claiming that there was a conspiracy to introduce the teaching of alchemy as science in the public schools?
You really just don't understand hypotheticals, do you?
Seriously, go back and read our exchange again. You will be embarrassed. I'm embarrassed FOR you.
So by your standards, the Lenski experiment came very close to being evidence against evolution -- the citrate-eating trait appeared in only one line of bacteria out of twelve in 20 years.
...how many times do you have to be told that's not all that happened? I mean, I know I have told you at least three times, but maybe you could write it down or something?
From the very start, the cells in the different lines began to adapt and evolve. They grew in size, for example. There have been numerous papers published over their changes over time, as they evolved by degrees to better suit their environment and gain competitive advantages.
I know I've told you this. You've commented on it repeatedly. Are you senile or just stupid? Is it both?
> I am the one who decides whether or not he responded. <
You also hold yourself to be the judge of whether or not the Sun rose in the east. You may deny it but we will base our beliefs on what we see and we definitely see you in a hole and continuing to dig.
> You are a big hypocritical double-standardist for condemning my reasonable censorship practices while excusing the arbitrary censorship practiced by Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Sleazy PZ Myers, Wesley "Ding" Elsberry, other Panda's Thumb bloggers, the bloggers of Florida Citizens for Sciences, etc.. Those bloggers often censor merely because they disagree with a comment. <
You have been repeatedly challenged, and repeatedly failed, to show where anyone other than yourself has practiced arbitrary censorship. You were blocked for cause and in most cases only after repeated warnings. We no more expect you to answer this then we expect you to answer Phae's quite reasonable questions. Just don't expect us to take you seriously.
> You might as well ask if I would support teaching that the earth is flat, dunghill. <
I know that you no longer believe that the earth is flat. Do you still believe that meteors arise from inside the atmosphere and that the moon landings were staged as you have previously argued on the net?
Phae driveled,
>>>>>Unless you can show exactly where Zachary Blount responded to my question about glucose cycling, I am the one who decides whether or not he responded. And he did not even use bibliography bluffing.
You don't get to unilaterally decide things like that. <<<<<<,
Wrong -- I make the rules here, dunghill. As Fatheaded Ed Brayton would say, "my blog, my rules." (Fatheaded Ed also said, "This is my blog, my personal property, just like my home is. You come into my home and say something vile about my mother and I'm throwing you out on my (sic) ass.") I am the best-qualified person to know the answer to that question, and no one has presented any evidence that refutes me. It may seem that I am biased, but I have no reason to lie about Blount on something like that.
>>>>>> I'm not going to go back and read over all your comments there previously, and since I don't read those myself I would have to condemn it based on your word alone. <<<<<<
What a lousy hypocritical double-standardist -- I am expected to go on a wild goose chase through the literature to find answers to my questions, but you say that you are not expected to do that on this blog. Descriptions of where I was censored on Fatheaded Ed's blog and the Florida Citizens for Science blog are here and here.
>>>>>> You seem to not understand what a straw-man actually is. . . .The notion behind the metaphorical term is that one is creating a weak dummy version of opposing beliefs to easily defeat. <<<<<<
Which is exactly what you are trying to do! My argument is that the Texas Education Agency should be neutral on issues that are topics of future public hearings (e.g., criticisms of evolution). You are trying to change the debate to whether the TEA should be neutral on issues that are not going to be topics of future public hearings (e.g., whether alchemy should be taught as science).
>>>>> So by your standards, the Lenski experiment came very close to being evidence against evolution -- the citrate-eating trait appeared in only one line of bacteria out of twelve in 20 years.
...how many times do you have to be told that's not all that happened? <<<<<<
That was by far the biggest evolutionary event that happened in the experiment. And it almost didn't happen.
The Darwinists' strategy here is to keep me so busy answering their stupid questions and comments (and they have the nerve to claim that I am not answering them) that I don't have time to make new posts that would make them look even more ridiculous.
ViU driveled,
>>>>>> Do you still believe that meteors arise from inside the atmosphere <<<<<<
This is another example of where ViU completely misrepresents things that I have said. I said that meteor trails are supposed to start all over the sky, so how can it be that meteor showers "radiate from" or "originate in" constellations that the showers are named after? I was told that those descriptions of meteor showers are wrong -- the correct description is that the meteor trails start all over the sky and that the directions of the trails radiate from the namesake constellations. I also learned about something called "zenith pull" -- the effect of the earth's gravity on meteor direction, which can change meteor directions from between one and five degrees.
