RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?/Archive12

This is an archive page, last updated 4 March 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <13>, <14>

, (new)(back)

He's back!

Ken is back at aSK! Of course, the first thing I did was to ask him about Nils Heribert Nilsson - and promptly, I got a new deadline: on August 6, 2010 2013 [corrected, thanks Psy], I may inquire about him again... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean 2013. Does that dishonest little weasel actually think he's gaining anything by carrying on like this? Ignore him, his inane comments and the mysterious projects he's working on. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 09:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what he tries to gain. I assume that he doesn't remember what this was all about - and it adds to the fun that he confuses his Swedish with his Swiss contacts...

Ignore him? Why should I? It doesn't take me much time to ask him again, and again and again :-)

And I hope it make his followers cringe to read his blatant lies evasions - PJR can't be very pleased with him...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've just asked him some pointed questions - yes, I know, just after saying to ignore ASok, I'm a hypocrite, sue me. I'm not expecting a reply, which will then leave his machismo in some doubt. --PsyGremlin講話 09:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I was gonna point out something about him I don't have to "speculate about", but I prefer to remain a man of mystery. Yes, ken, I've got your number on my "to do" list. ħuman 03:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone wanna take this on? Should be easy

PJR finally gives us what he considers the best evidence for a young earth. Someone wanna take this down? I would but my block still has another month to go. Ace^{word up} 20:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Just leave it. 20:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem is even if you could get him to agree that he is wrong on those, he will say that they are evidence, not proof and then he will just list more such examples. - π 20:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The man's an arse. Not worth discussing anything but narrow gauge railways of Australia with. 20:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I got tqed doing even that. - π 21:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No surprise there. 21:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Philip sees what he wants to see. No point in this. sterile squibble 13:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Let it die

Instead of everybody bitching about how wrong Philip is, and about how we'll never change his mind, why not just walk away from ASoK and let it die. It's been going for a year and it's still only PHil, LowKey and the RW editors. It's not like the rest of the web, or media, have cottoned onto him and he's not playing with young kids' minds. So save yourselves some stress and just walk away from ASoK. --PsyGremlinPrata! 13:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's now Awc wiki. Whoever that is, I know you're trying, but it's so lame. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been saying we should let CP die for ages, but no, it's not going to happen. People can still at least discuss with PJR so if anything, CP is far less worthy and should die first. ^{d hominem} 16:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

But....but...NO!!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, AD. CP is still funny but ASK never has been. Once you get over the shock of how intellectually dishonest PJR is, that's the whole story. CP is fractally weird - no matter how close you look, new aspects of nuttiness reveal themselves. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there used to be pockets of humor at ASK. Good luck on getting people to stop, though. It'll never happen. sterile squibble 17:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

We all get drawn back when we see each other commenting. I see your cynicism but don't necessarily share it. This will be easier to kick than booze. Let's do it. And whoever Awc is, your baby steps approach isn't working. He won't grant the first one so there's no point in trying to get him to consider reality from outside his Biblical Worldview™. 18:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

OK--send AWCward guy a message. I may still post the maths problem thing, but that's about it. sterile squibble 20:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, ASK's death is remarkably predictable by an exponential. The cumulative page views should level off at about 850,000, less than 10,000 page views per month by its second birthday in April 2011. sterile squibble 21:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

nice work. now we have a goal. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Knock it off over there, Susan, Hamster, Nx, Edgerunner, Psy, Larron. If you don't share Philip's exact biblical worldview there's absolutely no point in engaging him or his cronies. As he's been doing, he'll just dissemble, spin, lie, and then insult you. We already know Philip's the fundie equivalent of TK, thriving on any attention he can get and occasionally lashing out by writing obnoxious nonsense like his new slavery article to get it. Wouldn't you rather not see him get it anymore? 22:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

But but the stupid, it's too much, I can't resist. -- Nx / talk 22:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I know it's hard to resist but muster some self-control man! It's ultimately really counter-productive to give the appearance that anything at all is going on over there other than a fundie creating an edifice of lies. If you accept that there's absolutely no possibility of having a productive discussion on any topic with Philip and that it's already crystal clear from the massive record of talk pages there that he's a dishonest cunt, then just back away slowly and be done with it. 23:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask him how he can suggest that 2000 years of Christianity brought great technological advancement before evolution ruined everything. Yup, the last 150 years has shown little growth in the sci-tech that's for sure. Ace^{word up} 23:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't ruin my exponential curve. That took 7 minutes to make, and I don't get that back, you know. sterile squibble 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Those data alone are compelling justification for just letting the cesspit fade into oblivion. 00:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There, I went and did something productive instead. Satisfied? -- Nx / talk 00:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Consequences!

Oh, dear heavens, I can see this being yet another repository of stupid. I see he still denies that slavery (the bad version in the southern US, not the good version in the Bible) was started and maintained by Christians. What's your favourite bit? --Kels (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

My favourite bit is Kels making yet another claim with no support whatsoever. Not to worry, though; it will almost certainly be adopted as readily as the "liar" meme. 118.208.31.51 (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

YAY! Brad is back. When you say "Kels making yet another claim with no support whatsoever" do you mean like PJR making the claim the Guth believed the universe came from nothing without any supporting evidence whatsoever? Ace^{word up} 22:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's real hard to take Bradley too seriously. He likes to work the meme about me though, and it seems to make him happy. --Kels (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's all very silly and confused. I mean I honestly don't know where to start; there's literally something wrong with every sentence. The whole "article" reeks of desperation. I don't even think Philip really believes this stuff, he just really wants everyone else to believe it so they can share in his delusions. We've seen how much he hates admitting he's wrong and the lengths he'll go to to avoid it. He just can't stop digging down this hole. Jaxe (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"The other is by teaching that humans are animals, thereby allowing people to argue that behaviours which occur in the animal kingdom are are acceptable for humans." Oh, so tempting. sterile squibble 23:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Darn , I have dinner and Philip does something. I started a long response and then thought 'no lets think about this' Biblical quotes about submitting to your husband anyone ? I has crime statistics about ateists in prisons. I still like the Absolute Morality bit. Hamster (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Its all rather revolting. Ace^{word up} 00:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, evolution did not undermine Christianity; creationists insisting that the two were incompatible were responsible for that.

But the biggest giggle-point for me was the section about the Reds; the Soviets did not exactly take kindly to Darwinian evolution theory. Besides, PJR really should not be biting the hand that fed him. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, don't follow. You can be a bit cryptic at time, LX. - π 03:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I know, I know. What I meant was that the current sort of creationism has indirectly benefitted from the rhetoric used by Reds, and later the New Left, in their attempts to commence their fabled "long march through the institutions." Especially in the U.S., the public was so strongly anti-communist that in order to get any degree of credibility, the Reds had to do the equivalent of convincing a Christian minister to bring the devil in as a guest preacher. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I sort of see what you are getting at. I have always thought creationist have post-modernists to thank the most. The idea that the truth is a subjective thing open to any kind of interpretation has almost moved into a cultural meme. - π 05:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

PJR's heavy use of "worldview" is impressive while they continue to contend for an absolute truth. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Classic special pleading

From likely parodist CPalmer: The Letter to Ephesians only applies to the Ephesians. Everything else in the Bible is still good, though...until you bring it up specifically, of course. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Special pleading? It's a letter. When you read it, you need to think about who it was written to, when and why. Is that so controversial? You can still learn a lot from it, of course, but you can't act like it was written directly to you, because it wasn't.

It comes to something when making a common-sense point like that makes one a "likely parodist".--CPalmer (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, likely parodist. If you were the bible-basher you claim to be you would know that the intended recipient of the letter isn't known. Read this, especially the "To whom addressed" section then go back to the Whorehouse of Lies. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) So in similar vein, Paul's letter to the Corinthians was written for the benefit of them alone and thus all the references therein - such as his speaking out against homosexuality, only applied to the Corinthians and thus shouldn't be quoted today as an example of the Bible saying "uh-huh don't do that?" --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't that Romans? - π 14:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that was the one where he bitched about what have the Romans ever done for us? --PsyGremlinPraat! 14:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact all the Epistles can be ignored? 14:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, so when Paul was telling the Galatians to 'love thy neighbor', you really need to think about who it was written to, when and why. Because back then, they didn't have jet skis to park in front of your house over the winter like some kind of monument to the parking space you used to have. So fuck that guy. CPalmer, just like every other apologist for every other religion, you pick, choose and discard from your texts as it suits you. And don't be so coy, the "likely parodist" is a jab at your frequent (and deliberate) Schlaflyisms. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't ignore them. You can learn a lot from them, but like any text you have to appreciate the context in which they were written. This is basic - the fact that you treat it as a big deal suggests that you don't really understand the relationship between Christianity and the Bible, or between religions and their various texts generally.--CPalmer (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So the load of crap that is the "creation myth" is verbatim accurate but that's all that is? Pick what you like & analyse the rest to oblivion? 15:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Tell it to Phillip, poser. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I will tell it to anyone who asks me. Susan, I don't believe that the "creation myth" is verbatim accurate in the sense that I think you mean, no. But it is of value.

On another point, I don't see what's wrong with this "picking and choosing" that you seem to deplore. Every text has bits that are more or less important, and it's natural to focus on certain aspects at the expense of others. Different Christians get more out of different passages at different times. The important thing is to keep going back to these texts and allow them to surprise and challenge you.-CPalmer (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no probs with picking and choosing - I do it all the time myself. It's the hypocrisy that I can't stand. Talk about "Cafeteria Christians"! "If I like it, I'll believe it, if I can wriggle out of it then I won't." I despair for the future of humanity when I read things that you write. You make me want to vomit. Go and talk to your demons. 16:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for possibly going over the top. But it just makes me so MAD seeing a (presumably) good brain being wasted on crap. 16:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

CPalmer ≠ Bradley. Where's Bradley's as predictable as Philip, though saner, more honest, and definitely more pleasant, CPalmer is a real enigma and I personally find him entertaining. His stubby edits and nastiness shine a new light on how silly, closed minded, and bigoted the fundies at ASK and CP are when, believing he's their rank and file ally, they jump right into the fight he helped whip up bearing their eye teeth. I love it. He gets my thanks, though it's sometimes hard to remember he's a play actor having fun with all of us. 16:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Is Phillip letting CPalmer's watering down of Christianity slide? When I played Sally, the moderate Christian, I recall being taken to task quite often for similar apologetics (e.g. the day-age creationism debacle...). It either was hyper-literalism or hyper-tq. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about the guy who let Ken's insane threats slide, while everyone else gets blocked for calling creationists pseudo-scientists (they are) and idiots (they are.) The rule at aSoK seems to be that if you claim your smalls have been laundered in the blood of the lamb, all is permitted. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I Heart Jonathan Sarfati

PJR's annoying and frustrating argument style seems to have come directly from Jonathan Sarfati. He evens copies the nastiness and contempt. Ace^{word up} 19:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the anti-science dishonesty, and the promotion of CMI as The Way™. --Kels (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Philip is so very far out of his league in most of the science discussions he finds himself in that I've often wondered if some of that Sarfati style ass-nastiness that consists largely of argument by assertion, non-responsive rants, personal insults and oblique jabs, etc., comes from Sarfati himself, particularly where there's a lag of a few days in responding. Sarfati has a history of popping up with almost identical hateful doctrinaire bullshit outside of CMI, including lots of the same kinds of "worldview" and No True Scotsman (you're not a xtian, I'm a xtiant!1!!) rubbish that PJR constantly does. Fucking Sarfati. ROFL. 20:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Why write a paragraph when you can fisk? sterile squibble 01:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WTF?

Pls explain to the uninitiated just what the awc linkless WIGO is about. Cos it looks stoopid at the moment. --Ψ GremlinParla! 13:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing either Nutty had a stroke or his cat wrote the second half of that WIGO. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Looks like trolling. It replicated the same WIGO number as the previous entry (ask254) which has now received 9 negative votes, probably most of which were aimed at the new thing (which I've now reverted). Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Trolling? No. It was a thick commentary on how boring and pointless it is to even interact with those creationists. I was pointing to Awc being the only one to bother and then I fell asleep on my keyboard. Mea culpa. 14:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Again with the "no funding" plus a bonus conspiracy!!

