Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Inherit the Wind: Evolution is an Illusion

It’s Where They Wanted To Go

In the original Star Trek pilot entitled “The Cage,” the Enterprise receives a distress signal from a long lost exploration vessel. The signal was transmitted 20 years ago, and the Enterprise responds hoping to find survivors. The landing party arrives at the planet’s surface and, indeed, they find elderly crew members who have carved out a living for themselves on the distant planet. It is a futuristic version of “The Swiss Family Robinson,” but there’s just one problem: It is all an illusion.

The planet has an advanced civilization living underground. They produced an illusion that was exactly what Captain Pike wanted to see. The elderly crew, happily and resourcefully making a life for themselves was exactly what everyone was hoping for (click now on video).



It is the same with evolution’s poster child, Inherit the Wind. Whereas Arthur Miller was worried critics would think he was skewing history for a mere partisan purpose with his brilliant play, The Crucible, [1] Jerome Lawrence and Robert Lee had no such compunction in writing their blatantly false, two-dimensional cartoon version of the 1925 Monkey Trial.

When Miller travelled to Salem he uncovered something profound. The Witch Trial records were eerily parallel to the anti-Communist hysteria of the 1940s. His task was not to contrive a silly fiction, but to reveal a dangerous, and all too real, stain within humanity. False accusations, smears, character assassination, black-balling, secret lists, group-think, and cowardice. It was all there.

Unlike The Crucible, Inherit the Wind fails to uncover in Dayton, Tennessee, an underlying theme or connection to McCarthyism. So Lawrence and Lee did something Miller never did—they constructed a false illusion.

John Scopes becomes a humble and tireless science teacher hauled off to jail by an angry mob of fundamentalists, led by a vitriolic Reverend Jeremiah Brown, for trying to enlighten his science students. In fear for his life he contacts journalist Henry Louis Mencken for help in securing a lawyer. The townspeople march in protest, singing hymns, and the William Jennings Bryan character—a loudmouth glutton—is slayed by the Clarence Darrow protagonist. None of this ever happened.

This is the mythological Warfare Thesis set to script. Inherit the Wind is an enduring and durable tale not because it uncovers an important truth but because it plays to humanity’s weakest tendencies. The script presents a false reality. It is a mythical tale using the 1925 Monkey Trial to gain an aura of realism.

As NT Wright said of Darwin, the reason why Inherit the Wind gets the mileage that it does is because that is where people wanted to go.

As with “The Cage,” the illusion is what people want to believe. Just as the alien civilization produced an illusion that was precisely what Captain Pike would want to see, Inherit the Wind is precisely the Warfare Thesis illusion that evolutionists want to see. Flyover country is full of dangerous, anti-intellectual, fundamentalists who need to be set straight by the likes of Spencer Tracy.

Inherit the Wind, and the broader Warfare Thesis myth, have fueled precisely what Miller helped to expose. Inherit the Wind claims to oppose the dangerous, anti-intellectual, fundamentalism, but, in fact, it reinforced it. Instead of labelling people as communists, they are now labelled as anti-science. Otherwise the scene remains complete with the usual false accusations, character smears, black-balling, secret lists, group-think, and cowardice. It’s all still there.

Evolutionists are the dangerous, anti-intellectual, fundamentalists. The American Bar Association absurdly rates Inherit the Wind as one of the top legal movies of all time.

And the ABA is not simply a lone nut. Legal expert Andrew Cohen not only gave high praise to Inherit the Wind, but ridiculously called it “one of the great trial movies of all time.”

Judge John Jones—exalted as one of Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People of the Year—unbelievably revealed that he actually wanted to see Inherit the Wind a second time in preparation for the 2005 Dover case, over which he presided, because, after all, the film puts the origins debate into its proper “historical context.”

Proper historical context? You’ve got to be kidding.

What a classic mistrial. Jones had been so indoctrinated by the Warfare Thesis that he actually believed the evolutionary propaganda to be historically accurate. If the perfect crime is the one that is never discovered, the perfect propaganda is the one that is never understood. Jones later reminisced about the trial, unbelievably explaining that “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind.”  Jones was not educated, he was brainwashed.

It’s where they wanted to go.

1. Arthur Miller, “Why I Wrote ‘The Crucible’,” The New Yorker, Oct 21, 1996.

307 comments:

  1. Cornelius, I've always known that original pilot Star Trek movie as "The Menagerie"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kevin,

      "Cornelius, I've always known that original pilot Star Trek movie as "The Menagerie"

      The Cage was the original Star Trek pilot but it was not televised as filmed until after the end of the original series. The Menagerie was a two part episode of the original series which took elements from The Cage and incorporated them into a new story line which included Kirk. Kirk was not in The Cage as Jeffrey Hunter, as Capt. Pike, was to be the captain of the Enterprise. Hunter dropped out before production was approved and was replaced by William Shatner as Kirk.