ViU is unable to refute any of my arguments here, so he takes out his frustration by posting ad hominem attacks. Also, ViU's strategy is to try to keep me so busy responding to his stupid comments that I won't have time to write new posts. But his comments often become so asinine that all I need to do is say, "don't feed the trolls."
Larry snivelled...
>>>>>>Wrong -- I make the rules here, dunghill. As Fatheaded Ed Brayton would say, "my blog, my rules." (Fatheaded Ed also said, "This is my blog, my personal property, just like my home is. You come into my home and say something vile about my mother and I'm throwing you out on my (sic) ass.")<<<<<<
Yes, you get to decide whether your blog actually displays and allows the truth. You do NOT get to decide what the truth actually is.
>>>>>>I am the best-qualified person to know the answer to that question<<<<<<
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
>>>>>>and no one has presented any evidence that refutes me.<<<<<<
No, plenty of evidence has been presented that refutes you. You just either don't understand it, despite the level it has been simplified and spoonfed to you, or think that if you scream and bawl loudly enough that it doesn't, people might actually believe it. Unfortunately for you, anyone with half a brain won't be.
>>>>>>It may seem that I am biased, but I have no reason to lie about Blount on something like that.<<<<<<
Well, I'll put it this way - if you're not lying, you're saying something that isn't true through sheer, unmitigated ignorance.
>>>>>>What a lousy hypocritical double-standardist -- I am expected to go on a wild goose chase through the literature to find answers to my questions<<<<<<
(known to most people as being directed to a paper that answers your questions in detail)
>>>>>>but you say that you are not expected to do that on this blog. Descriptions of where I was censored on Fatheaded Ed's blog and the Florida Citizens for Science blog are here and here.<<<<<<
So, in order to address Phae's comments that he is condemning those actions purely on your side of the story, you direct him to where you have elaborated on your side of the story elsewhere on this self-same blog. Now, having a quick look through the links provided, it seems that, in fact, you pretty much did on those places what you do here - you say, essentially, the same things over and over again, even though your arguments had been ripped to shreds numerous times, and you'd been proven as conclusively wrong as it is possible to be, and they were, frankly, getting bored of you.
>>>>>>Which is exactly what you are trying to do! My argument is that the Texas Education Agency should be neutral on issues that are topics of future public hearings (e.g., criticisms of evolution). You are trying to change the debate to whether the TEA should be neutral on issues that are not going to be topics of future public hearings (e.g., whether alchemy should be taught as science).<<<<<<
You still haven't grasped these concepts of 'hypotheticals' and 'analogies', have you?
>>>>>>That was by far the biggest evolutionary event that happened in the experiment. And it almost didn't happen.<<<<<<
You're still not grasping Phae's point, are you? The Cit+ E. coli was only the most obvious change that occurred during the project, basically because citrate eating E. coli is virtually unheard of. However, right from the very start, the E. coli was changing and evolving in various ways. If the E. coli failed to evolve to eat citrate, then that would only mean that there was one less strand of evidence - out of a fairly substantial rope. Only if the E. coli basically sat there and did absolutely nothing would Lenski's experiment actually be some kind of evidence AGAINST evolution. Come to think of it, even if what you seem to think was right, and the fact E. coli evolved to eat citrate was the one, single, solitary piece of evidence that supports evolution in the whole of Lenski's project, things that are almost evidence of something, or against something, don't make it in science - if it's not such evidence, it's irrelevant.
>>>>>>The Darwinists' strategy here is to keep me so busy answering their stupid questions and comments (and they have the nerve to claim that I am not answering them)<<<<<<
Well, you see, it's usually easy to tell when someone does or does not answer a question. It only seem to be you that has difficulty in that regard.
>>>>>> that I don't have time to make new posts that would make them look even more ridiculous.<<<<<<
Well, generally, your new posts actually do a damn fine job of making you look ridiculous, rather than 'Darwinists'.
Wrong -- I make the rules here, dunghill. As Fatheaded Ed Brayton would say, "my blog, my rules."
You can make the rules, sure. But you can't change reality. I did show you how he directed you to the information that you requested; the fact that you are too stupid to figure it out isn't really his fault. Unless he is at fault for overestimating your intelligence, which is possible.
So while you can decide that you will censor any disagreement, and are well within your rights to do so, it doesn't change the fact of the matter. And we will all know and delight in the fact that you couldn't face the music, so you had to try to shut it up.