AiG earns $19M a year of which $4M is used for operational costs leaving a whopping $15M for its own projects. So why don't Creationist organizations do any research? Not only is there a "Lack of research funds" but there is also a bonus conspiracy! Evolutionists are starving the opposition of funds, then criticising them for a lack of research. What the fuck Philip? Ace^{word up} 20:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There may be a lack of "research funds", but that has nothing to do with the funds in general. These people are making money, not science. Why the fuck do they need research in the first place? Half-wits like Phillip don't need it! It would be interesting to see him pressed on this, but I'd bet anything he can dismiss it, so I'm not going to watch. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I am going to ask him about it when my block finishes. Dec 4th. I have it in my diary. Ace^{word up} 20:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's true, though. All they have to do is sit around and dream up fantasies, and people like Philip will accept it as if it's real. And they pocket the proceeds without that messy experimenting and running studies. A few opinion polls will do the trick. --Kels (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If I were a fundie leader I'd be funneling some of that money into researching how to make more money. Just sayin'. 03:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I rather missed out on the last funding thread (I'm not an aSK person, really), but the reason that creation "science" will never be considered valid research is summed up nicely by AiG for us in their Statement of Faith, Section 4.6:

“”By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Corry (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice find, Corry.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

CMI has the same statement. I used both the AiG and CMI statements of faith in a religious fundamentalism essay I did for uni last semester. Ace^{word up} 09:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

They should humbly consider that scripture is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all the information.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 12:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, how many times I tried to get them to do just that. It only proved I was an evil evolutionist, though. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Are these quotes put on our AiG and CMI pages? It seems like a very important quote to demonstrate their anti-science bias. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You know they'd disagree that it's the least bit anti-science because science was invented by creationists to explore god's creation and it's only recently that the great secular conspiracy succeeded in hoodwinking the world into believing that the supernatural is beyond science's purview. Duh. 02:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Demonstrable inaccuracy

I appreciate how assiduously Philip is sticking with RATE in order to continue claiming radiometric dating suffers demonstrable inaccuracies. I wasn't aware of any, only that RATE was a joke, but hey I'd do the same thing if it was all I had and the real evidence suggested variability more likely suggested by machine or operator error. What's more interesting is what happens when you apply the same heuristic to Philip's apologetics. If one tiny bit of it's off, doesn't the whole thing have to go out the window and get hatefully attacked without mercy as the folly of those who reject evidence in favor of blind faith? On a completely related note, my neighbors think I have Tourette syndrome from all the swearing that comes through the walls. 14:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I was at a news years party once and I split a small amount of highly intoxicating fluid all over the back seat of my car, my resulting outburst caused a woman to whisper to her friend "Does he have Tourettes?". Ace^{word up} 19:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, I do have Tourette's, and only swear on purpose. Like most people with the disorder, as it happens. --Kels (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What kind of tick do you have? It's likely physical, because that's like 90% of the ticks. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I had some minor vocalizations back when I was a teenager (odd humming sounds mostly, high/low tone progression sorta stuff), which is pretty typical. I find it very hard to get comfortable, especially when wearing multiple layers of clothes or if I'm in a crowded situation (buses and so forth). Otherwise it's a variety over the years, and it changes from time to time. Finger flicks (usually the thumb), wrist movements, back in high school I'd move the whole arm, neck craning, abdominal flexes, not a whole lot with the legs really. Overall I've got a pretty mild case, and most people don't really notice it. --Kels (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a deer tick lodged in my left shoulder. Shit piss fuck damn. ħuman 03:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad it's not too bad for you. I imagine it can be annoying. I had a friend from college who randomly got a crazy high fever and afterwards had a weird tendency to say odd and random noises every once and awhile... we used to tell him he fried his brain. I don't know if he still does it anymore. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Friend of mine, when she was in a semi-awake state (say, barely conscious after being woken up) would say gramatically correct nonsense sentences, except she thought she was saying something fairly ordinary. Turns out she'd had a head injury some years before, and I'm reasonably certain did some small damage to her speech centre. It only affects her in that state, though. --Kels (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Last night I finally dreamed a proper cryptic clue and its solution. I also write wikipedia articles in my sleep about topics that don't exist. Does that count? ħuman 06:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?

As someone who has never once visited PJR Wiki, I have a question for those that do: does anybody seriously care that much for PJR Wiki anymore? Can't we just, finally, let it die the death knell for it? That is all. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 01:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I enjoy seeing what bullshit PJR comes up with. Ace^{word up} 02:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I enjoy seeing people lay the intellectual/factual smackdown on Philip. What I don't understand is the hard-on some people have for trying to convince us not to look. --Kels (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Call me cynical, but what is the point in prodding people whom we know to be completely delusional to see just how delusional they are? Perhaps I am missing something here..... The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 02:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Its not just an individual delusion. I am interested in creationists as a whole. aSK lets me get right up close to one. Ace^{word up} 02:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone said that already. sterile squibble 02:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This whole discussion keeps happening. I can see someone not wanting to go to the site, no problem. But why obsess about making sure nobody else does? --Kels (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What Kels said. Ace^{word up} 02:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that there also the fact that setting up a wiki is an implicit invitation/challenge to people. It is not surprising that some people from the reality-based community will take up the invitation/challenge. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Entertainment purposes only? I gave up after I destroyed a second harddrive on my laptop from beating the shit out of my keyboard over the insanity and intentional deception going on over there. I still like hearing about how PJR is retarded and the antics he pulls, but I need to keep it in EXTREMELY small doses... like botox vs botulism... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ha, ha. Did you really break your computer out of rage at some guy on a website no one reads? You are stupider than he is.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 10:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Creationist Funding USA

AIG gets about 60% of the annual collections and ICR about 30%
2008 was 33.3 million dollars of wich these two got 94.4%
in 2005 it was only 10.8 million and 90.7%
you gotta love the mandatory tax reporting for non-profits Hamster (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Who is AWC?

Awc, if you are reading this then you should probably know that when PJR says something like "Creationists have a lack of funds for research" you can point him to AiG statements of finacial position which has them earning over $19M per year. Ace^{word up} 19:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. If you're going to bitch you can't afford to do lab work, you shouldn't be building ignorance museums chock full of anamatronic dinosaurs. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

They spend $15M on programs every year without paying a cent of tax. I am sure that beats some of the top funding for scientists in the field. Awc, where are you (I am blocked for a month otherwise I'd be happy to alert PJR to this factoid). Ace^{word up} 22:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, if you compare the budgets of something like AiG and Cavendish Lab, AiG seems positively rolling in money by comparison. If they wanted to fund serious research they could. But that's not their business. Their business is to play act scientific while fleecing their flock for every cent they can get. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I am sure $2 of the $15M could be diverted to research. But by doing that they'd have to face answers at odds with their perceived reality. Ace^{word up} 00:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Be honest; how much credibility would you vouchsafe research funded by AiG? 167.123.240.35 (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Bradley, you are missing the point - PJR says they don't have enough funding, AiG has plenty. Are you now saying it isn't because of the funding, it's because no one would take it seriously? Ace^{word up} 02:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am saying it wouldn't even be considered research. (btw, I don't think AiG not directing funds to research has anything to do with fear of the research results). 167.123.240.35 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be research? If that's the case then why does Philip keep saying creationist organizations don't have the funding when they clearly do yet don't do any research? Ace^{word up} 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't Journal of Creation be a peer reviewed journal? Actually, I believe that Philip says that creationists don't have funds for creationist research. That's not the same as saying that organizations don't have funding. CMI and AIG are primarily apologetic orgs, and they fundraise on that basis (AFAIK). I don't know about the US but in Oz there are pretty strict rules about how not-for-profits use donations etc. Maybe they should try to raise research funds and see what response they get. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking about journals and know little to nothing of the Journal of Creation. Philip says they don't have enough funding to do research but their bottom line shows different. Now you seem to be saying they don't do research because they are not a research facility and not because they don't have the money. If that is true then which creationist organizations are the ones doing research? Ace^{word up} 03:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Sorry, I was making a point, but perhaps didn't make it clearly - I was drawing a parallel between "don't do research" and "don't publish in peer reviewed literature". As for Philip's comment, it is not "don't have enough funding to do research" but "lack funding for research." I earn enough money in a year to buy a sporty mid-life-crisis, but I don't actually earn anything for this. I cannot afford it, even though I technically raise sufficient money to do so. I don't complain about, but if someone asks why I don't have one I am likely to say that I lack the money for it. Someone pointing out how much I spend on mortgage, fuel and food does not falsify that. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Of the $19M AiG gets in a year only about $3M goes to admin and fund raising costs (which would be the equivalent of your mortgage and petrol). A full $15M goes to their own projects. They can afford research, have $15M spare after costs. Ace^{word up} 03:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Funding for YEC organizations has doubled in recent years, dwarfing that of the NCSE. No funding indeed. Ace^{word up} 03:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well that's interesting. So much for that claim. What's next? Some other kind of pervasive worldview-derived conspiracy? 03:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense! There is no conspiracy! There's something exactly like a conspiracy, but we don't use that word for it. --Kels (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Spare us the pity party Bradley. What, it wouldn't be considered research, so why bother trying? Typical denialist BS. Doesn't Snelling pick up a few rocks every once in a while? Nothing like preemptive conspiracy thinking. sterile squibble 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Pity? Nah. I just saw suggestions that AiG should fund research and thought that if they did it somehow wouldn't count. I was just saying my piece - or actually asking the question. If such research were to be accepted as valid, then great. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is Philip complaining that creationists don't get funding when CMI has Real Creation Scientists™ on staff and a large endowment? 03:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So what do the creationists need? I mean, it is true there aren't a lot of real experiments in, for example, Answers Research Journal. Does Snelling need geology equipment? (I would think he would have what he needs.) DNA sequencers? (A lot of genomic data has been published; I wonder when the grand theory of baraminology will come.) I guess most of us still wonder what the creationists want to do.... sterile squibble 04:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

broken edits for broken bones

Cripes, I knew he was walking into it with the dinosaur bone marrow business. Philip's already been through the process on that one (deny, assume anything from Talk Origins is a filthy lie, refer to CMI as Absolute Truth™, etc.) so as far as he and Bradley are concerned it's Settled Science, and there's no problem getting into it all over again. --Kels (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I figure you must have read my post, but did you miss the bit where I researched this without reference to CMI or TO? I know better than to expect you to accept my POV as true, but if you are honest you'll admit that it is at least valid. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Fuck off, Bradley. You know I was talking about Philip being through it, and you'll back up his BS at every turn. --Kels (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, not opting to be honest. You said so as far as he and Bradley are concerned it's Settled Science (emphasis added),and it was apparently in response to my post, as Philip hasn't even replied yet. As Sterile said, there's nothing like preemptive conspiracy thinking. The science is far from settled, but the conclusion from the researchers themselves is that unfossilised dinosaur material exists. They do hypothesise some other preservation process, but purely on the assumption of age (i.e. not evidence). 167.123.240.35 (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again. "Unfossilized" is a difficult term. The material Schweitzer recovered required extensive preparation before one could describe anything as "spongy" as your liar prophet Wieland likes to claim. No confirmed hemoglobin in Schweitzer's findings, yet Wieland spins that nonsense out of control. The "assumptions" are actually empirically derived, not mere "beliefs" conjured up on the basis of some worldview hoodwink like you guys suffer from. And the seachange in thinking is not that this stuff is young, but, as you noted, that there are now far more varying degrees of preservation present in dinosaurian material than previously understood. You creationists should jump all over Leonardo, the dinomummy. That'll be fun to watch. You must be bored on your dead wiki. 03:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The "extensive preparation" was the removal of the fossilised material, leaving the unfossilised material behind. You once long ago indicated that you were going to back up your "liar" claims, but it never happened. And the seachange in thinking is not that this stuff is young, but, as you noted, that there are now far more varying degrees of preservation present in dinosaurian material than previously understood. I agree, but my point is that the only "evidence" of preservation is that the material exists, and the long time is assumed. The simpler explanation that fits the evidence is that the time is not so long. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you even know what "fossil" means? I thought not. ħuman 03:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Broadly, it could mean any remains. "Fossilized" though means preserved through some transformative process. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think you did. Your definition would be called "mineralized", for example. A 5000 year old whale bone is a fossil, simply by definition of it being really old. Yeah, you guys really suck at science, sorry. ħuman 03:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see this at the time. Are you saying that a 5000 year old whale bone is not remains of some kind? I ask because that that is the only way it would not fit my definition of a fossil. There is a distinction between "fossil" and "fossilised" (as counterintuitive as that may seem). Not all fossils are fossilised. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but English often doesn't. I would include permineralisation as well as mineralisation in "fossilisation". 118.208.49.179 (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I backed it up and then grew tired of your tedious style and the block threats. "We have previously told you about the unfossilized dinosaur bone which still contained red blood cells and hemoglobin." No hemoglobin or red blood cells. Wieland is a shameless liar. Schweitzer never concluded there was anything but the remnants of hemoglobin protein, sort of fossilized protein if you will, in the form of the iron-bearing heme compound. There sure as shit were never confirmed red blood cells, which would yield an ass-ton of other confirmable biomaterials. 03:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you did apparently attempt to back it up, but when I compared your effort with Wieland works, and Wieland works with Schweitzer's works, it just didn't hold water as far as I am concerned. I do withdraw my "it never happened" comment, though, as my disagreement with your conclusions doesn't mean you didn't explain them. I can state that Schweitzer never concluded there was anything but the remnants of hemoglobin protein is incorrect, having read a number of her papers. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Now show me where Schweitzer says she found intact hemoglobin and intact red blood cells? She said she saw stuff that could be red blood cells, which is apparently enough for some creationists to ejaculate with glee that they get to question long ages on the basis of... what? Wieland made strong claims that aren't supportable with the available research. And given that he's not an expert in the field I find it astonishing that creationists are so eager to credit his suppositions over those of qualified practitioners. The wonder of Schweitzer's work then and now is that she's one of the first people to actually crack a fucking dinosaur bone open and see what's inside. And it was accidental. Her boss busted a bone packing it up and said "hey, see what you can do!" And the rest was groundbreaking history that only calls long ages into question if you're prepared to reject more than any responsible scientist is. 04:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"I find it astonishing" Oh come on, Nutty, no you don't. Few of us really find intellectual dishonesty from YECs all that surprising any more. Now "I find it ridiculous" or "I find it absurd" or "I find it depressing", any of those I'd believe. --Quantheory (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC+OD)We both know she didn't say that. The fact is though, that Wieland never claimed that she did. I appreciate that you've stopped asserting "no blood vessels". Schweitzer's (et alia) 2009 paper indicated that they identified (at least fragments of if not intact), collagen, elastin, laminin, haemoglobin. The paper concluded with the following; "The most parsimonious explanation, thus far unfalsified, is that original molecules persist in some Cretaceous dinosaur fossils. Still unknown is the chemistry behind such preservation." Arguments about that very last sentence aside, my contention that unfossilised dinosaur material exists is as per the conclusion in the paper itself. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC) p.s. Why is it not okay for Wieland to take "could be red blood cells" and conclude "red blood cells" but okay for you to take "could be red blood cells" and conclude "no red blood cells"? How is it that your conclusion is honest but Wieland's heinous? 167.123.240.35 (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to bed in a bit so this is all I've got for tonight. Could be is not is. If that's difficult I don't know what other language to speak with you. Fragments are not intact molecules. They suggest entire molecules, but even that is not without controversy, as the sequences Schweitzer's team concluded were suggested by the fragments recovered were challenged. If Schweitzer didn't say she found intact hemoglobin and intact red blood cells why is Wieland saying she did? Yes he most certainly does say she says that. Look at his words and the entire tenor of his sharticles about those bones. That's why he's a liar after having been corrected and never retracting his statement and it's why I've continued prodding that point. By the way, my blood vessels gripe was with Wieland suggesting they were in some state other than heavily treated by whatever solutions Schweitzer's team used to remove the carbonate from the fossils. My eyelids are drooping. I'll pick this up later if you've got anything to say. 05:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Could be is also not "not". So again, why is one okay and the other not okay?

