RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?/Archive3

Humanzee

I satrted an aSK page on Humanzee. No Philip has added the information that Stalin wanted to create an army of mutant humanzees. I could find no reference for that except some Creation Ministries papers. What do you say on this?--EvilFlyingMonkey 10:47, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

I say that I find it equally telling and amusing that (1) the Creation Ministries website has two articles about Stalin's Mutant Army and that (2) Philip apparently knew of this and had this information readily available to rewrite the article within one hour. --Sid 11:27, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

This is simply too funny. You're right, he must pore over CMI's droppings frequently, to keep up to date on what they're spouting. I mean, come on, this is nothing more than a silly rumor derived from some very funny, very crazy soviet-era pseudoscience. 11:48, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

OMG. Can't watch. Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 11:58, 13 April 2009 (EDT) PS I'm ending this information thing with Philip tonight, I think. I can't stand it any more. Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 11:58, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, I saw that business about Shannon information from last night (this morning?). The man simply doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. So he's not using Shannon Information. What the hell is he using? He hasn't come clean, and seems unwilling to. It certainly doesn't bear any resemblance to anything but a vague excuse for anti-science blather that doesn't actually mean anything. I can certainly understand your frustration when he won't even explain his terms. --Kels 15:06, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Also, Philip is a moron. I provided the link to show how Creatards backed off the no-beneficial-mutations positions that he claims is a straw man. The fact that it talks about information as well is what you grabbed. I really don't want to go back to that old "PJR is a liar" thing because he's repeating proven BS, but it's getting difficult what with the disingenuity he's showing in that conversation. --Kels 15:11, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

"Liar" may be pushing it, but disingenuous is no stretch. Pompous is also a good descriptor. At every stage, in every discussion, he argues from absurd analogies, cites CMI nonsense, and dodges ever defining his terms. Yet all the while, he maintains a smug more-knowledgeable-than-thou attitude. "You atheists know nothing about creationist positions!" he proclaims. Well, no wonder, given that a) they change monthly, b) never actually define what they are, and c) conflict from one creationist to the next. 15:26, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

I agree, which is why I don't want to go back there, but crap like this and this, it sometimes gets a bit hard to explain away sometimes. Disingenuous to the point passing incredulity I guess is better. I won't mince such terms on his sources, and I will quite happily call CMI, AiG, etc. liars of the most venal sort, and PJR someone quite happy to bend any fact that comes his way to make a resource for just that sort of people. --Kels 16:49, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

I think more disturbing is his lack of willingness to listen and consider and his lack of curiosity. That it's impossible determine the amount of information "in the sequence" and that crazy word analogies don't work--and that it can be mathematically proven to be so--doesn't seem to bother him. He doesn't even seem to care why and he just ignores what he doesn't understand. Then, he acts like he's an expert (which he's clearly not) and was quite condescending IMHO. Which, I suppose, does add up to disingenuous. Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 21:53, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

I get the impression that most, if not all, of the science he so authoritatively states, is not learned for its own sake but to use as "gotcha" material against so-called evolutionists. So he's not learning the basis of information theory, nor its history, nor its applications. He's learning what he's told will confound non-creationists. Which is inherently hollow, of course, and he is by necessity disingenuous in order to fit all that into some sort of semi-consistent framework, and apply it to all that he does. The people who came up with the arguments are filthy liars, of course. --Kels 22:51, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

"Disingenuous" is a good word for YECs. Oh hai everyone. My HDD went poopy, I had to reload firefox, thunderbird still ain't flying, but I am still logged-in! Anyway, yeah, they troll science for tidbits they think they can exploit, while ignoring the rest of science. ħuman 01:42, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Now see what you've done

I think you might have hit a nerve with your final post over there, Sterile. His rather rapid reply, after so many delayed ones, is a doozy. So not only are you a bad debater for not letting him define terms any which way he likes, but somehow that leads into the Bible being scientific, Creationists not getting funding (how much money does the DI have, again?), and all those evolutionists who aren't really scientists anyway are big dumb poopyheads who make fun of Creationists because they know they're wrong. Then it's a quick nip over to Creation Science (I can't type that without giggling) for a tot of the old "we're a religion, well, so is evolution! HA! The Bible is right anyway, you gunkies!". Not necessarily related, but the coincidence is there. I wonder what else Mr. Reasonable will do tonight? --Kels 23:17, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Oh for fuck's sake. Creationists use the same evidence through a different framework? Yeah, a framework where the laws of physics don't apply. I also like the "every sane scientific body on the face of the earth" = "evolutionists" change. 01:20, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

PJR has managed to sound like Ken. I guess we all expected that, once he wasn't looking like a gentleman by standing next to the utterly insane A Schlafly? Oh fuck, I have another orange box, and I haven't even made my thunderbird work again! ħuman 02:12, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

PJR's always got GODDIDIT to fall back on. That's what makes him dishonest. If he'd just stop trying to warp science & concentrate on Goddidit, he'd gain more respect^[sic]. Attempting to use god-moderated science is just stupid. _and marmite 02:17, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Yeah! Chest-thumping last-word-ism by the head of managament. ASK is so different than CP! Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 06:23, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Wow, this might as well have come directly from the keyboard of Ken

himself.  And I like Brad's peevish little reply to you, Human.  I hope you're properly chastised for actually expecting PJR to define this key concept of his. --Kels 06:34, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

I never know where to look for peevish replies, since I tend to lose track of where I've left my comments... Do you remember what page this was on? ħuman 18:26, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

I think it was this --  Nx/talk  18:31, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Yes it was, thanks. I gave PJR permission to copy over his article from CP ;) (Since most of us can't discuss it there!). ħuman 18:39, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm going to try to write an info theory page on RW, but not until next week. I'll be at an undergrad research conference this week (as the mentor of a student). Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 20:28, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Grawp/Fall Down

Very obviously not the real Grawp when I looked at his talk page. This offers some hints as to the type of troll Fall Down is. He is clearly related to either /b/ or Encyclopedia Dramatica, hangouts of sorts, for Grawp. From his edits as Grawp, it's sadly obvious that he's a newfag /b/tard or EDiot, if he is from either of those sites. DSFARGEG 09:07, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Closeted: The ASK edition

Does anyone else have to smile every time read PJR telling us about how "members" are "known to management"? Or is it just because I'm slightly drunk? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:03, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

It's just you :) ħuman 18:42, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

I'll admit that it had a bit of a Sodom and Gomorrah feel to it. --Edgerunner⁷⁶, B.A.H. 20:39, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

From PJR to me: "I've seen Toast enough at RationalWiki to justify saying that you are known to management.". Make of that what you will.