I am the best-qualified person to know the answer to that question, and no one has presented any evidence that refutes me. It may seem that I am biased, but I have no reason to lie about Blount on something like that.
I have presented evidence to that effect. Twice now, to an extraordinarily small degree of detail. Once even on this page. In fact you just read one of those times.
And of course you have every reason to lie about it. You can't argue the facts of ID, so you have to attack the people involved.
What a lousy hypocritical double-standardist -- I am expected to go on a wild goose chase through the literature to find answers to my questions, but you say that you are not expected to do that on this blog. Descriptions of where I was censored on Fatheaded Ed's blog and the Florida Citizens for Science blog are here and here.
A wild-goose chase? Was it really such a terrible demand for you to read the paper you were criticizing? I know it was that whole eight pages and might try the attention span of many children, but one would think you could manage it.
Of course I'm not expected to go look through your past posts. That's asinine. If you have something you want to say, say it, don't try to send me off to read through archives of past comments to try to make your own point for you.
There's a pretty big difference between you asking a question about information you were seeking and someone telling you where you can find the information, and you demanding I go read through archives of past interactions in order to be able to condemn some people you don't like.
You know, once I thought you couldn't lower the bar on your efforts any more. I thought you had it placed flat on the ground. But now you have sought out such low levels of intelligence and discussion that I believe you have actually dug a significant hole in order to plant it as low as possible.
Which is exactly what you are trying to do! My argument is that the Texas Education Agency should be neutral on issues that are topics of future public hearings (e.g., criticisms of evolution). You are trying to change the debate to whether the TEA should be neutral on issues that are not going to be topics of future public hearings (e.g., whether alchemy should be taught as science).
...that's why it was a hypothetical. I was trying to draw a parallel between the two situations, one of which occurred and the other of which was hypothetical.
You know, most children have really no trouble with the idea of a "hypothetical." Why is it so hard for you?
That was by far the biggest evolutionary event that happened in the experiment. And it almost didn't happen.
...and it almost didn't happen? Um, I guess you're right. The conclusive results of the experiment that provide outstanding proof for evolution by natural design almost didn't happen.
Except that they did. Remarkably and clear-cut. Along with a series of previous adaptive evolutions. And in a manner which is repeatable and has been recorded for reproduction and study.
So where are all of the ID experiments? Actually, do you think you could name me a single one that has ever been conducted?
Go on. Try to name one.
The Darwinists' strategy here is to keep me so busy answering their stupid questions and comments (and they have the nerve to claim that I am not answering them) that I don't have time to make new posts that would make them look even more ridiculous.
Our "strategy?" I assure you, if all the intelligent people got together and decided on an agenda, you wouldn't make the list. Unless the question was, "What do we do at the end of the day to unwind? Hey, remember that capering monkey-moron?"
Phae driveled,
>>>>> You can make the rules, sure. <<<<<
The next comment that makes any claim -- without proof -- that Blount gave any answer at all to my questions about glucose cycling will be censored immediately, no questions asked.
>>>>> There's a pretty big difference between you asking a question about information you were seeking and someone telling you where you can find the information, and you demanding I go read through archives of past interactions in order to be able to condemn some people you don't like. <<<<<
The only difference is in your corrupted mind.
>>>>> I was trying to draw a parallel between the two situations, one of which occurred and the other of which was hypothetical. <<<<<<
And the hypothetical situation was the straw man! It is like the question that the captain asked the midshipman -- what would you do if your ship were in the path of a stampeding herd of buffalo?
>>>>> The conclusive results of the experiment that provide outstanding proof for evolution by natural design almost didn't happen. <<<<<<
"Evolution by natural design"? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
Pretty soon I am going to stop feeding you trolls altogether. You are just cluttering up this blog with your crap.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Phae driveled,
>>>>> He answered you by directing you to the information. <<<<<<
I want a link to where he directed me to the information.
He started out nicely telling people, "I think everyone who interested and has questions should definitely read the paper itself, and Carl has been kind enough to link to the pdf of it on Dr. Lenski's webpage. The paper goes into great detail on the research and how we did what we did. It is a good place to start."
But you couldn't be bothered to do that, could you? In fact, you still haven't bothered to read it, have you?