I agree that it is not without controversy; I did say that it is not settled. The trend that I have noticed, though, is that the more research that is done, the more definite the signs of extant original matter.

he most certainly does say she says that. Could I please have a quote of the quote, because after multiple readings of his articles, I have never seen this. This really is the point that I dispute regarding the "liar" claim. I could find no case of Wieland misquoting. If there is such then we should be able to see any response to correction.

You may now say that your blood vessel gripe was over the state of the blood vessels, but you most emphatically declared to me that there were no blood vessels, despite the papers repeatedly saying there were.

I don't quite know when I will get back around to Ratwiki, so if you respond but don't hear from me, feel free to prod me at aSK or by email. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not posting on your wiki anymore. I'll just tweak and update my userpage here and there. Otherwise my work is done. As for a quote, I gave it to you with a link. This particular lie of Wieland's has been analyzed to death. Don't pretend not to know that. I used to think you were more reasonable than Philip. 14:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

See, I wouldn't have thought that you were referring to that quote because it does nothing to support your contention that Yes he most certainly does say she says that (emphasis added). It's a claim about what she found, not about what she said. It is no more different to what she said than your own claims (in fact it is less so). Should I now say that you are a shameless liar? No. I just say that your claims about what was found differ from Schweitzer's claims about what was found. For the record Wieland mentioned more than once that Schweitzer did not confirm red blood cells and in fact doubted that that's what they were. If you want to continue this, do so either at aSK (your "exile" is after all self-imposed) or by email. 114.73.97.18 (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You think there's a meaningful distinction between him mischaracterizing what was found and mischaracterizing what Schweitzer says she found when the only source to refer to are her papers, unless Wieland has some other source we're all unaware of? Weird. This is why people have contempt for creationists, Bradley. I showed you a sentence that is a dead lie and you've done nothing but wave your hands at it. If you honestly don't understand the difference between saying "no red blood cells were found" and "red blood cells were found" I won't help you. I have no interest in continuing this discussion with you by email or at aSK. 22:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

the difference between saying "no red blood cells were found" and "red blood cells were found" is that you say one, while someone else says the other. Shweitzer says neither. In fact Schweitzer calls them "cells", but says that they cannot be confirmed as such (yet). Wieland does not mischaracterise what was found, he merely diagrees with Schweitzer's conclusions, as do you. You showed me a sentence and claimed it to be a lie primarily because a) you disagree with it and/or b) you want it to be a lie. Seriously, it made me think of some kind of delusion of reference. You have yet to make a distinction between your disagreement with Schweitzer and Wieland's. Remember, Schweitzer said "blood vessels" and you said (in fact repeated and shouted) "no blood vessels". The main distinction that I can see is that Wieland makes a claim for himself that Schweitzer does not (she nowhere says "not red blood cells", merely "unable to confirm") whereas you have outright contradicted a positive claim that Schweitser makes. I have pointed this out (if not in exactly these words) before, and the closest you have come to a justification is to claim some sort of quibbly fault with the state of the blood vessels. You never addressed why you were so adamant that they didn't exist when the researcher said that they did. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much what I expected. Talk Origins is worthless, multiple CMI links, deny, deny, deny. Nothing unexpected, I can't see why Awc thought he'd back off on this one. --Kels (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

From Nutty's CMI link above - However, in a situation where the dinosaur bone has been prevented from being invaded by mineral-rich water, one would expect that over millions of years, even locked away from all bacterial agents, dinosaur bone would, in obeying the laws of thermodynamics, just disintegrate from the random motions of the molecules therein. So the Earth cannot be old because everything would just turn in to an amorphous mess?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it confuses kinetics and thermodyamics, which are different albeit somewhat related issues. By the same logic, all diamonds should be turned to graphite. But more stable doesn't mean forms fast. sterile squibble 00:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ken's learning curve

1. Pi asks Ken why he blogs his bookmarks...
2. Ken doens't understand the question
3. Ken learns something new about his browser.
4. Ken gives a time frame: six to eight months to organize his bookmarks!
5. finally he gets Pi's question
6. and he tries to make a funny
7. He realizes that he looks like an idiot
8. Still an (power) idiot
9. He tries to get rid of the whole conversation - but it isn't Conservapedia
10. Surprisingly, he postpones the archiving

Well done! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If it was anybody else, I'd take the lack of knowledge of bookmarks as some form of self-depreciating humour. However, given that it's Ken... --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 10:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What I enjoy is that I just posted, then left him alone for 24hrs, and I get all that with no further comments. - π 11:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Trouble's brewin'!

Am I the only one who detects a rift building between Awc and Ken? This and this cause me to cock a mildly intrigued eyebrow. --Kels (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh well. Let the rift grow exponentially, in my opinion. It'd make great fireworks to observe. Scotch (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ingenious!

Here is a fairly typical talk-page edit by Awc. It's ingenious - he's found a way of replying to people even more confusing and inconvenient than Philip's.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 14:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure how he could have made it any better...I mean worse. :) Occasionaluse (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I do like the intellectual scrubbing Philip's doing now that a lot of people are gone. The sad this is, the stuff about c-decay is in his own article. Shit head. sterile squibble 02:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

A have a veritable shitload of new refs on cosmology to show Philip when my block expires. I can't wait to see him hand-wave away what is now over 40 references from some of the top cosmologists in the world in deferral to his own knowledge on the subject. Ace^{word up} 03:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't do it. It's not worth it. 03:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but I enjoy it. Ace^{word up} 03:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"I can't wait to see him hand-wave away what is now over 40 references from some of the top cosmologists in the world..." Those 40 references cannot possibly stand up to Philip's one reference. It's all he needs. --Kels (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

this made me lol

Phillip declares "the Bible writers did not always relate their accounts in chronological order". I seem to remember him having great, lengthy trouble swallowing that same advice. It'd be fun to have an aSK version of the CBP where Phil is the final authority on what is literal, figurative, allegorical, copyist error, etc. Do you think he'd be naive enough to play along with that? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The buzzword du jour seems to be "genre". All you have to do is recognize the "genre" any particular piece is written in, and it becomes totally obvious. But try asking Philip which bit is which, and actually go out on a limb to say what parts are and what parts aren't, then you're asking for long tq's and no answers. --Kels (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah memories like goldfish - or maybe the attention span of moths - or maybe just lazy brains 118.208.142.212 (talk)

It's understandable. Why keep a running mental tally of the various Creationist minutae when there are far more relevant things to expend your energy on, like if the Hulk really could beat Superman. Which has, if anything, more connection to reality, aside from being amusing. --Kels (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why complain about not getting answers, when you got them but didn't bother to "keep a running mental tally"? Like I said, maybe a lazy brain. 167.123.240.35 (talk)

You never addressed my comments above Bradley - regarding AiG funding. You know, where you said AiG gets 19M but still has to pay expenses? You used the analogy that you get a certain amount but you still have to pay car payments etc and I pointed out that AiG had $15M after expenses. Look up and you'll see. Still curious as to why PJR still uses the "no funding" argument. Ace^{word up} 02:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't pay car payments - it's a terrible waste of money. :) Actually, I wasn't just referring to running expenses, but to commitments. In other words, if they are receiving funding for programmes, then it is for those programmes, and not for research. In Oz if a non-profit raises funds for one programme, and then spends them on something else, someone usually ends up accommodated at state expense. 167.123.240.35 (talk)

But it comes from sales and private donations. They can do what they like so why not research? Ace^{word up} 03:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we started here. AiG are fundamentally an apologetics organisation. That is where they are committed to spending. The money is being spent elsewhere. If you think that they should drop some programmes, get in touch with them and pitch it. 167.123.240.35 (talk)

Not a bad idea, a letter-writing campaign. "Dear AiG, May the gates of hell prevail against you sooner rather than later. ᛏᛏᛏ" ListenerX^TalkerX 05:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Eric Hovind raised over $93,000 in book sales alone in one year. Ace^{word up} 03:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

And? An individual has a reasonably good income year. Are you really going to count the earnings of individual people? 167.123.240.35 (talk)

No Bradley, the point is for all this talk of "lack of funding" Creationists and their organisations make a lot of money yet not one has ponyed up and put their money where their mouth is. Ace^{word up} 06:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the Creation Museum is said to have cost $27M US to build. That is a shitload of money for research. Instead of building a propoganda museum why not spend that money on research to actually back up the contentions it makes? Ace^{word up} 06:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Kelseigh has never brought this up directly with Philip as far as I know, so maybe she technically never has been given answer. I don't think NeverNormalSallyOcc has the same excuse. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The question of genre is a key one. Philip is happy not to take Revelation literally, because he agrees that it is symbolic. However he is adamant that Genesis is a work of history - the same genre as Chronicles and all the boring books - and therefore must be literally true if the Bible is infallible.

He is wrong.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 17:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Any reason for that, Kriss? There is plently of reason to conclude that that Genesis is a work of history, including rather detailed analyses. 167.123.240.35 (talk)

Er...um...I mean...Genesis 1...yeah, that's it. Genesis 1 is historical. If you want to know about the rest, you'll have to ask specifically and in the context of what I don't want to believe at the moment. Occasionaluse (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol, BoN, are you serious? I mean, really??????? Fuck, everyone knows the genre is fiction, with an good admixture of poetry, some porn, and a lot of wishful thinking. ħuman 03:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Even creationist apologetics ministries have not been able to resolve the discord between Genesis 1 and 2 without allowing the possibility that a completely literal reading is not what was intended. Not surprising, since certain detailed analyses indicate that those two chapters came from different sources. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What discord? What detailed analyses? The "detailed analyses" that I have come across indicate that these chapters concord with Hebrew literature,s pecific historical narrative. 167.123.240.35 (talk)

The one where they give completely different accounts of the creation that even the best spin-doctors cannot pretend say the same thing. The documentary hypothesis. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

if you watched more youtube HERE you would know that the Bible is full of secret coded messages in hebrew of course. And the first word is Barasheet. thats Bet Resh Aleph Shin Yod Tav in lettery pictograms which means something like 'giant head works with two crossed sticks' or 'Gods son Jesus will die by his own works on the cross'. Isn't that amazing ! Thanks to that great scholar PPsimmons of youtube for pointing this out. Phillip must have this secret code himself. Hamster (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"everyone knows" is usually the recourse of someone who has no facts to back up their assertions. 167.123.240.35 (talk)

"Everyone knows" doesn't sound a lot different from this, honestly, or his repeated assertions about how obvious the literal and non-literal parts are. --Kels (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Genesis is different from the actual historical books in that it is clearly a written record of an oral tradition that had been around for some time, whereas Chronicles and its cousins are contemporary or near-contemporary accounts. I reject Philip's suggestion that the start of Genesis might have been written by Adam himself, and I doubt there are many serious biblical scholars who would agree with him on that one.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ace

I see out antipodean friend is back to wining the hearts and minds of our friends at ASoK. --Ψ Gremlin話しなさい 15:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I see Bradley's pulled out the Big Stick. Can't have people callin' folks liars, y'know! Well, not on an individual basis, implying that the vast majority of scientists are frauds is okay. If you're Philip or someone he likes. Because that's fair. --Kels (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's always been interesting to me that at ASK, calling someone a bigot is OK (or, at least, Philip calling someone a bigot is OK), while a liar is sin, sin, sin! sterile squibble 16:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect they're particularly sensitive to it because they, like everyone else, understand (a lot more clearly than they'll admit) that their entire program is intellectually dishonest: starting from the presupposition that the bible is literally true where it says it is is the antithesis of scientific inquiry. When they say they're talking science they're really doing biblical apologetics so it's all a waste of time. They are literally doctrinally bound to deny the truth of anything contrary to their bible. Nothing gets an honest look from these guys. It's all just a bunch of ad hoc just-so stories concocted in order to force reality into the purview of vicious bronze age myths borrowed by a bunch of semi-literate shepherds from yet older cultures. Plus they're fucking liars. The degree to which Philip and his little lapdog are prepared to completely dismiss the findings of entire fields of study simply because they challenge their Biblical Worldview is prosh. I'm loving the recent Egypt and Documentary Hypothesis discussions. So much better than I could have set up. Hat tip to Awc, whoever you are. I also enjoyed how quickly Philip chimed in to slag RW's 101 Evidences refutation. I see a few problems with the article, but on the main it's not remotely "nonsense." 17:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Philip finally puts up notice encouraging member voting

Yorimoto had 6 votes in March 2010 and with subtle ncouragement is now a member , after Philip actually voted :) Will ACE become a member , watch this space Hamster (talk)

He is getting very nasty already. Ace^{word up} 04:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It puzzles me a bit what's so amazing about membership that it requires such elaborate hoop-jumping. Isn't it primarily skipping captcha, image upload and blocking wandals? It's not like they're conferring "legitimacy" (snerk) by doing so, so who cares? --Kels (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Testy

Is it Bradley's time of the month lately, or what? He seems on an awful tear about RW at the moment. --Kels (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I actually laughed out loud. How often do I speak of RW at aSK? How does that compare with WIGO aSK and Talk WIGO aSK here at RW? Hypocrisy. FWIW, I didn't raise the topic, but responded to some mis-information. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And yet, your dislike of misinformation doesn't extend to, well, about 90% or so of what Philip has written. How odd. --Kels (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

My dislike of garlic doesn't extend to oranges either. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Presumably it doesn't extend to lucid metaphors, either. --Kels (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly true; I quite like those. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Then why not make one? They're ever so nice. --Kels (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I already did, but maybe another is called for: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make her drink. 118.208.109.207 (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Weird. Then I can't quite see how your garlic/orange babble matches up with "don't like misinformation/willing to accept huge amounts of it if PJR is writing it". Maybe it's an Australian thing or something. --Kels (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

...I can't quite see... is exactly what I was referring to with the water/drink metaphor. I may be weird. I am definitely Australian. Here is the drink: the reason that my dislike of garlic does not extend to oranges is that oranges are not garlic. Thus the reason that my dislike of misinformation does not extend to Philip's writing is that it is not misinformation. It was my loaded response to your loaded comment. Simple really. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I am definitely Australian. How about them Ashes? Ace^{word up} 05:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have my own theory of the origin of the term "Cricket". In the middle of a match were you to listen, you would probably hear one (one cricket, that is). I don't even know what the Ashes result was, except in the general sense that people are calling for Ponting's head, so England must have won. Aussie cricket fans don't seem to recognise anything between genius hero and useless has-been. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's good to see that your inability to tell the truth extends even to sport, you lying little shit. You and Philip are the biggest pair of liars on the Internet. Reading the shit that pours from your keyboard gives decent people a headache. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Godammit. The fundies are {{tq}}ing here too. FML. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Better metaphor? Your dislike of garlic doesn't extend to onions. They're both in the same Genus, but you'd argue until you're blue in the face that they're nothing alike. Meanwhile, we're talking about the entire genus of misinformation, which includes say... professing certain beliefs founded upon ancient books, where adherence of said beliefs requires the rejection of the vast majority of scientific knowledge. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 18:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

1. and I think it is important to clear this up, I don't mind onions.