Is it a touch overquiet over there? Or is it just teh Easter thing? _and marmite 21:34, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

OOPS that was a booboo on my part: turns out I was looking at my watchlist rather than recent changes. Red Face. _and marmite 23:10, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

I think it is Easter combined with people losing interest. I must say I was planning to spend the long weekend writing some stuff here and it didn't happen, it is surprising that seem to me that wikis get more traffic weekdays then weekends (I have no evidence for that other than my own preconception). - User $\pi$ 21:40, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

People do it from work. ħuman 22:03, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

yeah I am at work right now actually. Watching these ugly brutes wander past my desk in search of the next feeding. I have written a haiku about them -

"Here comes a fatty

Spilling her lunch on the floor

Oh how I loathe her"

Ace McWicked^{bitch and moan} 22:11, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Wait, Toast gets membership and I don't? Fuck. The Emperor_{Kneel before Zod!} 22:04, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Bugger me! I hadn't realised I had Membership, Thanx Imperator. _and marmite 22:09, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Uploading pictures??? Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 22:11, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Pictures?!?!?!!!? PICTURES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Emperor_{Kneel before Zod!} 22:14, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Everyone else who joined aSK in the first two days is a member, except for me and π. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 09:03, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

Wait, you aren't a member? You have a shitload of contribs- recatting, creating redirects, wikilinkng- small, but essential stuff. I'm surprised you haven't got anything. The Emperor_{Kneel before Zod!} 21:36, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

I don't think PJR "members" people for "contribs" - he has to have some form of knowledge of them (back to the header!) as a "unique" and identified user. Like, I had to email him via ASK so he could see that I was the same person he knows and loves from CP and RW. ħuman 22:01, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

I'll have to try that. But I don't want to be a bother... Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 22:16, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, but here I'm a Senior Administrator (now with many clouts!!!1!!eleventyone!), but I still no has membership. The Emperor_{Kneel before Zod!} 22:17, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

Who are you, again? ħuman 22:33, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

I AM TK. FROM THE INTERNET. I AM SENIOR ADMINISTRATOR, WITH MANY CLOUTS. 'The Emperor_{Kneel before Zod!} 22:36, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

You're welcome, Theemperor. You're welcome. 22:40, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

It's well known the I lift things from WiGO CP. The Emperor_{Kneel before Zod!} 22:42, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

Me at ASK

Talk:God

I hate to write about myself, but I'm interested in some feedback from the RW crowd regarding my back and forth with PJR on the Talk:Faith page. This is my latest reply. I'm not sure why I am doing it. It will ultimately go nowhere. Should I just give it up? I tried to shy away from ASK in the first place, but I just seem to get sucked in. --Edgerunner⁷⁶, B.A.H. 08:27, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

Kep up the good work, I, for one, like it. _and marmite 08:40, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

As long as you remember that you're operating along the lines of irresistible force meets unshakable wall of stupidity. At the end of the day, it's what PJR thinks that will shape the article --PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:58, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

I don't know. I think PJR has some awfully strong, unwavering faith, and you are never going to break it. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 09:00, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

I don't mean to break him of his faith. I do hope that something I wrote will make PJR think a bit more and might have some influence over the article in the long run. --Edgerunner⁷⁶, B.A.H. 09:51, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

You can't break him of his faith, but you can expose how disingenuous he is willing to be. The guy is a liar. Not only to us, but most importantly to himself. Neveruse513 10:19, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

(outdent) I was rather surprised by his follow-up. Here is my reply to that. --Edgerunner⁷⁶, B.A.H. 10:46, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

The problem with that debate, which is fairly unique to aSK, is that whenever I debate religion, I do so for the lurkers. No one like PJR is going to change his mind, but someone silently reading might. However, on aSK, there are none to very few lurkers, making even that idea pointless. It's just smashing your head into a wall for fun. Z3ro^talk 11:17, 15 April 2009 (EDT) PS Oh, and why can't god just make us know that he exists, make the knowledge just present? Wouldn't override freewill, we could still reject him as a savior and a god? Or is that too easy?

Well, there are a significant minority of Christians who seem to believe that god has done just that. They're the ones that tell us that we aren't really atheists, we're just denying god so we can do whatever the hell we want. Of course, as strategies go that one comes in just below using tissue paper as a gamma ray shield. They could at least credit us with a tiny modicum of common sense. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:55, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

I think that argument would go back to the whole "why are there other religions" debate. If indigenous people knew that jesus existed, why don't at least some who've never met missionaries worship him? Z3ro^talk 11:57, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

The indiginees might have found "god", but they never heard the "good news"? ħuman 21:35, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Alleged problems in the Bible

I don't know why I keep doing it, but I started the above page with some questions. I found PJR's replies to be less than compelling and lacking in substance. I was very surprised how un-PJR-like those replies were. It seems that it is a literally close to just because as he has ever gotten. --Edgerunner⁷⁶, B.A.H. 12:06, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm half tempted to send him off on another baraminology tangent by bringing up the fact that rabbits don't chew their cud and bats aren't birds. Neveruse513 12:11, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

Also grasshoppers have six legs. Weird, huh? --Gulik 17:32, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

This isn't working.

Merge to Clogosphere?^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs}

I was just going to suggest the same thing. Very little is happening in the mainspace, and what activity there is on talk pages is just the endless PJR vs non-Christians conversation that we've seen 2^20 times already on CP.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 10:39, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

I think it's headed that way, yes. But let's not rush the move. We can always just pull this off the little WIGO menu and let it live as it is, of course (and link to it from clogs only?). ħuman 16:06, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

A new pair of essays

It looks like there's no formal Essay space at ASK yet, so I put down some thoughts on my user page here. It will be interesting to see what comments are made in response, if anyone notices. --SpinyNorman 10:46, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

I noticed, and I can tell you why St Paul's letters are in the Bible: he was the biggest influence on shaping the doctrine of the early church, to the occasional consternation of people who disagreed with him like St Peter. Jesus' teaching is at the foundation of it, but a lot of the standard interpretation of it comes from Paul. You could probably make a case that the religion should really be called 'Paulinity' - certainly the words of Paul far outnumber the words of Jesus in the NT.--CPalmer 11:36, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for the comments. You hit on exactly why the issue of the letters being part of the Bible is an issue for me. One of the things I liked about Jesus' teachings is their simplicity - I always thought of him as someone telling people to live their lives by a few simple-but-important principles that mattered, in contrast to the volumes of Mosaic laws that micromanaged life at the time. Paul reminds me of the classic, arrogant born-again Christian; he starts as an unbelieving sinner, has his personal conversion experience, but then goes about telling anyone willing to listen how they should live their lives based on his interpretation of what Jesus intended, instead of just letting Jesus' words be enough. I'm no Bible scholar, but I've always wanted to know who made the official decision that Paul's letters were to be considered part of the inerrant Bible, and why his opinions carried more weight than Peter's, who was Jesus' hand-picked successor. I get a bit cynical about these things, because like the change of Sabbath day, these are the topics where one can see politics shaping religion to the point where it has (gasp) evolved far past what the original principal players intended. When I was in college, I would picture Jesus coming back to modern times, looking at the stadium-size megachurches and the formal bureaucracy of the Roman Catholic Church, and be sorely disappointed at his messages being taken in those directions. --SpinyNorman 12:04, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Relatedly, I wrote about aSK a while back, but no-one paid any obvious attention. DinsdaleP, my two cents on your essay is (are?) that the general thrust of it seems extremely reasonable but perhaps a little wordy. Frankly I marvel that anyone considers the Bible to be genuinely the word of God; I like to contemplate what a book would be like that was actually inspired by a vastly knowledgable and benevolent extra-terrestrial entity. Fewer genealogies, I expect.--seventhrib 12:17, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Spiny: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi. Nuff said? _and marmite 12:21, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

(Inevitable editing conflict) The decision for Paul's letters to be in the Bible was made at one of the early church councils. The decision that 'the Bible' is inerrant is harder to pin down, and I don't agree with it. For one thing, the Bible contains poetry - how can a piece of poetry be 'inerrant'? It's a nonsense. I agree with your characterisation of Paul, too. It's just as true today that the people who are sure of themselves tend to make the most noise and get the most attention, while the people who see complexity and uncertainty don't find it as easy to get their message across. That applies to atheists too of course - there must be plenty of polite, tolerant atheists out there who would rather Dawkins and Hitchens weren't their media spokesmen.

