Translate this: Paul's losing the debate, so he's running for the hills.

Good job Pharyngula.

Translate this: Paul's losing the debate, so he's running for the hills.

Eva, you're not big on reading comprehension, I take it?

Thank you, Kevin.

Eva you obviously can't (or won't) read the actual written words in my post. No one other than the participants gives a flying fuck about arguments made by any of the participants.

The debate is idiotic - everyone involved already lost merely by participating...

Right wingers calling each other names, like leftists calling each other 'cosmopolitans' and 'running dogs.' (Or born again Christians calling each other 'reprobates.') For Shame!
Oh, Howard Stern just announced that Terry Schiavo died...

Kevin, how could you call it boring when it caused such a stir among so many people? You may have found it boring. And I admit I didn't follow it much except to laugh each time they reacted as if on cue.
But, look at it this way -- there were less people slugging it out in the Schiavo threads.

"Eva you obviously can't (or won't) read the actual written words in my post."

I don't think its about the words in your post Kevin, I think its the simple fact that you wrote it and not Paul. I agree with you, it's not your mess. So where is Paul? Why no comments? Why no response to posts such as this, http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001640.php

Kevin says: [Luke, ] I'm not your mother.

Arghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

The betrayal!

Posted by: Mac Lorry

But here's an important note to all parties involved... It's boring, now it's over, move on.

For some people sports are boring, for others it might be politics, and for Kevin, it's the Creation/Evolution debate. Yes, it digressed into arguments about semantics, interpretation and personal attacks. I would say that it became boorish, but it wasn't any more boring than most of the other subjects on this blog.

To those I may have offended, I apologize. I would like to have a civil and thoughtful discussion on the subject, but I don't believe that can be accomplished in a public forum where participants are anonymous.

Julie raises a good point.

Actually, a number of people are getting quite concerned that religious beliefs are being taught as Science. Genesis is not empirical evidence. When something is a puzzle, and currently not explanable, "God did it", or "it was designed by an Intelligent Designer" is NOT something that is empirically testible.

Skybird writes:

Evolutionists are crack-pots i tell you their crazy ideas are based on a unproven theory based on junk science and fruadulant finding and fake evedence their a little lose from the caboose

EY: Give some specifics, please.

Just for readers' information, it took me the third reading of Kevin's post to catch the phrase "hiatuses can become permanent." Presumably that refers to Paul.

Maybe others missed that, too.

I'll reply to the post in my own blog.

Julie raises a good point.

Well, here's another good point: It had less to do with science and more with seeing how high you people would jump on command. Bravo Paul!

Just for readers' information, it took me the third reading of Kevin's post to catch the phrase "hiatuses can become permanent." Presumably that refers to Paul.

Or, merely wishful thinking on your part. Tell me, are you one of the crybabies than went running to Kevin? Kevin! Kevin! Paul's picking on me! Make him ssstttoooppp!

"wishful thinking?"

Nope. Paul's posts were very educational, in their own way. I have invited him to guest-blog at The Politburo Diktat. You can read my post.

Yes, I emailed Kevin to complain.

Hiatuses can become permanent

I hope not.

A permanent hiatus? No more of Paul's posts on evolution? Maybe there is a God....

julie wrote:

Kevin, how could you call it boring when it caused such a stir among so many people? You may have found it boring.

She has a point there Kevin.

I do understand that getting alot of complaining emails would get old...but then again if that many people are getting pissed off the subject couldnt be called boring...

I think it gets boring because while it may start out 90% serious commenters and 10% illiterate idiots, it ends up with the percentages reversed, and most of the serious commenters are just repeating themselves slowly to the illiterate idiots who are still repeating the same ridiculous arguments over and over. (Hmm, arguments may be too strong a word.)

Anyway, it's not that the subject in and of itself is uninteresting. But how many times can Paul point out that some people just can't read?

But how many times can Paul point out that some people just can't read?

Well, Raina, at least one more time to Commissar
would be helpful.

