Calilasseia

Given some of the epic stupidity that has emanated from creationists and fundamentalists of assorted stripes for real, it's not surprising that one has to explore ever more bizarre bounds of absurdity in order to be manifestly visible as a parody. In fact, unless you launch into the truly insane, it's difficult for a parody to match the real level of stupidity manifested.

It would no longer surprise me (though it would darken my pessimism about the human species noticeably) if someone in the creo-fundie camp took that Klingon stuff above and ran with it as a real argument.

mung bean

He does a great job. Long may he continue.

It took me until his fourth post before I was certain. Poe's Law cover a lot of loonies. :Cheeky:

Cal, more likely the Scientologists would go for that one. Xenu spoke Klingon.

Calilasseia

Ah, Xenu. Wonder what nuttiness will unfold once Travolta's bunch of moon-pie fruitcakes set up their first Level 10 Org?

mung bean

Say what? Gimme teh goss.

Roland Anderson

Cripes! This has to be the most surreal thing I've ever seen on the electric interweb! I guess I'm glad the thread hasn't closed down because it's finally managed to get to the most utterly, totally, jaw-droppingly bizarre stage of a debate about whether someone speaking in KLINGON is a troll or not!!!111!!!

Can there be any further for Dave to fall? Where will it go next? We've had "all scientists are frauds", then "all scientists are morons" - can "all scientists are mad" be far behind, supported by a still from "Back to the Future" or "The Cabinet of Dr Caligari"?

I'm flabbergasted. Flabbergasted. Wibble moop neek.

Well done chaps. Keep it up.

Pappy Jack

Unlikely to persuade the YECs of the error of their ways, but BBC World Service's Discovery series is broadcasting four programmes on dating techniques which may be of interest to the less technically educated of us (I have certainly found Programme 3, Dinosaurs, Volcanoes and Drifting Continents, informative and interesting - unfortunately, I missed Programmes 1 and 2 and have yet to find out whether they can still be downloaded). Anyway, the link to the Discovery website is here and you can listen to Programme 3 there; Programme 4, The Dawn of Time, broadcasts next week. Happy listening.

Worldtraveller

It's a good thing I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that. :notworthy:

Oh, and love Genesis in Klingon!

Cheers,
Lane

SpaghettiSawUs

SPRINKLER ANALOGY HELPS TO UNDERSTAND MISTAKEN CONSILIENCE

Thats right, consilience is a broken concept, as Dave has demonstrated clearly on the 14C thread and Dendro debatish on Dawkins, and here aginst CM he has raised important questions pointing to SERIOUS FLAWS in the methodologies and highly suspect assumptions (and as we all know ASSUMPTION makes U look like an ASS to ME).

So lets use an analogy to clear this up. Its a sunny early afternoon and Eric has gone for a nap. The kids are playing in the garden and his wife is squeezing lemons in the kitchen.

When he wakes up everyone's gone, and when he gets to the window Eric sees that the decking is wet. Eric thinks he remembers hearing thunder while he was asleep and assumes it has rained. He goes into the kitchen and finds his wife caked out on the floor with an empty sherry bottle in her hand. He throws a jar of water over her but she doesn't wake, after feeling her pulse Eric decides to leave her. She wakes as he leaves the kitchen.

"Has it been raining?" she asks, "only I though Paco had mended the kitchen roof".
"Must have been the DTs dear" replies Eric, "yes its been raining."
Eric's wife tries to get up but slips on the wet linoleum. "Dammit!" she shouts just after her head hits the chopping board
"Where's the kids?" asks Eric.
"They're dead" Says Dave (honest)
"What you doing in my house?" Says Eric.

Dave goes over to the window. Looking out he asks "What makes you think its been raining?"
"Well the decking's wet" says Eric,
"And the roof's leaked all over me", chimes in Mrs Eric. Eric tries to keep a straight face.
"WELL YOU'RE BOTH WRONG" Exclaims Dave in jubilant, victorious bold caps, "The water on the decking is from the sprinklers!". Dave turns to Eric and exclaims exhuberantly "I watered your house dude!".
Eric tries to answer but his brain can't decide on which word to use first so it just comes out as "Whhhh! T'hh! Ffff!".
Dave turns to Mrs Eric, "And the water is a gift from your husband, he emptied a pitcher on yo ass while you were comatose on the booze".

Dave opens his arms out wide, smiling sanctimony and assumed authority, looking from one to the other he tells them "If you assume rain, you'll find evidence for rain. Even where there is none".

And that, people, is why consilience in anything, be it 14C calibration or red-shift aging distant galaxies is built on questionable assumptions.

Eric took one piece of evidence which agreed with his assumption of rain, his wife took another (and besmirched the good Christian Paco, who had fixed the roof, in the process).

Note that it was Dave who knew the truth.

Questions?

***********
DISCLAIMER
***********
There is good reference for the dead kids

Anyhoo...
Hope its cleared everything up for you all. Its assumptions all the way down (as a wise man once said...).
:Cheeky: :Cheeky: :Cheeky: :Cheeky: :Cheeky:

Spags
:wave:

Paul2

Biblethumping brings up a good point, and that is of what gets lost in translation. Sure, he used a humorous language to demonstrate this with, but it was effective non-the-less. How could you determine if genesis is historically false when you can't be sure the translation you have is what was really wrote to begin with?

SpaghettiSawUs

By logical deduction:
1) Genesis was originally true but has been lost over time to be replaced by current extant text: Genesis is (now) false. It is not an accurate history.
2) Genesis is as it was originally written: Genesis is (still) false. It is not an accurate history.

This makes the question moot no?

Regards
Spags