There is a lot of good stuff in St Paul - I really feel like I get what he means when he talks about the slavery of sin, for example. You just have to bear in mind that it's one man's view, agree with what seems good and learn from thinking about what you don't agree with.

I believe the change of Sabbath is simply to celebrate the Resurrection. It marks a neat symbolic divide between the old way and the new - it makes the Resurrection the start of a brave new world if you like.

And finally, on the second part of your Paul question, the main reason why things like the Gospel of Thomas aren't in the Bible is that they weren't found until hundreds of years after the Bible was fixed. Having a set canon that can't be altered rather closes the door on anything else worthwhile being found or written afterwards, which is another reason why I don't like all this inerrancy business.--CPalmer 12:27, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

It's funny how short-sighted those people are. I wish they could have been there. "Biblical inerrancy starts....NOW!" Neveruse513 12:39, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Those early Christians were expecting the Second Coming imminently. When you know that it makes a lot more sense.--CPalmer 12:53, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

I wasn't talking about early Christians. Neveruse513 12:59, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

The Gospel of Thomas was a gnostic work. There was a clash of theologies in the early church between orthodoxy and gnosticism (there were smaller factions too, but those were the two big ones). This battle was fought with gospels and letters along with a fair number of forgeries, insertions and deletions from other works. The orthodoxy won and decided what was to be "The Bible" and what was not. Certainly, none of the loser's gospels were to be included - Thomas and Judas (and quite a few others) were left out. Glance at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html and http://books.google.com/books?id=PZl-VrRup64C --Shagie 14:23, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

A fair set of points/arguments, SpinyNorman. Essentially the same things millions of use have realized and argued for years or even centuries. What I've come to realize is just how spectacularly closed-minded your YECers are. There's a reason an overwhelming majority of Christian/theist scientists don't give YEC a minute's notice. There's a reason an overwhelming majority of theologians and Biblical scholars reject it out of hand. But your Andys and PJRs live in an incredibly narrow world where their "biblical worldview" is inerrant. And they are so arrogant as to suggest that THEIR worldview is the "biblical" one. They don't care about evidence, reason, debate, logic, or the rest. They completely ignore the rich history of theology and Christian philosophy which exists (except when they want to name drop CS Lewis or Newton), and are thus intellectually bankrupt. They have the exact same characteristics as your typical conspiracy theorists and woo-believers. A lack of curiosity about history and the natural world, an unwavering belief that they're right and their theories should be addressed on equal footing, and a conviction that the system is out to "supress" them. If these were logical people, we could talk to them. But, if they were logical, they wouldn't be YEC in the first place. 13:08, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

To be fair, inerrancy in the Bible is pretty much a born again stance. The official position of The Church (Catholics) is that the Bible should not be taken 100% literally. Though a good number of PJR's ilk don't view them as real christians anymore. Which is rather funny considering they are the ones that put the modern bible together in the first place.--ScottA 17:20, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

The modern Bible has liberal bias! --Sid 19:31, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

(undent)

Thanks for the comments, all. I definitely get too wordy when I'm on a roll, and if they ever set up an Essay space there I'll relocate it and encourage people to slice away until it's neat and focused. --SpinyNorman 20:55, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Problem Corner

Does anyone really know why they (creats) try to warp science ? Why don't they just say "Goddidit so up yours, Heathen". They know they'll fall back on that in the end, so why not do it right from the start? 'signed: Baffled of Worksop _and marmite 19:24, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

1) Because they believe, beforehand, that science is on their side, and the overwhelming majority of them are scientifically illiterate. 2) Because they can't get goddidit taught as science (see Wedge strategy) without making it "science." 19:27, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

Creatards think all of reality is on their side, and they've got a lot emotionally invested in that so backing away isn't an issue. The other part is the people who push them back the hardest are the people who actually do have science on their side, and Schlafly-esque, there's the need to beat the critics on their own ground. Especially since the pro-science community is on firm ground where theirs...well, isn't. --Kels 19:38, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

Plus, science obviously works. It's tough to deny science when you'd die without surgery, or the very computer you're using to connect to the internet. So since science obviously works, they can't deny it totally, so they just try to deny the parts they don't like. Z3ro^talk 11:40, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Andy, PJR, I, and the rest of that gang all agree on one thing. I do not believe that you can be anything other than all-in when it comes to YEC and the whole lot to be a Christian. Biblical creation needs to be literally true. It is the foundation and everything (New Testament especially) comes crashing down if it is not. Original Sin is what has to be considered here. That is to what your thoughts have to go. Without that, everything that Jesus did, from a theological standpoint, is meaningless. That is why they cannot stop fighting this and why they cannot compromise. They could just say - "Goddidit" -, but they realize that is not a very compelling argument. That is why we find ourselves where we do. --Edgerunner⁷⁶, B.A.H. 21:03, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Surely there is a way around that? OS doesn't have to be based on the GOE, does it? How about God gave one of the results of his creation (humanzees) "free will", and what comes with free will is fallibility? Then She realized, after a few k years (or 100k years) Her mistake, and made an Earth baby to sort things out? All I can say is, given the lack of communication across all the world's peoples, etc., She is a bit of a fuck up. Was it Heinlein's Story of Job that played with the idea of "our" God being an adolescent... hell, picture if we were an incredibly potent species, what crap CUR would muck up in his room when his mummy wasn't watching? ħuman 21:14, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Hey, you can get around anything. I figure it is like a comic book retcon. The problem is that we have the book (the Bible) that we've got. This is the problem with infinities. The all-knowing, all-powerful deity's book has to be completely right. Completely wrong does not exist. If it is completely wrong then it fundamentally changes that sentence because there is no all-knowing, all-powerful deity. I liken it to divide by zero in mathematics.