2. My metaphor illustrates what I want to say quite well. Your suggestion is not a good metaphor to illustrate what I want to say. You don't need to explain the disparity of garlic and oranges to me because that was my point. It doesn't come off as clever to "reveal" the contrast that I intentionally used, and then explained. To then suggest a metaphor largely like the original one I was contrasting makes it look like you missed the point.

3. You are are claiming that professing the beliefs that one holds is misinformation. You might want to look into that.

4 I for one am not rejecting scientific knowledge. Some hypotheses and conclusions, but even then "the vast majority" is serious misinformation. 114.73.78.204 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Your point #1 indicates that you do not have an issue with all vegetables from the Allium genus. Your point #2 decries me for making a metaphor largely like the one you were making. Which you know, kind of fails to note that garlic and onions are from the same genus, which I already explained, and thus a highly related set of plants. This is opposed to oranges which are only related back to around the most recent ancestor that all angiosperms share. (Which is an unclassified ranking separating directly from the entire kingdom of Plantae.) The point is: compared to oranges, garlic and onions are the same thing. SO, getting on point, you said "I hate vegetables from the allium genus" and we said "then why do you like onions?" and you mumbled some idiocy about how onions and garlics are unrelated.

The first definition of "misinformation" that I found (google.com/?q=define:word ftw) is a noun which is: "information that is not correct". I believe that you're a raging idiot. Is this misinformation? or just my belief? You know, because if it is just the latter, then you can't complain about me spreading that belief.

You believe in a young earth? Like 6,000 years old? Then perhaps you should look into how much science that you have to disprove, which indicates an old earth. The same science that tells us how to make nuclear reactors tells us that the world is about 4.5 billion years old. So, are you denying nuclear decay theory? And this is just a start... of course the evidence for evolution is astounding and crosses a hojillion disciplines, but that doesn't mean that you believe it, right? So, you have to deny all of those sciences. Problem is that the same science that can declare paternity and maternity of a child is also the same science that proves your evolution. Maybe you're happy taking giant holes in your science and declaring that you don't have to deny the entire science topic, but seriously... to hold your position you have to carve out so much of scientific topics as to make them worthless. That is unless you go with the opinion that your god simply guided evolution and used it as a tool for his purposes... you know god is purported to work in mysterious ways... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I really did not think this would be that difficult to graps. In keeping with your "explanation" above my response to "then why do you like [these] onions?" was to say "Those are oranges, not onions." It matters not how much you disagree with that statement, it is the statement I was making. Kindly stop trying to put words (and vegetables) into my mouth. Regarding misinformation, if you state that you believe that I am a raging idiot then that indeed is not misinformation. If based on your belief you state that I am a raging idiot then that would be misinformation, as by any reasonable empirical standard I am neither (although "raging" would seem to be an apt description for some of you antics). In fact, I would be closer to the opposite of both. 118.208.86.84 (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

So, you simply "believe" that the world was created in accordance with the Bible? You mean, you are not claiming that you know that it is? As in, "it is just my opinion that I believe in the creation story"? So, then your beliefs are just all mythology, and not fact? Otherwise, it's information, and thus subject to being wrong, and as it has been repeatedly empirically falsified, it is thus misinformation. So..... take your pick: is your claim that the creation story is simply your opinion, or is your claim that it is fact? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So let's see, taking Bradley at his word, saying something such as "After all, we can't exist naturally." (presumably "we" here is "humanity", rather than "he and Hamster") without qualification like "a bunch of fringe lunatics believe..." is spreading misinformation. I'll buy that. --Kels (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I cant reply to that because I DONT KNOW WTF HE MEANS ! The only sense I can make of it is "We cant exist without Gods devine power ..... blah blah." Help ! Hamster (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd use my religious creds to help you but alas, I is blocked. Hehe it's so cute when they blow over nothing. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 04:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of misinformation, I rather like Philip's casual perpetuation of the hoary old lie here. No, the case for radiometric dating isn't weak, and a huge pile of nitpicks, items came out of context, fraudulent tests and outright lies doesn't make it so. Even if CMI says it is. --Kels (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

TO too. They've been tag teaming that shit from the start. It's of a kind with the pathetic substanceless horseshit assertion that their bible is a historical document simply because ... they say the authors intended it to be. I agree with Hamster's analysis elsewhere that by Philip's approach we better start looking out for Harry Dresden to save us from the Vampires of the Red Court. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I do like this one on that score. Because the Bible telling us the people were there counts as them being credible eyewitnesses (which beats forensic evidence any day, unless it confirms some crumb of fact in the Bible). --Kels (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Pin him down!

Phillip is still beating around the "I personally know when the Bible is literal" thing in the latest WIGO. Will anyone who is still there please press him to start identifying, verse by verse, which parts are literal and which parts are not? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Impossible. You'd have more luck pinning water to the ceiling. Jaxe (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that this is someone who thinks fairy stories like the Great Flood and the Garden of Eden are good science, I imagine he's a bit tough to pin down to specifics. It's as if he thinks reality is a rhetorical game, and if he can twist the bits and pieces just right they'll all be true and he wins! --Kels (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

He is unable to provide any specifics, ever. Ace^{word up} 20:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

is like pinning silly putty to a wall, just when you think you have it , it oozes away. Genesis is literally true all of it , Moses in Egypt is true , anything that conflicts with the Bible is NOT ever true. Check out the timeline of history , is fun Hamster (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

He has given some specifics. He claims to use the historical-grammatical method to read his bible. Or to put it another way, he reads in a plain and straightforward manner attempting to get at the intent of the author. Of course guys like him do it precisely because they want to accept Moses, the genealogies, Noah, Adam & Eve, the Tower of Babel, etc. as true. I don't know why anyone cares exactly which verses are to be read literally vs. figuratively beyond the beginning of Genesis. As for Genesis 1-11, he claims it's written as history, as opposed to some other genre. Highly credentialed exegetes using other methodologies obviously disagree and so you also have things like the framework and day-age views. Since Philip has such a remarkably unsophisticated approach to exegesis and actually seems poorly read in the area of exegesis and apologetics, to me the interesting question would be why he thinks Genesis 1-11 should be read as he urges. It'll be officious, wordy, nasty, and Raymenty. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(Stop the edit conflicts!) He owes us collectivley:

1. A definition of genetic information that gives a sense of more and less and magnitude
2. What he means by nothing, and how it differs from Ace's
3. What experiment would falsify supernatural design
4. Which parts of the Bible are literal and which are not

Any others? I'm sure I'm forgetting something. sterile squibble 20:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

5. When he said "the big bang is a load of malarkey" did he in fact mean that the idea that a quantum foam of particles popping in and out of existence, breaking the zero-sum, but immediately repaying the energy back to the field but due to the nature of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle one of the particles broke its symmetry and underwent a quantum phase transition, rapidly inflating and creating what is know known as the big bang is a load of mararkey? Ace^{word up} 21:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

6. One good, clear, well documented, undisputed case of a creationist being unfairly discriminated against for "criticising evolution". Jaxe (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Ace, at 5 he meant "I don't believe in evolution, or its Father, the big bang, since I understand neither, and you are going to burn in Hell for my lack of understanding!" Diamond (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't someone trying to pin him down on what "leading Creationists" actually means? --Kels (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

CMI, AiG, ICR. Bam! User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 01:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Pfffft, I don't need "books"!

This is great from Philip. I tell Philip he is "arguing dishonestly and with out assuming good faith via arguing vehemently on material you haven't read against a person who has."
To which he replies "So what am I supposed to do? Not argue because you've read something I haven't? Aren't I allowed to critique and even disagree with your argument?"
Amazing! He doesn't need to read the material or do any research! What a waste of time when he has already made his mind up and just needs to argue on his preconceived notions!
I tell him I think it is rude, arrogant and pig headed to argue with someone about material they haven't even studied.
His answer......"I don't agree with your opinion on it being rude, etc"
Wow. Ace^{word up} 21:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you want to spell it out... Occasionaluse (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is actually how my dad the wingnut argues. "Well, you have your opinion (with no evidence to back it up) that the moon is not made of cheese, and I have mine, which is that it is." Absurd arguments are difficult to challenge. --Leotardo (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There are actually a bunch of creationist topics Philip doesn't know about. Like baraminology. It's on the talk page somewhere, but he admits to not knowing much about it. sterile squibble 23:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely he has read The Only Book That Matters, and thus understands everything? That you read some crap that leads to an argument with him in some other book is simply proof that that other book is flawed? A Whiter Shade of Pale (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I know it's just Ken

But isn't it funny how none of his "atheism research" involves interacting with real atheists? Sort of how "creation science" only has a vague relationship with real science, I guess. --Kels (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hitler.

Gentlemen Kels, I have had a health issue recently which means I haven't been sleeping well and I shouldn't post when I am so tired so next time I post I hope to be healthier. Your comment regarding my research is blind to the fact that I may be on other sites interacting with atheists regarding atheism but the internet is a big place so you'll just have to guess which atheist sites I am on researching atheists regarding atheism :) :) 7^thchamber 03:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Lol. J L Blobkindeist (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That image caption reminds me of that masterpiece of absurdist humour from CP, France. Anyone else remember that one? --Kels (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Good job he's not actively editing these days, eh? --Kels (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

My eyes!

Ye gads! Phil's Xmas banner must be one of the worst things I've seen on the internet in a long time. Where did he learn graphic design? Geocities? --Ψ Gremlin話しなさい 13:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

From Teh Asp :0 User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 14:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

All it needs are sparkles and spinning graphics, plus maybe a couple of "Under construction" signs, and it'll be 1995 again. --Kels (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

JESUS!!! I mean, yeah.... Hasn't he heard of "margin-top: 0.5em" to give some space? The connection into the top is killing me. Naw, the whole box reeks of fail... on a related note, RW's christmas logo is teh AWESOME! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 19:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Philip defines science.

http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Science its fun. Hamster (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC) happy boxing day.

Well, I'm convinced! --Kels (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

My New Year's resolution is going to be to stop looking at that cesspit and move on to dealing with more effective cretards than this bearded fat man and his boy wonder. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Where does he get this "can't test the past" crap from? 1. Make observation. 2. Form hypothesis to explain observation. 3. Test predictions made by hypothesis. Repeat. It's so simple, yet he still manages to confuse himself. Jaxe (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"For instance, science can say nothing about of the beginning of the universe, because hypotheses about those events cannot be repeatedly tested." As another example, we cannot scientifically prove the relationship between Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit, because we have no way to repeatedly test such a hypothesis. Therefore, the social science field of linguistics is not actually scientific, even though earlier in the article, I stated that it were. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Philip's been playing that song for ages, it's his way of not allowing science to touch his beloved Genesis. It goes hand in hand with his "The Bible is history, not science", despite it making scientific claims. --Kels (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I know all about Philip J. Rayment and his antics with "science can't cover anything that has already happened" idiocy... I just love pointing out how science actually does so in a way that is so concretely obvious. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this has also been bugging me for ages. On the one hand, he claims that science can't make claims about the past, but then what do Creation Scientists do in his eyes? Shouldn't they be Creation Historians? And this is really the root of what's bothering me: Saying that stupid science can't explain X, then turning around and using the same science to explain all those miracles, except for a last "God did it" for the tiniest bit. Flood? Can totally be explained by science, but God did it. Starlight problem? Can totally be explained by science, but God did it. It's just... sad to see God being bound by the laws of physics. It takes all the awe and wonder out of the parts of the Bible that are supposed to show us how God is above all. --Sid (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Fuckin' magnets, how do they work? --Kels (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

ASK just as arbitrary as CP

I know it doesn't need to actually be said, but I do find it interesting that ASK is just as arbitrary about what it allows as CP. There is no truth, there is no allowing material that is backed up by sources... there is only "The Truth", and we are the gatekeepers, and approvers, and anything that fails to match our whims, is thus to be discarded as vandalism.