Yes, I emailed Kevin to complain.

No, weenie, you emailed Kevin to WHINE. Daddy, daddy, make him stopppppppp!

raina:

Anyway, it's not that the subject in and of itself is uninteresting. But how many times can Paul point out that some people just can't read?

Point taken.

We did,nt live in trees we did,nt hang by our tails we did,t come from any monkey you atheistic pinko meat head

The paragon of rationality speaks again.

And I admit I didn't follow it much except to laugh each time they reacted as if on cue.

Which is why Paul kept putting these posts in the HUMOR CATEGORY. Sheesh, how can anybody think this was intended to be some kind of serious debate. The whole fracas was hilarious. Unless, of course, you one of the commenters who didn't know it was supposed to be funny, in which case you were no doubt supplying much of the comedy.

Can't really blame Kevin for missing the joke. You sort of had to be there for the opening round (the self-healing DNA post), when Paul predicted what was going to happen, and then continued the amusement for several more days.

So paul using all the dubious reasoning, and claiming things that wasn't even remotely factual was a joke

_Oh that explains everything_

Seriously dude.... THis is lame activity from a A class blog

skybird,

i think you mean to say "you atheistic commie pinko meat head polack."

you're welcome at TPD any time.

So paul using all the dubious reasoning, and claiming things that wasn't even remotely factual was a joke

Of course it was a joke. Paul kept advertising the fact by categorizing his posts as humor. I repeatedly pointed this out (until Paul shushed me in a side email).

Paul didn't use dubious reasoning -- the closest he got was a graph plainly labeled as an exercise in sarcasm. And he didn't make claims that were not factual (other than some responsive name-calling). In fact, in countless comments he claimed ignorance about almost everything. And NOTHING THAT PAUL WROTE WAS THE JOKE. The joke was that he kept getting the reaction he predicted in the first place -- which is that many just couldn't stand his attitude towards science unless they could write him off as a bible-thumper. Which he is not.

My own minor elaboration on the joke was to openly and repeatedly admit that I'M A THUMPER (which happens to be true) and at the same time position myself as Paul's staunchest ally and defender. I got none of the mockery, ridicule and condescension that was directed at Paul (except from Paul, who called me a nincompoop).

Wanna guess why?

you're welcome at TPD any time.

Commissar:

Please, take pity on skybird. On your site, it would be like pulling the wings off a fly.

Michael - Yeah, joke, ha ha.

And he didn't make claims that were not factual

I haven't read the entire sordid mess, but perhaps you could point out an instance of Paul being factually correct?

In fact, in countless comments he claimed ignorance about almost everything.

Oh, okay, never mind then.

Paul made nonsensical claims on a scientific subject. He was corrected. There was no humour involved anywhere.

You say it was meant to be a joke. Seems to me, joke's on Paul.

Michael: Paul didn't use dubious reasoning

If he thought people would find his taunts funny, actually he did use dubious reasoning.

However, Paul did prove that evolution doesn't exist, because, as far as I can tell, nobodies ideas evolved at all.

Krusty Krab:

Still not getting it. It's not his taunts that were funny. Or anything else he wrote. It's the reaction to his posts that were funny. Especially because he openly predicted them.

And, there was a little bit of evolution in the dialogue between Paul and, for example, Areaman and AnonymousDrivel.

On the other hand, the dialogue between Paul and, for example, Commissar, Andy, and s9 was rapidly devolving back to the primordial ooze. These exchanges were pure comedy.

Geez, I feel like I could write a dissertation on these threads. Got to get a life.

Michael: Actually Paul did get one thing factually wrong. Remember his definition of oozer:

The "oozers" want us to believe (as a matter of religious doctrine) that lightning hit inorganic primordial ooze and it became life.

As I pointed out over at the Commisar's blog, Paul is misattributing the theory.

The actual theory (approximately) is the amino acids which allowed the later creation of life (by whatever means) were formed "from methane and other primordial gasses by electrical discharges in the primordial atmosphere".