To me, there can be no middle ground. I feel that the Bible is the best evidence against the Bible. It's the Word of (an all-knowing, all-powerful) God, so shouldn't it read like stereo instructions? --Edgerunner⁷⁶, B.A.H. 21:28, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Er, only if She is Japanese? (this is getting weird...) ħuman 22:34, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

The best rebuttal I've heard to the "Inerrancy" bugaboo I've heard is this: "Humans wrote the Bible, God created the universe. Which one do you want to believe first?" --Gulik 22:34, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

"Believe"? I try not to. Humans wrote the bible, and who is that woman behind the screen? Smoke and mirrors. Checking out the link below in 5-4-3-2- ħuman 23:09, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

And here's my favorite evangelical Christian, Slacktivist, explaining his beef with the 'literalists'. --Gulik 22:43, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure Phil commented in that thread somewhere. I'd look for it, but Slacktivist threads are so hard to sift through. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 00:50, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Yep--Page 3 and onward. He flamed out pretty quick, though. --Gulik 01:37, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Potential wigo

Someone might want to play with this one... Philip J. Rayment says it's ok to interpret the Bible in other than literal ways, where he says it's ok to do so. ħuman 21:24, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

I see you are on the fast track to the big time at aSK, I'm thinking in a few weeks they'll shit their pants when one of their Preferred Member Card Holders is discovered running an aSK soap opera digest right here on the ol' RW. Mega 21:47, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

Well, PJR knows who I am - and that means knowing at least something about what I do here. But he also knows that I edited "with restraint" at CP, and I keep my disputationals to the talk pages at ASK. Wait, did I get promoted? Last I knew I only had a regular "Member Card". ħuman 21:55, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

Philip's been running with that one for a while, claiming that there are obvious signs in the language or context or something to tell you which bits are TRUE FACT and which parts you can sort of brush off as allegory. Apparently this coincides with things they get criticized over, like the sun standing still in the sky and the whole drug trip of Relevations. --Kels 09:41, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, that was a shocker. Someone asked him for an annotated edition of the Bible with the Truth and the Fiction marked off properly. You know, the one he uses. Also, has anyone noticed the tremendous amount of "argument by analogy" he (and Schlafly, and most other YECs) uses? On the info theory debate, Sterile, I think, is talking straight "science", while PJR talks about cars and sentences at length. It's like the whole fabric of ID (pun intended) is woven from finding a watch on the beach. ħuman 15:02, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

They have a conclusion ("Therefore, the Book of Genesis is LITERAL HISTORICAL FACT"), and they're trying to work backwards from that to the data they have. It's not easy, and they have to use every tool they've got. --Gulik 19:39, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Man, Phil's being a smug little shit on the Alleged problems page, isn't he? I'm pretty sure "Because I said so" doesn't make asking for an explanation a fallacy. Is this PJR's "2+2" moment? --Kels 01:58, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

Oh cripes, and his so-called "evidence" that nobody seriously disagrees on the literalism point is a quote pulled from a letter which re-appeared in somebody else's book. Is this supposed to be a joke? --Kels 02:00, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

YEC shits labour under the assumption that a single quote from some random individual counts as proof, especially if they have a PhD. Of course, this only applies if it backs up their views. Ten thousands quotes against them are a conspiracy. See the evolution talk page, in which PJR mined and misrepresented a single quote from Michael Ruse to discount all of his actual scholarship, as well as every other bit of Darwin scholarship around. 02:28, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

Philip is getting weak when I feel comfortable arguing Bible story crap with him on random pages you trolls link me to. Because, normally, I just don't care enough. But I know (little) enough to be able to rearrange sentences in order to argue against them. ħuman 02:31, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

Ow, my forehead hurts and has ASDFJKL;ASDFJKL; permanently inscribed upon it. Philip told me I was wrong, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! ħuman 02:42, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

That is one impressively wide forehead you have there, Mr Human Sir. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:34, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

You got a few keys missing. Just as well your sig is a template.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 04:48, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

Oh, I rather like this one. "On the contrary, I believe that creation does appear younger than 13 billion years." says the Philip. No you don't, Philip, because you haven't looked at it. You don't know what any of this stuff appears, you just know what you're fed by people with a vested interest of making it all fit neatly into 6,000 years, and don't care who they have to bullshit to do it. A few quotes don't save you from actually looking at what's there. --Kels 11:38, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

• yaaaaawwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnn* aSK. Infuriating dopes, but hardly the kind of dastardly fucktarded shiteating knobs as CP for all of its dangerous propoganda. Apologies to the coprophages. I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that watching any of these assholes do their thing is as dangerous as skipping work to masturbate and get drunk. It's just hopelessly unprofitable. I need therapy. Thee Nuttish ^Talk 00:04, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

I find getting drunk at work highly profitable, I've done some of my best work slightly pissed. Admittedly, I don't think I've ever done any work while masturbating, but it's an intriguing possibility that I may have to try and work in to my schedule. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:03, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Kommander Ken

I must say, even though I'm used to him from CP, that whole business about the Criticism of Faith article is a bit harsh even for him. Not only does he want the article immediately killed, but he wants the offending author punished. Clearly, CP has been a bad influence on him. --Kels 00:05, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

To be fair, I find his "Kill the infidels!" rants more amusing than his "Gentlemen, something big may or may not be happening at a major site within the next four months!" shout-outs. --Sid 07:29, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Heh, looking back at PJR's talk page archive, I only now noticed that Ken - whenever he wasn't implicitly calling for a Night of the Blunt Knives - pulled the exact same stunt on aSK as on CP: "when are you going to make me a senior editor, so i can edit the main page?" and "As far as being promoted in rank, I mainly wanted to be promoted to be able to edit locked pages." Smooth, Ken. Smooth. --Sid 07:39, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Where's the fun in editing the evolution, homosexuality and atheism pages if pesky liberals can come along and insert facts? He has to be able to lock stuff, or it ruins his MO. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:48, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

The offending author of the "cricitism of faith" article prior to its complete rewrite has quit ASK permanently, it's just not worth it. Mega 14:44, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

That makes two Wikis I have inadvertently forced you off of. In the future I must check to make sure you have not edited an article before I edit it. ListenerX^TalkerX 15:01, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

"Well, you are not the only wikis in the sea, are you?" Mega said, folding her hands in a parody of despair. Mega 23:40, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

A Biblical Worldview now apparently means censoring all criticism

- - The wonderful LowKey tells us the Bible couldn't possibly be wrong about where Jesus was born. I mean, that whole census story that doesn't make a lick of sense (everyone must return to their "cultural" birthplace? Insanity. Ordering it would be a recipe for rebellion even now, not to mention in such an uppity province of the Roman empire) must be true, 'cos the Bible says it. I guess this bit of denial is pretty important to them, since if one prophecy has been retrofitted to Jesus, how many others were too? Also, I guess in fundie reality if Jesus fails on prophecy, he isn't the messiah, he's a very naughty boy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:12, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

I like the version of the story where the donkey is on cocaine Bondurant 04:42, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Plus the fact that they can't seem to grasp that "Jesus (or Jeshua ben Jospheus to use his proper name) the Nazareen" is not the same as "Jesus of Nazareth". Also, if Jesus is the Son of God, then why print a whole chronology linking him to the House of David, via Joseph? Which is he? From God, or the House of David? Faith is one thing, intsh'Allah, but blind stupidity to common sense is another. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 05:52, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Well, you've got really big trouble if in your culture inheritance and bloodlines are a purely patrilinear game, and you have to fulfil both the prophecy that your messiah will be born in to the house of David and that he'll be born of a virgin. These days, I suppose we're getting to the point where he could be born of a virgin man, ala Ahnuld. In those days, I guess they did the best they could with the bullshit and fudging available to them. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:41, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Also, that Joseph had two daddies who might well have been cousins of a sort suggests something delightfully outré. Maybe god wasn't so down on gay marriage as the fundies think? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:00, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Wasn't Mary also from the house of David? FernoKlump ^{What the fuck Mr. Assfly??? That bastard DeanS deleted my petition!} 09:49, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