OBTW, I also lost my password to ASK, which is like not really a big deal... all the better to keep me from stupidly walking back into that pit of lions. (8 hojillion internets for correctly deducing my hidden message here.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 07:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about that last night. If an "anti-creationist" makes an edit that's even mildly critical of creationists, then you've got to convince him personally that it's valid. Which, of course, is nearly impossible. And then if he turns around and makes a similar (or worse) edit in the other direction, well, he doesn't have to convince anyone but himself. --Kels (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair... it is "his" --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 03:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Which would be great if he were portraying it as a blog, rather than a rather limited scope encyclopedia (creationism, trains, UFC and ska music only). --Kels (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think of it as personal wiki for his notes from creation.com, really. sterile squibble 23:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone with Upload rights ...

... might like to copy this & upload it for PJR's attention. Him (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

PJR would immediately claim it's atheists and "evolutionists" who are all dogma and unwilling to allow the reasonable alternative of Goddidit via unknowable methods. --Kels (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice flow chart to add to our current ones. sterile squibble 19:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

good job, everyone

I just want to say thanks to everyone for letting ASK die. It's been a long, arduous road to nowhere. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

yer welcome. Its more that people are banned, or are on a break than have given up entirely. Philip also seems to have taken a large break from reality lately. Hamster (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed :( Occasionaluse (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Spread your wings. Phil

Having trounced all opposition on his own little blog, Phil has gone back to defending Ben Stein on WP Him (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he wanted a reminder of what working on an encyclopedia project felt like. --Kels (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The man is a super genius! Ace McAwesome 20:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've not seen it myself, but I assume PJR is talking his usual bullshit? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

haha...it only took him 8 hours to take his creationist ball and go home. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It does kind of suck trying to peddle contrarian points on a forum that doesn't put up with it. Of course, when you control the forum, you can just boot people out and revert their point of view just because you disagree with it, right? Guess what PJR, the reason why you're so tired of wasting time on Wikipedia is even more so the reason why no one contributes to your little blog... no one can contribute anything edgewise over your reverts... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What strikes me is that Philip sees people refusing to debate him, leaving his blog oracle of truth or reverting him as POV edits because they cannot mount a proper argument against his well thought out points - just like Ken does. The truth of course is that people find him quite revolting and unworthy of their time. The guy is as arrogant as they come. Ace McAwesome 21:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Philip's done a wonderful job of isolating himself into his little corner of the world. Gone from WP, gone from CP, challenged PZMeyers once, now he has Awc-ward guy to talk to. sterile squibble 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Last non-Rayment, non-reverted mainspace edit was now six days ago. It's certainly in a lull.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Lowkey I thought lived in Queensland , now mostly under water and there was flooding in Victoria , though maybe not near Philip. With all of us gone from the site he should have lots of time for article creation. What happened to AWC ? Hamster (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to add a new Social Distortion album to my page over there. I broke his streak. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 03:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's very refreshing to watch his brand of distortion get trounced by wikipedians. I hope he sticks with it. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I do wonder what drives him to go to places like that, though. He's a hothouse flower, quite content in his own little corner where he can dictate what is or isn't reality. But put him in an environment where he can't do that he fares less well. This conversation is classic. He tries all of the standard techniques we've come to expect, and they're having none of it. Of course he doesn't understand that he was beaten before he even started and keeps on trying, but it's not his environment. Better to return to the hothouse, and pretend pretty stories about global mass murder and trains really matter. --Kels (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Beautiful. A typical "la, la, la, can't hear you" from Phil. Anyone say prolix? 10:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That wikipedia talk page above really is a hoot. Gave my best laugh of the week. I like the phrase "the onus backward" Just wish he'd written "you have your onus backwards". And suggesting that he push off to CP was great.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

What Susan and Bob said. Thanks. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 12:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Great stuff. It must be a shock to PJR not to be able to declare victory and do what he wants regardless of the facts. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably that's why he's taking out his frustration in his safe little playpen, where people aren't allowed to tell him he's wrong. There, there, Philip. Your reality is so much better than everyone else's, eventually they'll see. You just need more logic games and rhetorical twists. --Kels (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's funny that he decided to give his Ken style shout out about his site not being a blog when the last 100 edits to the site were made by him.--Tlaloc (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The red telephone

Heh, I find hilarious that PJR has resorted to the red telephone. I stand my statement, the one in which I call Philip arrogent. He believes, without substance, that he is qualified to debate any scientific subject against anyone with real knowledge of the topic while openly stating he doesn't need to study the topic in question in order to mount an argument. And when one addresses the fact he doesn't know what he is talking about, even after he admits he doesn't really know (but that you are wrong anyway) what he is talking about, you are then making in his eyes an ad hom. That is arrogant, pig headed and, frankly, rather insulting. Ace McAwesome 02:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I might add that he is also extremely hypocritical in that he engages in the same behaviour he rails against "evolutionists" conducting. While he tries to exonerate himself and make excuses it falls flat on close consideration yet he is unable to see it - which is arrogant in itself. Philip, I can back all this up with examples. That you can't see it yourself is no defence. Again, as I said in my emails to you - man up and take some resposibilty for yourself. Ace McAwesome 02:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha. That's so awesome it makes me want to cry tears of joy. He has become Ken, only slightly more literate. How long until he burns the evidence, I wonder? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

How long until he asks for $20K? Ace McAwesome 03:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

But it'd be Australian dollars, so you'd have enough left over for some fish and chips after the debate. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just amused by how incensed he is that we're not putting forward serious argument (which he'd automatically consider invalid anyway, which we've just seen on WP) instead of making fun of him. News Flash, Philip, there's no sin in laughing at the clowns. Also, what's with the red telephone BS anyway? Making an account here is free and takes seconds. It's not like we're going to censor you or randomly block you for incivility (although it would be funny) or infect you with not crazy. So what's with the pointless drama queen act? --Kels (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm amused by the fact on one hand we have Ken trying to challenge us to a debate (and then backing down when his terms are met) while on the other hand we have PJR claiming we are unable to mount any debate despite the fact he has no understanding of the topics he is debating nor has he bothered to even study the science of what he is so adament is incorrect. Creationists eh? Weird fuckers. Ace McAwesome 06:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You people are funny. I see a "donate" button just a little to the left (aSK doesn't have one). Also, there are whole pages here devoted to attacking aSK but you all get worked up when any kind of notice is taken over at aSK. Even odder is that you complain that aSK is discussed at aSK rather than here. 118.208.130.209 (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The above poster makes no sense. Funny though. Ace McAwesome 08:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Super. Thanks. Cunt. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk

Ahem... excuse me. Do you know how hurtful it is to call people cunt? How would you feel if I went around and called everyone a cock? .... oh wait, nevermind. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat unfortunate wording there I agree. Also if someone wants to make a point they are quite welcome to. Unfortunately I'm not sure of the point being made. So what we have a donate button? We has sufficient traffic that we need one. So does Wikipedia. ASK does not.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

ASK doesn't have enough visitors to rate one, honestly. No, it's not mandatory, so it's a stupid point in the first place. But that's Creationism, misleading and knowingly twisting facts to trick people into believing their points. The thing that most gets me isn't that though, but the "you all get worked up when any kind of notice is taken over at aSK" bit. We're not upset, you idiot. We find it HILARIOUS! Cry moar, n00b! --Kels (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

complaining bout the donate button is tacky. ASK obviously, as a Christian biblical worldview ascribes to the concept "God will provide" , RW and Wikipedia dont expect that so have a button. Hamster (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I read PJR's two 'My Blog' posts, and then started reading the block of text under them. I quickly glanced down and saw the last author's sig, and assumed that Asp was employing a bit of Ken quote generator to show how PJR's comments were verging on Ken's red telephone style. Then I got to the part where I saw Ruy's sig, and I realized my error. Eh, at least I got a laugh out of it.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

God damn name taboos... I can hardly understand what they're talking about with all the circumlocution going on just to avoid saying "RationalWiki"... hell, RW, two buttons... rather than 20+ wtf idiots? And as for PJR's comments about how no one is allowed to tell him he is wrong, please consult all edits by the Contributor EiraP... each one was argued to death and eventually dismissed by none other than PJR... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Addressing some comments, hopefully chronologically.

• Everyone seems to have missed my point about the "donate" button. I was not criticising the fund raising. Ace above had made the comment "How long until he asks for $20K?" which I took to be some form of implied criticism (I would think most would agree with me as my mention of the donate button was taken as an implied criticism). This seemed an odd comment given that aSK (and PJR) has never sought financial assistance but iRW has. I didn't think that this point was all that obscure, but maybe I should have posted straight below Ace's comment.
• Nutty's response is simply abuse. There is nothing of substance to address.
• Kelseigh's "misleading and knowingly twisting facts" is disproportionate, even granting that she missed my point. Also, if I had meant "upset" I would have said "upset." I said "worked up" which I suppose could be taken synonymically but really just meant something like "exercised" or "excited".
• Eira has missed PJR's humour (and I think is not alone in that), as well as the point about this website misnomer. There is no name taboo at aSK. Also, if each of Eira's edits was argued to death then that pretty much demonstrates that you are allowed to tell PJR that he is wrong. He will disagree with that - as is only rational (after all it is not rational to agree that one is wrong and also continue to be wrong). 167.123.240.35 (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Taboos aren't typically formalized, because it requires acknowledging the taboo itself. And let's see here... Did RuyLopez not say: "the gentlemen at the rather liberal site" rather than "RWians"? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 03:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Brad, I don't know why you are confused but my mention of 20K was in reference to Kens recent debate offer. Ace McAwesome 07:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Righto then - my mistake. I wasn't aware of a 20K debate offer. 118.208.130.209 (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hang on. 20K offered for a debate or debate offered for 20K? 167.123.240.35 (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

See here... Ace McAwesome 01:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just happy that Operation Grassroots and Flying Fortress are still in action. Ole!! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Funniest Lopez post for a while, turning up in PJR's section headed 'My blog' and spouting his bilge alongside Philip's carefully crafted points.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not Ken. Ken's account has a lower-case "l". The RuyLopez account is (I'm fairly sure) run by somebody here. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know for sure whether capital L and lower case l are the same person or two separate people, as the move log has one transferring info to the other. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 02:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think "l" created sub-pages with "L" accidently, which prompted someone to created the "L" account. The sub-pages were then moved under the correct Ruylopez. From memory. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You know, I don't think anyone here would actually fault you for blocking an imposter indefinitely... (ok, I can't speak for everyone here, but at least it's a rational reason to block someone.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

'Cause I'm sure it is fear of RW censure that stops us blocking ;) Actually I had considered blocking the imposter account (we have done so in similar circumstances before) but the userpage gave me pause. Philip likewise seems happy to let it lie so long as the distinction remains. 118.208.0.239 (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Look at those evolutionists disregard his arguments and threaten him with bans!!! Phil has exposed them!!! Are you just going to take that, Phil? I'd get some mediation involved to bring them to address your questions or admit that they cannot answer them. Keep reaching out to other editors. This can't go wrong. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Good thing Cheerleader Drone No. 1 is there to point out this travesty of justice. It just adds so much to the conversation, doesn't it? --Kels (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the obvious solution to this...Ace McAwesome 03:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Who's up for a rousing chorus of The Circle of Life"? --Kels (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That was great reading, thanks. Watching Phil getting his ridiculous naked butt spanked in public is so amusing. ħuman 04:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

He is at it again.

Amazing - because no one wants to debate with him, due to the fact he is a dishonest, hypocritical, arrogant, uneducated, poorly read and deluded little man (not and ad hom because I can back it all up with examples), people no longer take his mutterings seriously so he again resorts to shouting down from the castle walls that he has won again! PJR you have won nothing - people are revolted by you hence they don't want to engage you - so your grotesque ego can now declare victory. You are worse than Ken. Ace McAwesome 20:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and everyone has tried reasoning with you and failed because you are "a dishonest, hypocritical, arrogant, uneducated, poorly read and deluded little man". This is not vilification - it is provable fact. Ace McAwesome 20:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

somewhere he denies the Dark Ages. States it was the enlightnenment of Holy Mother Church , although not quite in those words. Hamster (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw that this morning. I was going to bring it up here but realised there's not much point, for exactly the reasons you describe. If the bibble said the sky was green, he'd still write huge, rambling posts using the green flash to claim it was true. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that edit was just an excuse to get rid of ken's word salad. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Na, it was a Ken impersonator. Ace McAwesome 21:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

He's just a rank attention whore. No better than girls who show their tits on 4chan. When we stop editing his blog because nothing we say is permitted to stay in articles and we get tired of the block threats, poor creationist "scholarship," his pedantic habit of derailing discussion after discussion with endless disagreement on everything under the sun simply because he's incredulous of anything contrary to his bible, he has to branch out to get the negative attention he's been taught creationists deserve in a world so heavily biased against them. I suggest ignoring him. I'd say he was worse than Ken if he had any impact but literally nobody but us is looking at his site, not even Denyse O'Leary. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