But thanks for making me go and read this thread. Did you notice he also answered your question about why citrate was in the medium back in his very first post in the comments? Also from 115:
"Well, it is part of the DM25 recipe, and has been since it was first reported by Bernard Davis and Elizabeth Mingioli in 1950 (Davis and Mingioli 1950. Mutants of Escherichia coli requiring methionine or vitamin B12. Journal of Bacteriology 60(1): 17 - 28.). They included it for two reasons. First, E. coli use something called the ferric di-citrate iron acquisition system to take up iron from their environment, though in this system, the citrate never enters the cell (see Hussein, S., Hantke, K., and Braun, V. 1981. Citrate-dependent iron transport system in Escherichia coli K-12. European Journal of Biochemistry, 117: 431 � 437.). While E. coli have another set of genes for what are called enterochelins, which can also be used for iron acquisition, citrate is commonly included in defined E. coli growth media (defined media are growth media for which we known exactly what is there and in what amount, as opposed to rich media such as Luria broth, trypticase soy broth, or brain heart infusion, which include enzymatic digests of yeasts and various proteins and, yes in the case of the third one, brains and hearts of cows which can vary in their exact constituents) just to make sure that the bacteria don't starve for iron. Also, when the media from which DM25 was developed were first formulated in the early to mid-20th century, it was common to keep them in 50x stocks that were then later diluted with water before use. At this concentration, the sodium citrate concentration was increased beyond what the organism strictly needed to prevent another component of the medium, magnesium sulfate, from precipitating out. As E. coli were not bothered by this, no other thought was given to the issue."
When you ask him some more questions about really basic things, he tells you in #122:
"I also think you need to take my suggestion to read some of the references I cited. Specifically, I think you would benefit by reading the long review of the Long Term Evolution Experiment that is reference #147 in Dr. Lenski's publication list."
Then you again asked SOME MORE questions that were VERY BASIC. And Zachary replied AGAIN in #129,
"Again, I suggest you go and read reference #147 as well as the citrate paper itself. They will answer most, if not all of your questions."
You sneer at some other people, but you even admit in #140, "And my comments and questions here are very basic."
And finally, in #145, in the comment in which Blount says he won't be commenting much more since he is busy, he says very clearly and courteously:
"As I have noted earlier, whenever one has significant, substantive interest in any research, it behooves one to go to the primary, peer-reviewed literature on that research. It constitutes the official and most detailed reports and descriptions, and many, if not most issues may be resolved by recourse to them. While popular accounts and forums such as this are good places to start, they are no substitute for the original papers themselves. It is said that when asked by King Ptolemy for an easier way to learn mathematics, Euclid replied,"There is no royal road to geometry." That is as true of evolutionary biology as it is of any science or difficult field of intellectual endeavor. It is true also that an uninformed understanding is not understanding at all."
You really shouldn't have challenged me on an actual fact. Facts aren't your strong point. Ouch, did that sting?
> The next comment that makes any claim -- without proof -- that Blount gave any answer at all to my questions about glucose cycling will be censored immediately, no questions asked. <
How about proving some of your allegations? So far you are batting zero.
Phae barfed,
>>>>>> Did you notice he also answered your question about why citrate was in the medium back in his very first post in the comments? <<<<<<
I never asked him why citrate was in the medium, dunghill! I asked him about the purpose(s) of the glucose cycling, and he didn't answer.
Phae, your sole purpose in commenting here is to try to sabotage this blog by wasting my time and cluttering up this blog with garbage. You are a disgusting sack of $#*&^@.
"You still haven't grasped these concepts of 'hypotheticals' and 'analogies', have you?"
You took the words out of my mouth.
> Phae, your sole purpose in commenting here is to try to sabotage this blog by wasting my time and cluttering up this blog with garbage. <
It looks like Phae's sole purpose is to try to get you to admit when you are wrong. Those of us who have been around longer know that this is not possible. You will only repeat your failed arguments.
You are a disgusting sack of $#*&^@.
This exchange proceeded in about the most delightfully clear-cut manner as I could have wished. Larry says something, I prove him wrong massively, and he suddenly decides he can't be bothered to argue it anymore.
Phae, your sole purpose in commenting here is to try to sabotage this blog by wasting my time and cluttering up this blog with garbage. You are a disgusting sack of $#*&^@.
Then feel free to ignore me. As I have said repeatedly, just go ahead and stop replying to me. You could also start censoring me, but again, I am afraid I will have to report you to the head of the Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers, a massive and ancient institution.
Post a Comment
<< Home