I believe there's no inheritance from a matriarchal lineage in Judaism (hence all teh Jewz). Neveruse513 10:06, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Well, the traditional get out for the two different genealogies is that the one in Luke doesn't refer to Joseph, but to Mary. There's some weird thing about inheritance and only having a single female child, so they have to jump through hoops to prove Mary didn't have any brothers as well. Anyway, this involves an extremely tortured reading of the original Greek, which kind of ruins the whole idea that the Bible is the immutable word o' god since that means the Latin Vulgate and every single English translation is therefore wrong. It also involves an extremely tortured transmutation to Mary's father's original name from from Joachim to Heli. Kind of the equivalent of seeing someone called a penis, and inferring their name is actually Richard. To me it all seems thoroughly unconvincing, but I guess it gets the faithful through the night. Occam's razor tends to suggest that Luke just wrote any old crap, he certainly doesn't seem shy about making stuff up. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:09, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Wait, I just thought of another thing. The whole Mary and the assumption thing. As I recall, the idea is that she was sinless when she gave birth to Jesus, and remained so her entire life. That's why she couldn't die, she had to be assumed bodily in to heaven. Don't they also extrapolate it the other way, that she couldn't have been born with original sin, which apparently also inherited through the male line. Therefore she was born of a virgin herself. I'll have to go google this to see if I'm not talking out of my arse, but I seem to remember that's the screwy catholic dogma. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:18, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Philip doesn't believe in all that though, does he?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 10:32, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Phil's shown himself to have a very ad-hoc system of beliefs. He'll believe this if he has to...I just don't know it he's had to yet. Neveruse513 10:34, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Under what circumstances would he have to believe in the Assumption of the Virgin? Other than converting to Catholicism.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 11:10, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

I was talking more about the bastardization of jewish laws, but I think you could beat him into accepting certain Catholic doctrines if he didn't know what else to do. Neveruse513 11:17, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

(EC) Bah, apparently I am talking out of my arse on the whole Mary born of a virgin thing. Most Catholics seem to think Mary was cleansed of original sin by a special one time miracle, which makes me wonder why if god can do it for one why the hell can't he do it for all? I was sure I read the whole virgin birth thing somewhere.

Honestly, I don't know whether to respect Catholics or protestants more. Catholics have an authorised exegesis which tends to mean that someone, somewhere at some time has actually noticed these screwy things in the Bible and thought about them. Of course, this means that they have to come up with explanations for them, which leads to Catholics believing some very strange shit indeed. Protestants have no such authority to rely on, which in theory means they're free to think independently on the subject, but as with PJR in practice what it means is that they don't think about it at all and have to come up with ad hoc bullshit when challenged. My favourite thing to do is ask protestants where foetuses go when they die. It's a catch 22, if they go to hell then god is an immoral prick and not worthy of worship, if they go to heaven then that means that being an abortion doctor is about the closest you can come to emulating Jesus as a human, since you're sacrificing your own immortal soul such that the babies might live. I do like the look on fundies faces when you tell them that abortionists are like Jesus. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:22, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

(unindent) Jeeves, you hit the nail on the head: they don't think. Most religious people I know (I'm generalizing here of course) don't think about any of these quirky little mistakes. They just accept whatever the preacher says and then move on. When I bring up these type of bible error questions, or some of the philosophical questions about god (the problem of evil and stuff like that) 95% of the time, I get blank looks and some rambling BS about faith. I get frustrated sometimes because the people who should be able to give me good answers are the least likely to know anything. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 12:37, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

This is so often the case. The best discussions/debates I've had about religion and theology have been with the least religious people I know. Your average zealot has never thought about his beliefs for two sustained minutes and has incredibly weak responses to important questions. 13:06, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

WTF - "Generalising about religious people"? What happened to AKjeldsen? I haven't seen him round here in ages. Somehow I missed his retirement while I was roaming the Asiatic steppes. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:25, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Help a (reverend) brother out

Poor PJR doesn't seem to have read anything not published by Creation Ministries International. This seems wrong somehow. I think we ought to have a whip round, each chuck a fiver in the hat or something and send him some popular science books. A brief history of time, or Bill Bryson's a short history of nearly everything. Friends don't let friends do creation science. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:37, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Add to that some respectable histories of science, The Voyage of the Beagle, and a few classics (because fundies always seem so poorly-read) 13:42, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

I went through a spate where I sent Christians on the edge books like "Breaking the Spell" and "The God Delusion". One time it worked.

I don't know what I'd send Phil, though. He really needs a complete science education that I don't think he could give himself. He needs to go back to school. Neveruse513 13:44, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Unfortunately, when fundamentalists get educated they get even more annoying, like Fred Phelps (most brilliant student ever to pass through Washburn Law, according to some of his professors there). ListenerX^TalkerX 13:49, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Boy, I'd sure like to get some of Assfly's pedagogues on the horn... Neveruse513 13:52, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Oh, and on a semi-related note. The other day I discovered these guys. They do reprints of old manuscripts in PDF and bound form, that otherwise you'd have to go searching in obscure libraries to find. They're fantastic. I've been spending all my money on this stuff. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:03, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

I think Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World would be good, and I already offered Carl Zimmer's popular press book on evolution. glad to contribute. Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 15:23, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

How about Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) The guy was on Colbert last week and made some great points. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 16:14, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Ehrman? Yeah, he's awesome...so angry, too. He studied this crap his whole life and then figured out it was bunk...no wonder he's bitter. Neveruse513 16:30, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

I've ordered the book, but it hasn't arrived, but I've seen him do a few tv spots and he's never come off as bitter or angry.... He always seemed like he finally figured something out and is trying to help others... Of course, that's what the devil would do..... SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 17:30, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Bart's good. I've got him in my closet. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:50, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Teh obvious gift would be an elementary geology book. Arsefly once explained geological folds because the layers were wet after the flood ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.23.209.253 / talk / contribs}

Perhaps The Big-Little Book of Evolution? Although even that might be above his grade level. --Kels 23:46, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

About PJR's ignorance of evolution and genetics

human: See whether you can get PJR to explain how, if evolution is all about increases in information, he would explain this:

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/02_01/Sizing_genomes.shtml

or this:

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/publicat/tko/06_img.html

or this:

http://www.imperial.ac.uk/P3509.htm

Unless he wants to argue that rice is more complex than humans, or that an amoeba is more advanced than a human, or that humans and mice are nearly the same design, his argument falls flat. --Irrational Atheist 02:17, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Gee, thanks, but why me? Are you too timid to dip your toe in the creationist pond? (I'll see what I can do tomorrow) ħuman 02:27, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

That's not really new; we've known that plants do enormous genomes and polyploidy and stuff for ages. And given that PJR &al. say that complexity or information isn't about size (it's some mystical property, basically), they'll just ignore this too. Pseudomonas 08:25, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Yeah I argued that with him on CP a while ago. His response was basically that the Genomes wern't really more complex, it was just the same "information" over and over again to make the size larger.--ScottA 10:45, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

What it all boils down to is some creat somewhere once read something equating information with negative entropy. As entropy is increasing with time it follows that information is decreasing. Therefore no increase in information can ever occur. As evolution must involve increasing information it can't happen! Localised variations in entropy/information not allowed for. Definitions of information never specified. and anyhow Goddidit! _and marmite 10:57, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