According to his post we haven't addressed any of his points. As the author of the criticism "It does kind of suck trying to peddle contrarian points on a forum that doesn't put up with it." that he rebuked, I will note that my criticism is not nullified by people accepting your edits. I have numerous edits that stand on both CP and ASK, but each one was a pain in the ass to push through, on ASK mostly because a specific person (*COUGH*PJR*COUGH*) kept using a gish gallop to try and talk me into backing down. In particular the section in Criticism of creation that deals with the deceptive nature of evidence supporting evolution, which of course is waved away in the rebuttals by appeals to ignorance, and oddly enough a claim of an appeal to ignorance on our side (which is actually explained as an appeal to lack of imagination) for claiming that we're not creative enough to understand what their god properly. But that's kind of the point right? If I tell someone something knowing that they will misunderstand it, then I'm being deceptive right? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Really slipping into Ken territory now but, for the record - I don't know what I am "giving up on"? I know nothing of your wikipedia actions - what I do know (and can prove) is you are a dishonest, hypocritical, arrogant, uneducated, poorly read and deluded little man. Don't worry though - continue to proclaim victory! Ace McAwesome 03:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet another lie from Phil there. He lives for the moments people disagree with him, or he wouldn't be able to use his fugging ugly green template. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be a stickler on this but I love the fact he calls people who argued for years using well sourced, respectable arguments in the face of his arrogance and poorly formed reason before finally getting fed up and leaving as "trouble-makers". Good stuff Phil - mega super genius who doesnt even need to read books in order to debate has won again! (And yes, sarcasm is a valid response to gross stupidity and ignorance). Ace McAwesome 04:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If I might play devil's advocate here, he does seem to be right that the talk here is light on the fallacious nature of his chatter at Wikipedia. It is rather simple to point out that in the Expelled discussion he is moving the goalposts by using a definition of "third-party" that does not bear much resemblance to Wikipedia's. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Dude, it's a bullpen where folks sit around and laugh at the buffoons. The "fallacious nature" has been talked about dozens of times, both on aSK and back on CP. By now, it's a roll of the eyes and a "he's at it again", and a hearty cheer for sane people not putting up with it. --Kels (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Philip! The world isn't a pantomime where the evolutionists play the nasty bad guys and the creationists play the heroes. You can stop feigning persecution now. Jaxe (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

*raises left eyebrow. Opens mouth, while raising right index finger vertically. Closes mouth, and puts down hand. Looks up to the sky. Looks back down, and vigorously shakes hands around.* Fuck it... it's better to just use a movie quote: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You know, I'm sort of interested on exactly what he means by "trouble". What were these trouble-makers doing, exactly? Hardly anyone vandalized articles or talk pages, especially compared to places like CP or even here. There hasn't been much parody, pretty much all of the interaction on talk pages have been largely civil, at least until people get sick of Philip insulting their intelligence, and pulling stupid "civility" tricks. So just what trouble does he mean? Anyone? Anyone? Bradley? --Kels (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

perhaps making him think, or have to read an article is 'trouble' Hamster (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's become pretty clear he uses his website and discussants (us and Awc) as tools in his spin on creationist apologetics. At the end of the day the important assumptions he makes about his god are not evidence-based but dependent on blind faith (fideism) fueling vehement denialism and incredulity of anything contrary to whatever his biblical worldview is. I say that because I've not seen him succeed in making any of the broader religious and scientific affirmative cases he attempts nor do I think he could succeed though I remain receptive to good arguments for the existence of a god, etc. He's got his idea of what his bible says and he's agin' anything else. Lots of people on WP, CP, and arSK have very carefully and patiently tried explaining things to him to no avail. These people include professional physicists, chemists, biologists, attorneys, etc., all at times explaining things to Philip straight from their own fields. He'll just half-ass his way through a technical discussion with some slapdash denials and incredulity, toss in that you're misrepresenting him and ignoring the evidence, cite some Creation.com stuff, and ramp up the Phil-rhetoric when you resist or get indignant. The overwhelming scientific evidence against a recent creation is the result of an atheistic worldview error. The lack of creationist papers in "evolutionist" scientific journals is the result of a systematic anti-christian bias (not a conspiracy!!) against creationism. Christians who do not read Genesis literally aren't reading it right, and while they're technically "christian" don't have a "biblical" faith, those heretical compromisers. I believe, although I fully expect he'd find a way to weasel out of being bound by this in all cases, that he thinks anyone denying or discounting the Truth of his particular god claims is the result of satanic deception. Just look at who CMI heaps scorn on to see what I'm talking about. It's not just atheists. CMI stooges rail against those darned christian compromisers who don't do Jesus exactly like CMI says. That theme, not-so-subtle as it is, is also carried through the contemporary Calvinist apologetics I've been reading. Philip just makes bald-ass assumptions that don't square with observable reality and then marshals a defensive strategy that's not based on substantiating the strong affirmative claims derived from these assumptions he makes but on attempting to show his opponent's worldview is flawed by purporting to knock little planks out of his platform and then proclaiming victory. He believes it's only through his biblical worldview that logic, truth, etc. even make sense, and therefore assumes the truth of any biblically derived claim as a first principle. It's weak stuff. Robustly developed fields of inquiry are ready for real skepticism. But what Philip's doing is raising so much smoke that he can claim to have fairly called into question some foundational assumption others make. He never bothers to make his own affirmative claims. So what if he can come up with a rebuttable claim about the theory of evolution not doing this or that, usually based on lies or at best fundamental misunderstanding of what the ToE even means. It doesn't prove the existence of his god. He readily admits that his god is beyond scientific inquiry. What he won't admit is that none of the assumptions he makes about his god's existence and character are credible, or that the bible is a poor history and science textbook. He'll defend the shit out of it, claiming that it's reliable because this or that fact has been shown to be true. He's never really said what he thinks of us but I think this satanic deception nonsense is what he's referring to as troublemaking. If he's referring to any of our tone or style, that's rich. He says he's all for civil discussion but is eager to trot out his tired rhetorical style and uncivilly insult his discussants' intelligence. One gets the impression Philip thinks he can "win" any discussion on the basis of his "faith" alone, literally as if he sees something contrary to his biblical worldview and says to himself "hey I'mma go win that fight even though I don't know fuckall about the science and have a pretty shaky grasp on logic." User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 15:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And this is why I always laughed when someone would say how reasonable he was back at CP. No he friggin' wasn't, he only looked that way because he was standing next to even more insane fools. --Kels (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to look at it as "There is none so mad as a rational person who sincerely believes a false premise". Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Old, but good

It's a bit dated, but this topic is a perfect illustration of the workings of PJR's mind. First, he claims his statement is "self-evidently true, so doesn't need a citation". Two editors come back with statements that, at the very least, disprove the self-evidence line. Phil handwaves and states "there is good evidence" he's right. User asks for it. No response. Philip, Ace described you as "a dishonest, hypocritical, arrogant, uneducated, poorly read and deluded little man", and I think he was understating it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say this one is also pretty representative of his style. "I'm sorry for misrepresenting JW's, now let me equivocate and make myself not a bad guy, and I'll try again". Because, after all, he's not a liar. About anything. Ever. --Kels (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

We need a more powerful phrase for beating a dead horse

Classic Rayment. it's not me who's keeping [this thread no one has commented on in a week] alive! Occasionaluse (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not dead until Philip wins! Jaxe (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Go on, Phil! Give that horse one more whack. It's certain to move this time! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Referencing RW

Wtf? Looks like Phil is a fan! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What fallacy exactly is he referring to? The "I'm right, so you're wrong" fallacy? Assuming such a fallacy existed, wouldn't PJR be more egregiously at fault for using that fallacy than any RWian? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

He's sort of right about half the argument. Creotards do deny long age hard rock deformation, which happens, of course. The rest is Phil. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 03:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Naturally. Although, it's not hard to reason that they would deny such a thing. Take any scientific theory and see if it can be used to imply that there is no god, or that the earth is older than 6,000 yo. If so, then YECs will deny it to be valid science. Of course, nearly the entirety of science actually does imply an older than 6,000 yo Earth, they just selectively ignore that they disbelieve in most science, and only deny things in little packets that they think people won't notice that they would have to deny all of it. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 03:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

But yeah, the part about denying what creationists actually do assert is Philip lying. Because he lies. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 03:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

RW's low standards? Ha... but still, the best way to spite PJR there would be to work that article up into a masterpiece and then give him the finger. ^{d hominem} 09:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

At the very least there seems to be a few grammar errors in the article which could do with cleaning up. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Global warming

"Nice" to see all the typical PJR tracts even with new topics, such as Global warming. See for example his latest answer. I especially like the "...I've studied closely (as I have evolution..." lie and his revealing approach to science: "...to then have the same people say that the current floods are due to global warming simply destroys their credibility with me, regardless of the merits of some of their arguments...", not forgetting the ubiquitous "...their attempts to control the peer-review process to exclude contrary views". Editor at CP^{mały książe} 09:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

With as little fairness as I can give him, saying that specific floods are due to global warming is incorrect. They're still freak events caused by weather fluctuations. An overall statistical picture of all flooding and changes in flooding over time can be attributed to climate change, but an individual event can't be. ^{d hominem} 09:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Armondikov that we cannot pick on single events to substantiate a theory. For example, I read in the headlines that Brisbane has had the worst floods for 120 years. If one wishes to cite that as proof of global warming then one should ask what happened 120 years ago that caused even worse floods? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Bingo! Although the flood 35 or so years ago was worse, and the floods before that were worse still going back to the worst we have recorded at about 120 years ago. It's the same when we are told things like "the hottest October in 35 years". I naturally think "so it was hotter 35 years ago".167.123.240.35 (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to butt a comment in here, better late than never. You're talking about the freak events that are outside the average or the normal. When you think "so it was hotter 35 years ago" you should be thinking "that's when the last freak event was". Outliers are no more of an indication of the average than the average is an indication of the outliers! So these superlative weather records are nice talking points, but ultimately meaningless. The longer time goes on, the greater the chance that you'd have a record breaker - so regardless of an overall change in climate, we're very unlikely to see a "hottest day for 1000 years" but quite likely to see a "hottest day for 10 years". Generally speaking, at least, overall climate changes can influence the severity of freak events and increase their regularity, but this doesn't make the "since x number of years" statements any more meaningful. ^{d hominem} 01:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You have a point. My point is that we have a known cycle of 30-40 years, and we keep seeing public statements that compare high point to high point and try to indicate a trend without considering the cycle. 114.72.245.21 (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can honestly say that I don't understand why you lot love talking about stuff with him so much. To be honest I have more important things to do with my time than discuss climate change with Phil, like counting my rice. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Because he seems to have the intelligence to come to a rational conclusion, but keeps insisting on his goddidit answers. It's difficult to walk away from a troll like that, because you keep thinking, "maybe if I just explain it the right way to him, he'll understand and change his mind!" It takes a long time for it to set in that there will be no change, because as intelligent as a person may be, once they take the position that they're right nanananana, then there is no getting through to them. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have just explained why I keep getting drawn back to iRW, and why I ultimately regret it. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You fail to acknowledge the accuracy of evolution. As a result, you fail the "acknowledge overwhelming evidence" test, and thus fail at being a rational human being. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

and yet unlike that my post wasn't discontinuous, personally insulting, and a fine example of ...once they take the position that they're right nanananana, then there is no getting through to them. Adjust your funny bone upwards. 118.208.0.239 (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I made no such claim that my position was total and absolute fact. There is evidence that would convince me that evolution were wrong. However, it yet remains that the vast amount of evidence supports it. It's like a murder scene, with a person covered in blood standing over the corpse of a person shot to death, with a gun in his pocket, a bloody hacksaw, parts having been hacksawed from the corpse... the evidence is well beyond a reasonable doubt that this particular person committed the murder. Now, it's always possible that the person is indeed innocent, and just happened upon the scene, and coincidence has done him in, but it's irrational to think he is innocent just because it might be true. (OBTW, the God analogy in this matter is that all the same evidence is true, but some unseen all-powerful force constructed the confluence of coincidence into the scene. He then wrote a book that was found at the scene that states that he, an all powerful magical being committed the murder, and that the police are expected to believe such, or they will be eternally punished... you know, despite all evidence indicating that the man standing there did it.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 12:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

What if the autopsy showed that the victim had been dead for a week, and the man covered in blood had been out of the country until the day before?--CPalmer (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Did I fail to say "it might be the case he didn't do it"? Oh wait, no I did say that. Still, the police are going to arrest the person covered in blood and charge him with murder. The later evidence would exonerate him, and he would be released. This is for example, Newtonian physics is not accurate, Relativity is far more accurate, but that didn't justify Newtonian physics deniers. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You did say that, but you also said "The evidence is well beyond a reasonable doubt". In other words, you jumped to your conclusion too quickly, ignoring the findings of the autopsy and the travel records. Better luck next time, Miss Marple!--CPalmer (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, idiot, that would be extra evidence introduced later. On the evidence immediately at hand, there's no reasonable doubt. That's the situation we have with global warming. If more evidence is discovered later that points to a different conclusion, it can be judged then. What you are doing is ignoring the conclusion staring you straight in the face. Run back to the Whorehouse of Ignorance now. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And in the real world, we would still arrest the person and charge him with murder even if your facts were true. Let's return for a moment to my original facts, and let's place you as the officer responding. Now, I ask you... would you suggest we not arrest the person because it is possible that he didn't do it? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You clearly need to watch more episodes of Ironside, as you don't seem to fully understand how the legal system works. The police don't need people's guilt to be beyond reasonable doubt to arrest them, or to make them a suspect! But we don't say that they definitely are guilty until they have been properly tried. You, Eira, would be in serious danger of being found in contempt of court.--CPalmer (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, this nonsense is Not even wrong. Found in contempt of court? For what? For arresting a guy with perfectly sound probable cause? I'm not asking about convicting the person, I'm only asking if you would arrest the person. Also, "contempt of court" does not fit the situation at all, contempt of court is for violating a court order or violating an instruction from the court, not for holding a person as guilty before being proven in a court of law. Also, interestingly enough because of the way opinion works, you cannot be held liable for thinking that someone is guilty, in fact, the police often are certain about the person who committed the crime, but say, the person gets off on a technicality, or the jury simply just declares the person innocent. The police will shelve the file, and stop working on it, because the person that they know committed the crime was found not guilty.

Now, although you've attempted to divert away from the question, I will again ask for an answer: Given the original facts that I presented, would you arrest the person standing over the corpse? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Luckily science is not a trial, whatever creationists and similar anti-science people try to make it look like. Anyway, in the case of Global Warming you don't have a crime scene only, but a suspect serial killer, who will definitely strike again, if you let him free while waiting for further evidence. In the case of Evolution, you already have the DNA test results (literally!), which confirm the identity of the murderer. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 11:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Objection, your honour - that wasn't the original question at all! You said that the man's guilt was beyond reasonable doubt, before he had even been tried. That goes far beyond saying that there are grounds to arrest him, and if you said it in the media, you could be found in contempt of court.