Thus, Paul got "theory of abiogenesis" conflated with "theory of formation of amino acids", "inorganic"" with "organic" and "ooze" with "gases". Come to think of it, this is pretty damned funny!

"Paul made nonsensical claims on a scientific subject. He was corrected. There was no humour involved anywhere."

Pixy Misa:

Try to find one serious assertion by Paul on a scientific subject. Then look at all the comments correcting him on what he didn't say. Then look at the comments which assert that he must be a bible-thumper, even though he flatly denies it (more material at the Commissar's website).

Then reread your comment.

Then maybe you'll get the joke. But I doubt it, because you are one of the punchlines.

Carrick:

A funny Oozer! You are my hero!

Carrick:

Your goodwill and humor earns you a more thoughtful response.

Paul may be wrong about Ooze Theory (how the heck would a Thumper like me know?), but the fundamental logic train doesn't change. Here's my understanding of the argument:

1. Evolution offers an explanation for the diversity of life, but not the origin of life.

2. Something caused the origin of life.

3. If it was a random event (spark hits primordial gasses, lightning hits primordial ooze, who cares), science has yet to propose a plausible explanation, i.e., an explanation that overcomes the sheer improbability of such an event.

4. If it was divine intervention, then the hostility of environmentalists towards the role of God in the entire process collapses, and the possibility of intelligent design must be admitted. If God was goofing around with the Earth, even Young Earth Creationism becomes a theoretical possibility.

5. So, (Paul's one and only point) there is an awful lot we don't know and both Oozers and Thumpers should stop being so dogmatic on the subject.

6. And (fairness compels me to add this) Paul seems to think the Oozers are more dogmatic than Thumpers (such as myself; see my rant about the prophesies of Isaiah), but skybird testifies to the contrary.

michael:

So, (Paul's one and only point) there is an awful lot we don't know and both Oozers and Thumpers should stop being so dogmatic on the subject.

It's a point well worth repeating, IMO.

If God was goofing around with the Earth, even Young Earth Creationism becomes a theoretical possibility.

Christian creationists tell me that I am wrong when I mention that I worked on a Native American archaeological site that dates back to 7,500 years ago. They tell me that God created the earth in 7 days, and that it is no older than about 6,000 years, which is fine with me. Thats their story, and its fine with me. It may sound weird but there is enough room for multiple interpretations in my book. Some Native American creationists tell archaeologists to go to hell when they start saying that all of them came from Asia via the Bering Straight.

Is anyone really right? Does it matter? Not to me.

Michael I appreciate your humor regarding your religion, calling yourself a thumper etc. I like it when people dont take themselves too seriously.

Sometimes I take myself too seriously, but then I remember that I dont know shit, relatively.

Why fight about who's got the right answer? We should all just go get beer IMO. But, I have another class right now. Crap.

But in all of this discussion, and hiatusing, and threatened banning, and namecalling, one question begs to be asked:

WHO GIVES A SHIT?!?

We've got the Southwest being turned into Aztlan with the tacit approval of the POTUS, we have judges who are so dain-bramaged that they cannot figure out what the phrase de novo means, and we're still talking about whether or not Bill Frist is going to push the button! And yet five or six people keep arguing about whether Paul is a Bible-Beater or a scientific illiterate or whether the sky is blue because of intelligent design or because Pablo Picasso wanted it that way.

WE. DONT. CARE.

And besides that, it's Kevin's site. He's paying to push the pixels. And so if a topic is taking up too much bandwith going around the same damned tree, then it's his right to gather everybody up and tell them to sit down and STFU, otherwise take it elsewhere.

Areaman:

6,000 years? Your Thumper friends are being generous. My understanding is that the biblical genealogies only allow for about 5,OOO years.

But who cares?

"Is anyone really right? Does it matter? Not to me."

Not to me either. The origins of life are interesting, and endlessly debatable. But what matters to me is where I am going in the future, and where I will end up.

Hope you enjoyed your class.