The mouse genome comparison should get a confused answer from PJR. I mean, how can a creator have so many of the same genes, about 90%, between humans and mice, but mixed up? --Irrational Atheist 11:00, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Cripes Philip, what did science ever do to you? So we've got a refusal to pin down a definition (again), a complete dismissal of Shannon with no reasoning given (what's wrong with it?), runaway analogies in place of actual facts, and a Shlafly-esque condescending tone overall. I feel bad for science, with that sort of rough treatment. --Kels 18:27, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Wow, PJR must realize that he's getting hammered by people smarter than him, and he has no Bible verse to quote. By his definition, everything in the world that we can interpret is information, and thus there can't be an increase on "everything." But then what would a decrease in information be, since, by his definition, no information is ever lost, just interpreted differently? And why is he flaking out about how nothing can happen until everyone agrees with his definition of information, where he only gives a vague one about everything in the world we interpret? --Irrational Atheist 19:42, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

This is the face of scientific ignorance - argument from nonscientific definitions amidst arbitrary denial. "Information can't increase!" It can get longer--- "No! Length is not the measure." It can be duplicated--- "No! That's the same information!" It can be spliced into completely new--- "No! That's still the same information." It can mutate--- "No! Mutations lose info. I'll prove it! Cat->Cxt! Cxt is gibberish!" The information density--- "I don't like Shannon. It's a girl's name!" So what is information? "I told you!" Alrighty, PJR, alrighty. 20:22, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

I think maybe science ran over his dog once, and now he holds a grudge. --Kels 20:56, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Actually, it's worse than that. It's a lack of critical thinking, something certainly encouraged by science, but also by all disciplines as well. Definition is one of the lowest levels of critical thinking. Defending an assertion such as "mutation is the loss of information" is a much higher level. Using appropriate analogies or examples with relevance is a good way to argue, but it's clear that if your analogies are shown to be irrelevant, then you need new analogies. Sticking to one meaning for a term is also important. Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 21:16, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Am I mistaken, or did he just pull an Andy here? "My dictionary doesn't mention Shannon, therefore I can disregard him without further comment." Also the shifting of gears and claiming he wasn't talking about "genetic information" in an article about genetic mutation. --Kels 23:09, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Anti-science people hate science, and just want science to coincide with whatever they believe. And defining things becomes too much of a burden for them. How dare smart people who understand and accept science try to get PJR to be scientific about science? That's not how he rolls! --Irrational Atheist 01:23, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

I remember (vaguely) a Philosophy of Language course I tooked in teh Kolledge. Every damn word meant something incredibly specific. It almost asploded my brain "learning the language" of the science that PoL was becoming. I got the only "A". Philip fails at all but attendance. ħuman 01:26, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Kels, I think that instead science ran over his dogma, and now he holds a grudge. *Ba-boom tish* --GTac 05:53, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

The first month at aSoK: Two pics and a table

daily edits

daily editors

Date	Mar 21	Mar 22	Mar 23	Mar 24	Mar 25	Mar 26	Mar 27	Mar 28	Mar 29	Mar 30	Mar 31	Apr 1	Apr 2	Apr 3	Apr 4	Apr 5	Apr 6	Apr 7	Apr 8	Apr 9	Apr 10	Apr 11	Apr 12	Apr 13	Apr 14	Apr 15	Apr 16	Apr 17	Apr 18	Apr 19	Apr 20	Apr 21
Accounts Created	4	1	2	0	79	35	18	5	8	6	3	2	3	2	4	0	1	2	0	0	3	2	5	0	1	0	0	0	1	2	0	1
Posts per Day	65	92	69	67	1403	1451	1022	831	868	639	589	464	380	366	240	241	221	253	224	208	187	190	494	195	179	220	102	183	341	166	252	186
Individual Editors per Day	4	5	5	5	76	86	65	46	52	52	51	46	40	39	33	20	30	30	26	22	16	19	23	19	26	25	22	17	20	24	32	26

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:33, 17 April 2009 (EDT) up-dated: larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 04:10, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

This Site Is Fossilizing Rapidly? --Gulik 17:34, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

Poor PJR, not even popular enough to warrant his own night of the blunt knives. Maybe would should wandalise just to keep his edit count up. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:59, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

I'd love to see what percentage of those edits are RWians. 19:28, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

Everything that's not PJR and LowKey, I'd guess. --Gulik 13:38, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Kan we haz brakedoun talk vs. artikal editz? ħuman 21:09, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

A brakedown is included in the pic - but as PJR hasn't given us API, the numbers are to be taken with a grain of salt: I used the same rough rule of thumb to differ between main-space entries and all the others as Jtl when he made the first stats. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 04:10, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Coffee break puzzle

Philip has set a fun word puzzle. Any takers?

I suggest trap big animal paws now.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:02, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

I see no point in humouring him. Notice he's careful to limit the number of mutations you can apply. Any idiot can see you can increase the amount of "information" conveyed if you can apply any number of duplications or point mutations. I'm not sure he even realises how stupid he comes across at this point. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:17, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

(EC, you cad!)My immediate thought was "trap six animal paws now", although it's obviously Phil trying to play some stupid rhetorical game by claiming that since you can use language as an analogy for genetics, genetics must be exactly like language, and English to be precise.

On a related topic (information, as usual), I like how on the same page he says that less specific means less information, and of course that there cannot be more information (unless we use our delicious brains, presumably). But then he turns around and says that animals have MORE specificity than in the days of the Flood. So he skewers his own argument, lovely! --Kels 09:19, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

I don't know if he skewers his own argument, per se...he's trying to win by crafting his definitions. Less specific means less information, but more specific does not mean more information. In fact, noting means more information because there cannot be an increase in information! Neveruse513 09:59, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Changing two letters and adding two (identical) characters: Crap! Big animal jaws! Cantabrigian 09:22, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Excellent - may use as a model!-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 10:08, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Is there a working, formal definition for "increase in information" by now? If not, then how is such a challenge even possible? --Sid 11:22, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

He claims that it's as obvious as...as obvious as 2+2=4, I suppose. But it seems only obvious to him. although Brad seems willing to accept Philip's bald assertions at face value, no need for further explanation (or any, in fact). --Kels 11:26, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Don't humour him. As Sterile points out again, word games have absolutely no application to genetics. This is nothing more than stupid bullshit. 12:09, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Perhaps some of our brave Information Warriors could try to take a stab at Information theory, which I just created. You folks are much more versed in it than I am, and it seems like there's been a lot of larnin' goin' on in order to keep up with Philip's dodgy definitions. --Kels 12:38, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

A wan baptismal prig. A papal swarm biting. Swig it, papal barman. Thee Nuttish ^Talk 14:46, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

I am so sick of Philip comparing genetics to sentences. He forgets so much - that, a the simplest level at least, genetics has only four "letters" (sorry, he did mention that, although he brushes off the huge difference between powers of 3 and of 25). Also, that DNA has chemical constraints on what can be "changed". Oh, and I like "she has a red colored car" - duplication and insertion. "she has a colored man" - two substitutions. ħuman 15:02, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

"Trap ping animal paws" - 2 subs, one insert, ignore space. "slap big animal paws" "trap by animal paws" "trap big animal, pause" ħuman 15:09, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

I think Philip's ignoring me. Of course, he's now getting information questions from all sides at four (five?) different pages... Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 17:25, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