Your over-alacritous presumptions of guilt might wash in Saudi Arabia, but here in the West we have rules against that kind of thing. Please stop breaching the human rights of this poor, hypothetical man.--CPalmer (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Overruled, saying that a person is guilty prior to conviction is not "contempt of court" it is "defamation", particularly slander if spoken, and libel if written. Also, while "reasonable doubt" is typically only used in terms of conviction it is a level of proof that is beyond that of "reasonable suspicion" which is necessary for arrest. Thus, if one has belief of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" then they have met the bar of necessary "reasonable suspicion" in order to arrest someone.

You are direct to disregard any previously supposed questions and directed to answer the question at hand: Would you arrest this hypothetical man? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 12:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Eira, please stop repeating your incorrect claim about contempt of court. Presuming a man's guilt from a media platform before he is convicted most certainly can be found as contempt of court, at least in the UK, which is where Miss Marple, Lord Peter Whimsy and all your other kindred spirits tend to operate. Now, would I arrest a man if I found him bathed in blood, waving a meat cleaver and dancing the hula hula dance over the decapitated body of a man known to have been involved in a long-running dispute with him over leilandii hedges? No I would not, because I am not a policeman, but I certainly would call the police and ask them to arrest him as soon as possible. But what I wouldn't do is go around saying "I know you dunnit" to him until a lawful jury had returned its verdict. I trust this brings this increasingly unpleasant matter to a close.--CPalmer (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I take your point that it's possible and even very well likely that the UK has different laws. I am however an American, and only familiar with American laws, where reporting a person as guilty of a crime prior to conviction is not contempt of court, but rather defamation.

You have however failed to answer the question. I stated in the givens of the hypothetical that you were the responding officer. Seriously... do we have to play all these rhetorical games just so you can avoid answering the question? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 12:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact in the UK we all have a right to arrest somebody under the circumstances you describe. See this. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Rhetorical games?? You are the one writing CSI fan-fiction scenarios to try and make some dubious point about evolution, which by the way appears to have got lost somewhere along the line. All I am trying to do is point out that your allegory has been flawed from the start, in assuming the guilt of a man who needs to be tried before he is condemned. I have had enough playing Jesus to your garment-rending Caiphas.

Suspected, I wish I had your bravery. I would be interested to know how often that 'right' is applied in reality. All too seldom, I would imagine - much like the 'right to remain silent' on this very page!--CPalmer (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

CPalmer, the correct response when proven wrong - as you just have been - is to admit it and stop beating the dead horse. As I advised earlier, run back to the whorehouse where beating dead horses is de rigueur. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still have reasonable doubt as to whether this horse is in fact dead. More jumping to conclusions? Perhaps you'd be so kind as to stop beating the horse, which, though very much alive, is getting rather tired of it.--CPalmer (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The conclusions are that you deny evicence and wouldn't arrest a man who has been dismembering a corpse. Hmm --85.78.104.135 (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Editor at CP, you seem to be arguing along the lines of those who support indefinite detention without trial for terror suspects. If you are so sure of their guilt, why not produce your evidence and put them on trial?--CPalmer (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The evidence is already out there, and people who understand it have judged it and passed their verdict. Only idiots now doubt either evolution or global warming. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

CPalmer, wrong about me. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 14:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I know, it's like he doesn't understand the idea of pre-trial detention... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 14:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

See this - only found it yesterday but it's good. Excellent, Dick T. 13:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

One word is all that is necessary to describe that article: awesome. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 13:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the frustrating thing. He isn't stupid, but still handwaves everything he can't answer instead of acknowledging it, and then posts paragraphs of what could effectively be Lorem ipsum for all the relevance it has to the discussion, while throwing in a hundred questions which would take someone hours or days to research in order to reply effectively without him even answering the simple yes or no questions in the first place. Just seems to be a combination of gish galloping combined with answering a question with a question and a few misplaced accusations of logical fallacies. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's now an argument on how Philip argues and Philip is arguing exactly how he's arguing that he doesn't argue. Jaxe (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Like many Creationists, he has no capacity for self-reflection. Which is why so few of them appreciate irony, I suppose. --Kels (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaaaand... CPalmer demonstrates the unwillingness of a creationist to answer even a simple question. He claims every stupid trick in the book to avoid answering the question. Fact is, it would be irrational of a police officer not to arrest the suspect in events stated above. Yet somehow, for creationists they can totally ignore such patent evidence and move straight on to "I deny everything". Of course he doesn't want to admit that he would arrest someone, because he absolutely refuses to make any concessions in an argument. In his mind, we're playing a "winner loser" game, rather than a quest for understanding of fact. This is the precise thing I was talking about with the "nananana I don't hear you" bullshit that creationists pull. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 13:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's pathetic, isn't it? Is there a special finishing school where creationists go to learn the art of lying, dissembling, ignoring questions and misrepresenting facts? CPalmer is almost as good at it as his pimp, PJR. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

How did you get down here?

But, running away aside, it is you who are refusing to make concessions, by refusing to admit the basic unacceptability of calling a man guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" before even the most cursory trial. That is why we, in civilised countries, have a proper court system. I will never accept that a kangaroo court has any legitimacy, no matter how many slurs you fling my way.

Everyone can see that you made that claim, just by reading your posts. Everyone knows that claim is wrong, if they have any sense of basic human decency. Yet you continue to defame me, call me pathetic, and rant on about pimps and misrepresentation. Sometimes I wonder why I bother arguing on the internet at all, if this is the thanks I get for trying to take a tube of Mr Muscle to a small corner of this festering Augean Stables of group-think.--CPalmer (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Now come back in a week and tell us you're the one trying to let this go, then you'll have your Phil parody down pat, troll. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I pulled the conversation out here so that we didn't have to squeeze it into margins. (Seriously, running away? I walked three feet to the left, I didn't run away. Fucking idiot, seriously.) Now, on to substance, it would be irrational for the police to make any other assumption than he is guilty, and that's why they don't convict people. My opinion of guilt, and the police's opinion of guilt is meaningless as to if he actually committed the crime or not. Fact of the matter is that you refuse to answer the question of if the police would be rationally justified to arrest the person. Now, go ahead and spin your magical rhetoric to try and weasel your way out of answering that question. I mean, it's really not that hard. Any rational person coming across that scene would automatically be convinced of guilt. Again, that's why we present the evidence to people who have NO KNOWLEDGE of the incident, after some time has passed so that the matter can be explained rationally to a group of strangers. And all of that being insignificant, the bail for the individual would be immediately denied almost without a fight on the prosecution's side, because the evidence is so overwhelming. If you don't like arguing where we're going to point at your flaccid fallacious rhetoric, then go away. It's not like we're making you stay here. Go argue on aSK where they right the rules in your denialist favor. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 14:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think CPalmer is being serious. Anyone can see that he was artificially dragging out the conversation from his very first post with stuff of no real relevance. I think he's just parodying PJR, as OU said. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 14:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

From the Augean Stables to the Hydra! With Mr Use being the pesky, poisonous, unkillable head that Hercules had to leave under a boulder.

You are once again in error, Eira. A truly rational person (if any human being can even be said to be rational) approaches even the goriest scene with cool scepticism, and reserves judgement until they have the evidence they need. You, as the impulsive rooky cop, would risk being caught out by some of Donald Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns" - in this case the time of death and the crucial airline boarding card (exhibit B).

You are thinking with your gut, not your head - that's all there is to it. Of course the man should be taken into custody, but he should be treated as an equal citizen, not a murderer, until his guilt is certain. And that means you don't go around saying "he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt" - or, to use the more common phrasing, "we know you dunnit!"--CPalmer (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I kinda like my description... Occasionaluse (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Good, you agree that the person should "of course" be taken into custody. Was it really that hard to answer the question? Good then, we find here that we are in agreement, any rational person would be sufficiently convinced of his guilt that his arrest would be warranted. (NOTE: Police aren't allowed to arrest people without sufficient belief of guilt.) Next, we must both naturally agree that he should be held without bond, because the evidence is overwhelming. (Or do you argue that we should let people found at the goriest of scenes with all evidence of guilt so far, to walk freely out of jail and live their lives while the case against them is built?) During this pre-trial detention, the police would continue to investigate, and any exculpatory evidence should then be found, disclosed to the defense, and possibly result in the person being released from his arrest. I agree as well that he should not be held as a murderer, but rather held as "under suspicion of murder". You seem however to misunderstand how opinions of guilt work.

There is not a simple objective "beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt" that all crimes are held to. In a hung jury there are jurors who are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, and there are others who are not. Later, another jury might find him guilt, while another might find him innocent. While we are not allowed to sentence a person as a murderer until there is a conviction of his peers, each individual person holds their own opinions of guilt and innocence. This is precisely what voir dire is intended to weed out: people who have already been convinced of either guilt or innocence. Anyone coming across such a ghastly murder scene would be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the person's guilt, that's why any witnesses and anyone even seeing the crime scene photos prior to a trial would be excluded from the jury, because the evidence available at that point is so prejudicial. Not until a full assessment of facts can be made is it justified to show the jury the photos, allow both sides to rationally explain the events, and then the jury can make a rational decision about the evidence. Including any such exculpatory evidence that occurs. However, if you think for one second that the cops aren't convinced immediately beyond a reasonable doubt of the person's guilt, then you truly don't understand how humans work... that or you're simply engaging in sophistry just to avoid admitting that you would be convinced the person were guilty as well. (Additional note: police and prosecutors do not take cases to court where they are not convinced of the person's guilt... excepting corruption, of course. Fortunately, the police's and the prosecutor's opinions on guilt don't convict a person, a jury's opinions on guilt convict a person.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 15:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I fear that the honourable gentleman CPalmer fails to realize that two murders have taken place, one at the immediate scene of the crime and one a week earlier. Upon the second murder (committed by the crazed madman) the corpse of the first victim, hidden in the sewers for a week, was brought out and swapped with that of the second victim, the whole thing orchestrated so that the actual murderer would appear to be the innocent victim of a set up. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If you find yourself using more and more words to reply to creationists/whatever CPalmer is/contrarians as a conversation goes on, you've lost. Not the debate, just in general. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't seriously hold me accountable for his sophistry? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 15:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

All the sophistry comes from you, Eira - the insults, the silly insistence that something entirely peripheral was "the original question", the wailing pleas for me to go away. Most amusing are the grand claims to being "a rational person" that pepper your discourse as incongruously as sugar sprinkles on a steaming bowl of tripe. Who started homaging Agatha Christie? You did, Eira. Anyone can see that your bemoaning of my modest rhetoric is itself an elementary rhetorical trick, so please stop throwing stones before you break a window.--CPalmer (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine, let's make this much more simple. In this new hypothetical, you are a police officer. You come into a room, and you actually witness the suspect slaughtering a person, as the sooner-than-you-can-stop-it corpse screams out "Help me! He's killing me!" It is only rational that you would arrest the person. How convinced would you be of their guilt? Would you describe it as "beyond a reasonable doubt" or would you stick to your guns of "any rational person would take the position that they possible are misinterpreting the situation"? Seriously... you're arguing that there is no level of truth at which it is acceptable to certain, yet you apparently argue in favor of an arbitrary holy text as the absolute truth? Talk about irrational. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 15:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I rather think not. I have no desire to continue playing dress-up with you - perhaps you have a young nephew or niece who might be interested.

I don't know what it would take for you to understand my original point. I certainly never said "any rational person would take the position that they possible are misinterpreting the situation" - if I had, I would need to fix my grammar-checker! Why don't you ask one of your colleagues on here to lend you their copy of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe and read the bit about the man who rules the galaxy? I'm sure the RW hero Douglas Adams puts it better than I could. (Might that be the "arbitrary holy text" where you think I get my absolute truth?)--CPalmer (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This is what I mean by sophistry... you're attacking the grammar of my post, rather than the content. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 15:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(For what it's worth, replying after a rather unfair nine-hour block.) That's not what I'm doing. I am (quite reasonably) objecting to your putting words in my mouth. The fact that those words are ungrammatical simply makes the ruse all the more transparent.--CPalmer (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

First, the block was honestly stated as intending "to intimidate and harass" you. You have also apparently failed to note that you can unblock yourself because you have sysop powers. So, complaining "zomg, I got blocked!" just demonstrates retarded intellect. On to substance, are you seriously incapable of understanding how paraphrasing works? I never said you said anything, I attributed a statement with a grammatical typo to your position. Now, correcting for idiot errors on my part, does "any rational person would take the position that they are possibly misinterpreting the situation" fail to accurately describe your position? Because the actual words you used are: "A truly rational person (if any human being can even be said to be rational) approaches even the goriest scene with cool scepticism, and reserves judgement until they have the evidence they need." Huh, seems to be a valid paraphrasing to me... So, the only answer is, you're attacking my grammatical error because you have nothing else to complain about. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

From CPalmer: "All the sophistry comes from you, Eira - the insults". Let us stop there, and list all the insults coming from CPalmer:

• "Most amusing are the grand claims to being "a rational person" that pepper your discourse as incongruously as sugar sprinkles on a steaming bowl of tripe."
• "With Mr Use being the pesky, poisonous, unkillable head that Hercules had to leave under a boulder."