He's trying to combine the popular (dictionary) definition with a scientific one, picking & choosing the parts of each to fit his requirements. He's a waste of space. _and marmite 17:30, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

The game will be stupid until he states the rules. I have no idea what "information" means and neither does he. It's definitely not what he say it is. "A wan baptismal prig" has more "information" and is funnier than the original phrase. I win. QED. Thee Nuttish ^Talk 17:45, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Philip's definitely feeling cornered. Obviously, since he believes whatever CMI tells him with only enough justification to argue in a convincing-sounding way, there's no actual understanding there. But he thinks it's all obvious and needs no explanation. So he thinks something like this should clear it all up. Of course all it does is open him up to more questioning, which will not make him happy. But for all of it, he's not a waste of space. He's a fantastic bad example, and if we're at all smart we should be using his ad hoc justifications of "Creation Science to bolster our own articles on the subject, right? --Kels 18:07, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

001010010110110010010000000000000001110000000111111111111010100100000011 ħuman 19:45, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Sid Meier

I was playing Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri earlier today, and got an enormous laugh from some of the tech quotes, which apply so nicely to these information conversations:

"The genetic code does not, and cannot, specify the nature and position of every capillary in the body or every neuron in the brain. What it can do is describe the underlying fractal pattern which creates them."

"Remember, genes are not blueprints. This means you can't, for example, insert "the genes for an elephant's trunk" into a giraffe and get a giraffe with a trunk. There -are- no genes for trunks. What you can do with genes is chemistry, since DNA codes for chemicals. For instance, we can in theory splice the native plants' talent for nitrogen fixation into a terran plant."

- Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "Nonlinear Genetics"

If PJR insists on citing dictionaries, I will cite video games. 19:52, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

All Your Base Pair Are Belong To Us Mega 21:51, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Hehe Mega. Nice hit Publius, I'm still trying to think of a way to succinctly point out that DNA has nothing in common with language to those dolts. The above quotes come very close to getting what I want to say correctly. ħuman 22:57, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

I always feel more into a world when there is an in-game encyclopedia. That is part of the reason I liked Star Ocean 3 so much.--Nate River 03:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

One reason I liked Shadowrun so much was there was such a lot of backstory and incidental stuff to the world. Not just in the novels, but little quotes in the sourcebooks and that sort of thing helped it come alive for me. --Kels 03:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Test is over, and YOU ALL FAIL...

...because the goalpost was moved INTO FUCKING SPACE.

Really, I just lost 90% of any respect I ever had for Philip, and he now even ranks slightly lower than Andy "Beauty of fall leaves disproves evolution!" Schlafly on my respect scale. It's not even that he designed a test that is practically impossible to pass ("Modify this phrase according to my arbitrary rules so that it contains more Information^TM and isn't gibberish when read from left to right and from right to left."). It's not even that he intentionally didn't explain the rules. No, it's the absolutely idiotic Schlafly Smugness with which he shows how he created an impossible test and then was too much of a coward to give people a fair chance. The arrogance with which he writes a bold-face "Fail" next to all submissions because they didn't fulfill the Secret Rule. And finally, the magic moment where he announces that this somehow proves his case.

Congratulations, Philip, you just made me lose my last willingness to consider Creationism as even a remote possibility to explain anything. You pushed me over the edge. I now join the opinion of most others here when it comes to any Creationist claim: "Assume it's a deliberate lie until there is a very good scientific argument in favor of it - which will likely never come because in the end, it all grinds down to God Did It Because The Bible Said So." --Sid 21:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, goat, that made me angry. Educated evil Phantom Hoover! 21:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Information^TM it is... Neveruse513 21:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur. I really thought Phil was different, but this weird "gotcha" test, which even he didn't pass with the original phrase, has made me lose all respect for him. Apparently, he'll do anything to win. I thought he was above the "lying for Jesus" types, but I was wrong. It's a lie by omission, but a lie nonetheless. Wow.--Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 21:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's one smug prick all right. I suggest punishing him by withdrawing from his stupid wiki and letting him go down to a half dozen edits a day. An official aSoK boycott? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in. This has gone beyond sad ignorance to proud, smug ignorance and douchebaggery. This "test" makes no sense on any level, yet is clear proof that the evolutionist paradigm is wrong! Philip clearly knows little to nothing about biology, genetics, information theory, geology, cosmology, archaeology, physics, history, theology, and Biblical scholarship beyond what tidbits he's stolen from creationist drivel, and has no interest in improving his knowledge. And I'm with Sid. Ignoring any argument with any connection to a Meyer, Behe, Dembski, or the ICR isn't just reasonable, it's damned near necessary to maintain sanity. 21:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

General suggestion: Any serious boycott suggestion should maybe get a dedicated section so that people notice it more clearly in the RC and at a glance on this page. --Sid 22:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm in all right, that edit to the Baal page sort of broke any tolerance I had for him. Who wants to deliver the message? Do you think that this will trigger a Night of the Sharp Spoons? -- 22:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Good thing that I vented up there. Now I'm all Zen while reading Philip's various "Nuh-uh!" replies. :) --Sid 02:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It is really fascinating to watch his justification of the whole thing, utterly convinced that he's not only right but it should be obvious that he's right. He has no idea why all of you are objecting, other than "peer pressure" or something. --Kels 02:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he should get Ken involved

Seriously, where do you even start with this? The conflating of pre-Darwin biology with current? The quote mines? The straw men? The conspiracy theory or persecution complex? There's so much in just that one edit. --Kels 10:54, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Gentleman Kels, when will you realise that the only science book required is the Bible. Shame on you. _and marmite 11:02, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Wait, I thought Phil was fond of saying it's not a science text, but a history book. I'm so confused! --Kels 11:04, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

"various scientists claim that biology cannot be done without science"[1]

"Biology is the scientific study of life." [2]

Now scientists are claiming that scientific study cannot be done without science? Amazing! --Just passing by 11:11, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

I noticed that. So what does he recommend as a good alternative to science? Magic? Wishful thinking? Oh, wait... --Kels 11:23, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

"God Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It" Mega 21:48, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

An official aSoK boycott?

I propose we have an official boycott of aSoK due to PJR being an insufferably smug git. No editing or aSoK related lulz of any sort for a period of one week running from 00:01 on Monday 27th through to the same time on the 4th. Since aSoK consists almost entirely of little Dutch boy PJR sticking his finger in the leaking dike of deliberate ignorance, it ought to be amusing what this does to his edit counts.

23

Should we boycott aSoK for a week?

Votes and comments welcome. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

But that would mean no Ken poking... No making PJR squirm... No Broccoli 23:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Given our relationship with aSK is way different from that of CP, I'd say just make it a break from editing the place but keep mocking and deriding the anti-science that comes up from over here.