And well, I could go on, but no further counter-examples are required to state the falsehood of the statement that I am the source of all the insults. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 15:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's quite telling that you have to paraphrase - rather liberally, I'm sure you'll agree - to make it look like I'm insulting anyone. And even then, you run out of steam after two "examples".--CPalmer (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Better? Oh, and of course I ran out of steam... why would I want to bash my head against a wall seeking more examples than is necessary to prove the falsehood of your statement that I am the only one using insults? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 15:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I hardly think CPalmer was insulting me.. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the police also bear in mind the possibility that aliens had transported the Loch Ness Monster to the crime scene and that the Monster had killed the man? The aliens might then have quickly painted the supposed "murderer" with synthesised blood from the victim and forced the knife into his hand. MMM...... Or should the police suspect the most obvious suspect to whom all the evidence points? Tough one. It would be interesting to see the "Loch Ness Monster did it" - or, for that matter, the "God did it" - defence in court though.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, hang on! *rubs temples* Who murdered the horse again? Ajkgordon (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Shergar? Wasn't he kidnapped by Elvis?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(For what it's worth, replying after a rather unfair nine-hour block.) Neither of those examples are insults, as is plain to see. In the first case, I'm pointing out Eira's silly habit of repeating the mantra "I am rational"; I would suggest that it's better to simply post your thoughts and let others be the judge. In the second instance, I am objecting to being set upon mob-handed by three people at once, with a waspish allusion to Mr Use's succession of controversial aliases at other sites.

If looking for more examples feels like bashing your head against a wall, perhaps that's because there are none to be found.--CPalmer (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You described this as a "festering Augean Stables of group-think". Sounds like an insult to me... I mean, claiming what we're saying here is mythological scale horse shit? Now, I also think the rest of the examples I gave are insulting. They were stated with intent to evoke hostility in us. Now, someone calling me a "pedantic bitch" would intend it as an insult, even though by my own admission, I would take it as an accurate account of my personality. Their intent was to insult me, the fact that I diffuse the insult by not being offended plays no part. And for the final answer: it feels like bashing my head against the wall, because you're being a sophist dick. Not because there are not more examples. Having to pull out more examples when your insults are so blatantly obvious to anyone who would look (just because you're not using curse words doesn't make your speech not insulting) is frustrating because it shouldn't well have to say because there is more evidence than Atlas could ever hold up to back up evolution. How much fucking evidence do we need to present to you before you would take the stupid simple step of arresting a criminal (i.e. tentatively accepting evolution)? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I've tried to read this thread and contribute to it but I remain confused. C Palmer - what is the positive point our are trying to make?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Far as I can tell, they don't have one. Like at aSK, it's just rhetoric and contradiction. Nothing of any substance, and hardly worth all that falderol above. --Kels (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. "Rational" discussion includes abuse and insults, silly temper tantra ("silly" is the most charitable description I could think of for destroying one's own stuff), and intentional intimidation and harrasment. Oh and responding to imaginary comments. I have seen all of that so far from yon paragon of rationality. 114.72.245.21 (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Two points here. First, Eira, the Augean Stables actually contained magical, prize-winning cattle - not horses. Second, and perhaps more importantly, I think the accusation of groupthink is entirely justified. Just look at the hostility heaped upon me, just for humbly bringing a dissenting point of view. The scientifically-minded rightly pride themselves on always questioning, and the tendency to groupthink is one of the biggest threats to that philosophy; it is to be seen here all too often.--CPalmer (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You've done nothing of the kind. Your only contribution has been to make specious arguments and raise rhetorical quibbles. Nothing you have said has any substance at all. The reason you get insulted is because I, for one, am fed up with spending my time reading the fucking evidence only for creationist dickheads and deniers to dismiss it with a handwave. If groupthink involves knowing what the fuck you're talking about then I'm all for it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between groupthink and consensus. But then you guys reject scientific consensus so no wonder you can't tell the difference. Jaxe (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree there is a difference, but this site has both in abundance. The regulars here are the in-crowd, and they delight in pouncing on visitors who they perceive as being on the wrong "side" and haranguing them with as much fervour and zeal as any Theatine of the counter-reformation.--CPalmer (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

While there is "groupthink" at times in RW (and sometimes in opposite ways than you'd expect, as when most of the site hailed PJR during the gun control crisis at CP) it is quite a varied place and you will find most opinions represented and often dissenting voices. Unfortunately in your case you got it wrong - SuspectedReplicant expressed it well. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 12:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

CPlamer. I'm still confused. Could you succinctly state the point you are trying to make on this page?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Bob, I am as confused as you are. On the one hand people tell me they don't know what point I'm trying to make, but on the other they berate me and tell me that I'm wrong and that I'm rejecting scientific consensus. ie "I don't know what you are saying, but you most certainly cannot be correct." I can only infer that people are against me out of principle because I am seen as playing for the other team.

I think I was trying to say that the red-handed murderer allegory wasn't a particularly helpful argument against global warming. I would certainly stand by that - it's all very well saying "if the evidence is clear-cut then you are a fool to reject it", but surely the question is over whether it is clear-cut or not. Personally I have no idea - I'm not much of an expert on climate science, although I can tell you that I am in favour of wind farms.--CPalmer (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is that it's clear-cut - just so you know. Like evolution and the age of the universe there is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of global warming. Jaxe (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Like evolution and the age of the universe, denying the controversy does not negate that it exists. 114.73.115.248 (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Repeatedly claiming there is one won't generate one. How about you go find some evidence of this huge, yet mysteriously elusive, controversy? Name one mainstream scientific journal that has discussed the validity of any of these topics over the last few decades. Jaxe (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Nature.
• Climate Research.
• International Journal of Theoretical Physics
• Foundations of Physics
• Astrophysics and Space Science.

Pick one from above and let's say I named it. There is also Scientific American but that is a popular magazine rather than a journal. By the way, there is some room between non-existent and huge. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What papers are you referring to and what conclusion did they come to? Jaxe (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the goalpost game! I'm not playing. You challenged me to Name one mainstream scientific journal that has discussed the validity of any of these topics over the last few decades. I did that, 5 times over. Now you want lists of papers ("discussion" is not only papers, by the way) and you are now looking for conclusions rather than discussion. Look into it yourself, or remain ignorant. I may get around to nameing some papers, but that isn't what you aksed for, and right now I don't have time for this. 114.72.197.55 (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You named 5 journals. Congratulations. You didn't demonstrate any of them contained any meaningful discussion of the validity of these topics which was obviously the spirit of my question. Nor does it answer how these discussion typically go. If they all go one way then clearly there is no controversy. If you're just going to play words games then I won't be playing either. Jaxe (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it, Jaxe. So would you agree with me that a better analogy would be a murderer who had been convicted, by a unanimous jury, after a thorough and civilised trial? That would seem far better than acting with Judge Dredd-like haste at the scene of the crime.--CPalmer (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I never called for Judge Dredd-like haste at the scene of the crime (you seem to enjoy continuously inserting the idea that I'm calling for conviction at the scene of the crime into my mouth, yet complain when I attribute anything to you that you don't like... hm... hypocrisy much?), I called for arrest at the scene of the crime. If the tentative scientific position is that the world is warming, and it very well might be our fault, then by all rational decisions, we must arrest our actions that contribute to it. If we find out later that we're not the problem, then *WHOO* dodged a bullet, and all it cost us was some inconvenience. Certainly better than the other option of "oops, too late, now it's out of hand". --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 19:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

all it cost us was some inconvenience. It depends on your definitions of "us" and "inconvenience". Developing countries would effectively have their development halted, and millions would be condemned to a lifetime of poverty and drudgery without hope of improvement. Several first world countries would be joining them. The prescribed medicine is worse than the hypothetical disease. 114.73.115.248 (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it's time for the DFTT template.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems a bit thick to regret being "drawn into a bit of Argy-bargy up there", and then turn around and poke at it with a comment like that. Of course, you're probably more culpable than anyone for it being "Argy-bargy" in the first place, but that's to be expected. --Kels (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(A previous post got deleted, which I thought was against the rules?) I've been drawn in, and feel the need to reply, but I'm trying to reach a conclusion, not stir things up. This kind of post from you is unlikely to help, I'm afraid, despite your good intentions.--CPalmer (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

So what exactly is the objection to AGW theory here besides the clusterfuck of literary analogies above? Maybe if someone could bring up specific points...? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Pascal's Wager

Glad to hear you're a supporter of Pascal's Wager, Eira. Will you be applying the same line of reasoning to religious belief?--CPalmer (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pascal's Wager is an argument for believing in god/gods. It is a reasonable wager to take when religion is the only compelling argument going on. However, modern day, which Pascal's Wager should I make? For the Christian god? יהוה‎ (יהוה-Rapha)? Allah? Shiva? Vishnu? Odin? Zeus? Pascal's Wager fails because there are too many competing salvations being peddled. Unlike Pascal's Wager, the wager in the climate has a) reasonable suspicion, b) no competing wagers that have the same consequences yet are mutually exclusive. Now, let's look at what Pascal's Wager is today. It's like walking up to a table for a single dice roll, and there are 6 bets to make, you MUST make one bet, and only one bet, and you have to bet all of your money, lastly each of them pays out infinity to one. Which bet is the correct bet to make? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 07:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that P's wager was a good approach to religion; it has been roundly discredited from all angles. I was suggesting that your approach to climate change, which is akin to it, is somewhat unsatisfactory. I mean, it's workable, but at best it's a bit of a fudge.--CPalmer (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

mmmmm, fudge. 118.208.11.78 (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Let us return to the much dreaded horrible crime scene described above. The police would arrest the guy under suspicion of murder. There is sufficient evidence to support the possibility that he committed the crime, and thus arresting the guy so he doesn't run away from their jurisdiction is a good and rational move. Next up, let's go to AGW... there's sufficient evidence that the average global temperature is on average rising (it's been about 1°C since the start of the industrial revolution.) There is also compelling evidence that CO₂ has been rising in the same period. There is known evidence that CO₂ acts as a greenhouse gas. It's a known fact that higher concentrations of greenhouse gases results in higher temperatures. So, we have a guy covered in blood at a murder scene level of reasonable suspicion... thus, the wager for AGW is based in reasonable odds, and rational evaluation. NOTE: I'm not saying AGW is certainly true, I'm just saying that the evidence is compelling enough for at least reasonable suspicion, which is a level at which initial actions should be taken. (Silicone breast implants were taken off the market based on less evidence and support. They remained off the market until they were sufficiently evaluated, cleared and have now returned to market. All of your CO₂ production can return to full scale once we clear it of any fault in the warming trend. OBTW, it's really hard to tell that CO₂ isn't the cause of global warming when we keep pumping it out at the same levels. Meanwhile, if we say... stopped for a year or two, then found the temperatures still rising just as fast, we could look at the data and go, "oh... the murders are still happening even though this guy is in jail. Obviously innocent.") --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Everything from "NOTE" onwards is pretty reasonable except for 1 point - which sounds reasonable, but really isn't (BTW did anyone else see the pun above?). Stopping for a year or two is simple to say, but is actually a massive undertaking requiring pretty much the entire world to abandon industrialisation (using it or developing it) - including industrial farming of meat animals. It'll all end in tears. If we intend to let billions suffer and/or die then we need more than "reasonable suspicion" as to the cause. The fact that the counter-measures are so horrendous, we would need to be absolutely sure that they will work, and even then it would be hard to justify abandoning the one thing that could save those billions of lives: our technology. I am all for abandoning the use of coal and petroleum for fuel, but by replacing them with better alternatives rather than abandoning industrialisation (and not to reduce CO2 as the main aim; it's actually not a very effective greenhouse gas). 167.123.240.35 (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need to do this "experiment." There is a clear link between CO2 levels and climate forcing in the past. This is besides a preponderance of independent lines of evidence pointing to AGW, but that links is a good, brief overview of the historical relation between the two in the ice core records. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I readily grant that "stop CO₂ production for a year or two" is definitely a Modest Proposal. It's not something that we could actually do. I'm rather saying it would simply simply be the most definitive way to prove that CO₂ emissions aren't the problem. But much like the most definitive way to prove that a serial killer is actually killing people is to place him under surveillance and tape him doing so. Most definitive, but worst choice ever. There are some invalid arguments in your post however as well. It takes vastly more food to produce industrial meat than the equivalent nutritional benefit that could be had from growing grains and veg with the same amount of energy. First world countries also tend to consume vastly more meat than is actually necessary to sustain life. If we cut off all industrial meat production people would not starve. If we however cut off industrial grain production, we would likely lose most of the world population. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You idiots

Why argue with CPalmer? They guy is a parodist. Ace McAwesome 19:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

They're all fucking parodists... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 19:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite get the Poe. CPalmer's not a creationist, but he's also not above coming over here just to stir shit like Bradley does. I guess I appreciate that he's not such a cowardly and dishonest cunt that he has to use his red telephone from afar. But yeah, he's a fucking parodist. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

More of a contrarian than a parodist. He probably just wants someone to argue with. We've all been there. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Na, I have seen him parody Andy on aSK and have had email conversations with him also. They guy is a fake. Ace McAwesome 20:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

True, there are unquestionable instances of parody, but I don't think that means he's 100% parodist. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, he's a parodist all right. sterile squibble 04:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not this again. I will admit I got drawn into a bit of Argy-bargy up there, but I don't see what I am supposed to be parodying - it was only because everyone was so hostile to me. You know, people around here ought to be a bit more welcoming, especially to someone like me who could become an invaluable contributor. Though I suppose it's up to you if you want to fling the jelly around in your own house.--CPalmer (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to CP (the recent leaks) you're a sock of Bugler, parodist extraordinaire. Anyhow, it's always nice to meet a local. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 14:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

How can anyone be a sock of Bugler? 167.123.240.35 (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You're the second person ever to suggest that, after TK, and (if you do) the first to believe it.--CPalmer (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, troll. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we've all seen that, but I'm not actually any of those people.--CPalmer (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree, then you're a troll. If fail to treat Rats with gravitas then you're a sock. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If you post silly passive-aggressive shit like the above, you're a troll. --Kels (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

passive-aggressive - I don't think it means what you think it means. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I did get the shit part right, though. --Kels (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Another content-free allegation...--CPalmer (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, the comment itself is ample evidence. --Kels (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)