Since there aren't a lot of socks or parodists involved, it'll make more of an impact. --Kels 23:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been girlcotting aSK for a while now already. For a week I was doing about 80% of the new articles there. Mega 23:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in. I always likes me a boycott, and Kels is on board, so I can be too! ħuman 00:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

PS, isn't Asok the intern on Dilbert? ħuman 00:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Only thing that really bothers me is that a lot of what our folks do over there is challenge the anti-science, so we're "punishing" Philip by letting him and Brad off scott free for a week. I'm not sure he'd particularly mind. But it is worth discussing. --Kels 01:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

A week off from getting double-zointed by that confused and convoluted zointer? Sounds rather nice to me. ħuman 01:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Kels makes an interesting argument, and I think it pretty much grinds down to "Lulz vs. Principle". On the one hand, it is unintuitive to suddenly "retreat" from an anti-science site. On the other hand, PJRpedia hasn't really caused any sort of blip on anybody's radar (or has it?), so it doesn't really qualify as much more than just a debating site with an attached mainspace. From that POV, suddenly withdrawing for a week should make for an amusing moment where Philip suddenly is King Nothing: How many non-RW editors are actually active there? Three? Four?

Another possible angle: Letting Philip work in peace for a week (without having to actually, you know justify his bullshit on the talk pages) should give us TONS of actual anti-science targets to tear apart and/or mock after the boycott, which might be more rewarding than only having this whole "information" issue to pick on.

My personal opinion: All for it, if just to see what happens. I've been pretty much inactive since PJR insisted on playing the Persecution Card in the c-decay issue, though, so it wouldn't be that much of a difference for me personally. --Sid 01:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, we're only going to boycott "editing" - not visiting, laughing, and WIGOing. ħuman 01:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well Sid, you've sold me, even though I don't edit there. Just I'm losing a source of lulz on the same day that I finish school and have some actual free time, dangit. --Kels 01:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The possible lulz seem limited on ASK anyway, its the combination of Andy's ego, his politburo of thought police, and the bigger net footprint that makes trolling CP so dang fun. I count two new mainspace stubs created in the last 24 hours over there at ASK Mega 01:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in.... It's gotten really bad over there. Fail, fail, fail! Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 02:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I can take a week off. It'll give Phil a chance to do some research, and come up with good, solid logical responses to our arguments. (I said it'll give him a CHANCE. I didn't say I think he'll TAKE it.) --Gulik 07:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

So, that seems like a reasonable quorum in support and no terribly serious dissent. I'm going to consider this motion approved. There will be a week long editing boycott of aSoK beginning on Monday. Unlike CP boycotts though, you're still allowed to WIGO things in case aSoK's two editors come up with some lulzy things on their own. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha! ha! and with Asok, Human has removed any lingering chance there might have been of me taking SK even vaguely seriously (thank you Sir, here, have a goat). Favourite Asok moment ever: Alice, "Today Asok learns that real life is not like a Star Trek episode." Oh, and PJR is now indelibly burnt into my brain as the Pointy Haired Boss. PS Second (already passed) boycott motion. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

TK is obviously Catbert, so who's Andy? Phil, Prince of Insufficient Light? --Gulik 00:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Desperation?

It almost seems like Philip has realized the boycott is coming, so he wants to get as much crazy in as he can beforehand. We've got evolution as religion/conspiracy/peer pressure as if scientists are all 14 years old and likely to "go along to get along", we've got quote mining, we've got "melodies are not information", and even MOAR HITLER!!!!!111!!! Is he trying to tempt us into staying, or what? --Kels 14:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Melodies are not information? They don't carry meaning? OMG I'm so glad that shift of analogy occurred to me... ħuman 16:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"Universal language" my ass! --Kels 17:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What's worse is that PJR thinks he has slaughtered the bull of evolution on the internets because of his silly language analogy. You can't "disprove by analogy", they are just useful for "explaining things by simplifying" - sometimes. ħuman 17:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

He has managed to flambee the hamburger of using language as an analogy for genetics, by thoroughly proving its shortcomings. --Kels 17:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... as an analogy it's kind of OK to introduce 3rd or 4th graders to "how DNA works", but he thinks it is exactly how DNA works, so if he can "refute" the analogy, the idea that the analogy is used to explain to ten year olds is disproven, QED. You know, the whole argument by analogy thing is one thing he has in common with Aschfly - Andy can't get through two talk page comments with drawing some weirdass analogy that supposedly completely proves his point. ħuman 17:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

From link 1 above... "Apart from the fact that a Christian basis is necessary for science (e.g. the basis that the universe is consistent and able to be studied; not philosophical positions that come from atheism)" ORLY? Jesus weren't even borned yet when the Greeks laid the foundations for modern science with concepts like, well, that the universe was consistent and studiable. ħuman 17:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, "consistent and able to be studied"? What about variable speeds of light, radioactive decay rates like a accelerator controlled by an epileptic, the existence of gGOD ALMIGHTY! --Kels 17:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The LORD is remarkably considerate towards us in that respect. Y'see, in the later half of the 21st century just when HE new we were going to get equipment that accurately measure the speed of light HE, in his divine providence, caused it to stop decaying. To put us at our ease, we may be assured that as soon as we advance enough to study something in the physical world, HE'll stop fiddling with the knobs. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, quantum reality? Nothing settles down until we figure out how to observe it? (Actually, sometimes I think particle physics is a bit like that, with all the high energy particles we keep "discovering".) ħuman 17:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

PJR accepts lies? Say it ain't so!

PJR, spinning more ID BS as TEH TRUTH, claims that Expelled simply changed the name of the movie. Even though Mark Mathis asked scientists to appear in a movie "about the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement," the fact that the movie clearly is far different than that and that the domain name for Expelled was purchased before the interviews took place, doesn't persuade PJR that Expelled is built on lies. After all, just the name changed to him. PJR then goes all Ken. Just because they invoked God and Christ, doesn't mean they were Christians...! But Hitler followed evolution! --Irrational Atheist 14:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

CP: "Conservatives never distort the truth, and liberals do so as a rule."

aSK: "Creationists never distort the truth, and evolutionists do so as a rule."

CP: "If a conservative said so, it is either the absolute truth, or at least a good-faith assumption based on whatever facts are available."

aSK: "If a Creationist said so, it is either the absolute truth, or at least a good-faith assumption based on whatever facts are available."

CP: "The POV of the founder decides what is truth and what is not."

aSK: "The POV of the founder decides what is truth and what is not."

CP: "The truth shall set you free!"

aSK: "We're totally not like CP at all!"

New package, same content, really. So don't be surprised that Philip will blindly take the word of a fellow Creationist instead of considering the possibility that there was some deceit going on there. --Sid 17:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I recall him being quite incensed that I suggested that AiG was a wretched hive of scum and villainy. --Kels 17:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised. After all Ken Ham and AiG accused his beloved CMI of being in league with Satan and all his little imps. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Brain dead creationists say the darndest things

It wasn't the Neanderthals in the latest WIGO that caught my eye, it was the CRYSTAL SKULLS. Yes, that braindead moron really believes that the new age staple really was manufactured in pre-Columbian middle America, and not in fact in a factory in Clethorpes as every sane person in the world believes. Ye gods, they;ll believe anything. No wonder fraudsters like Kent Hovind find it so easy to exploit 'em.

The only possible response to this can be:

--JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ow!

My irony meter! --Kels 16:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

== Ken

's latest obsession... ==

Donair sauce. Thick. White. Creamy. Piquant. I'm just sayin'. TheoryOfPractice 16:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And a great accompaniment to spicy meat! --Kels 16:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Gentleman Kels: Spit or Swallow? _and marmite 00:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And proof that that has to be Ken

. It took him a half dozen edits to polish that masterpiece. No parodist would bother with such extreme fidelity to the master. ħuman 17:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)