      Delete
  2. Inherit the Wind was pure Darwinist propaganda produced by simpletons who knew next to nothing about molecular biology. The recently produced play, Disinherit the Wind, is much more accurate in its portrayal of the science. See link below.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOQQYe9GFyo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LoL! I didn't see your post before I posted a link to that play. I have the book- it's awesome.

      Delete
  3. I suppose if one can't refute the solid science that supports evolutionary theory the next best thing is to attack a 50+ year old movie or the results of a 10+ year ago trial ID-Creationism lost badly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LoL! There isn't any evolutionary theory and evolutionism doesn't have any science tat supports it.

      For example no one knows how to test teh claim that stochastic processes produced ATP synthase. Not only that but the peer-reviewed paper "Waiting for Two Mutations" pretty much refutes evolutionism.

      Delete
    2. Evotard Timothy Horton's mission is to spend his entire life inheriting the wind. The idiot cannot live without a constant warfare between good science and evil creationism. Science belongs only to the evotards, you see. Nobody has the right to call themselves scientists if they refuse to worship the Flying Dirt Monster.

      Atheist Isaac Asimov once wrote a sci-fi story (Nightfall) that epitomizes the warfare thesis. Atheists cannot live without an idealized enemy. Horton goes bezerk when he realizes that not all Christians fall under his cookie-cutter creationist label.

      Delete
    3. The warfare thesis is really the symptom of an inferiority complex. LOL

      Delete

    4. The warfare thesis is really the symptom of an inferiority complex.


      Most Creationists do have a rather severe inferiority complex. It stems from having to constantly deal with science they don't understand and evidence their ID nonsense can't explain.

      Delete
    5. All evolutionists have a rather severe inferiority complex. That comes from being unable to test the claims their position makes. They cannot deal with science, heck it is clear most don't even know what science is. They don't even have a methodology nor a mechanism capable of explaining life's diversity

      Delete
    6. Evolutionary science is pure unmitigated superstition based on the belief that dirt gave rise to life and that primitive organisms self-organized to create reptiles, whales and monkeys. LOL

      Evolution just a Big Brother religion (the Church of the Flying Dirt Monster, the one true religion) pretending to be science. It can only succeed through incessant lies, mass propaganda and the forced brainwashing of young minds. Worst of all, evolutionists steal the taxpayer's money to preach their chicken-feather voodoo cult in our schools, something that is forbidden by the constitutions of the majority of the countries of the world.

      As Feyerabend once wrote in Against Method, "the most stupid procedures and the most laughable result in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down to size and to give them a lower position in society."

      We need a truly secular society. It's time to kick the con artists and the pretenders out. LOL

      Delete
    7. Evolutionary science is an oxymoron.

      Delete
  4. Solid science? Haven't seen it.
    ID is not Creationism. Do your homework.
    If ID lost badly, why is it still around and growing? Judge Jones was and is an ideologue. His ruling was absurd because he went beyond the parameters of the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stewart

      If ID lost badly, why is it still around and growing?


      ID is growing? The only place still pushing ID is the RW religious think-tank Discovery Institute. Their sham science journal Bio-Complexity had a grand total of 2 articles in 2015 and 0 so far in 2016.

      The only thing growing on ID is mold.

      Delete
    2. ID grows with every new discovery and the fact that your position doesn't have a methodology to test its claims.

      Delete
    3. Some fat fool Frankie at TSZ posted this

      "That’s easy – for starters post-ID research doesn’t have anything to do with ID."

      Do you agree? Since you claim ID is already detected, what post-ID research that has nothing to do with ID are the ID researchers doing?

      Delete
    4. Does evolutionary research have anything to do with the OoL? Or are you just an ignorant troll?

      Post-ID research comes after ID is the accepted paradigm. Your selective quotes just prove that you are willfully ignorant.

      Delete
    5. Joe G

      Post-ID research comes after ID is the accepted paradigm


      So ID will do no research until after ID is accepted scientific consensus. But ID will never be the accepted scientific consensus until the research is done which demonstrates ID's positive case. Sounds like you have a bit of a chicken/egg problem.

      In the meantime ID "researchers" sit on their fat asses and swill beer? Why can't they do any research now? Two papers in a sham journal in two years won't cut it.

      Delete
    6. So ID will do no research until after ID is accepted scientific consensus.

      Only an imbecile would come to that conclusion from what I said. And here you are.

      ID research is about the detection and study of design in nature. And it is going on right now. OTOH your position doesn't have any methodology to test its claims.

      But ID will never be the accepted scientific consensus until the research is done which demonstrates ID's positive case.

      LoL! Only an imbecile would think science is done by consensus, and here you are, again. IDists have made a positive case and you and yours don't have anything to counter it.

      How many papers support the claim that stochastic processes produced ATP synthase? Zero

      Talk about a sham.

      Delete
    7. Steward: "If ID lost badly, why is it still around and growing?"

      What is your evidence that ID is growing?

      Note that William Dembski (arguably one of the leading intellects behind ID, if not the primary one) has decided to move on to other things: https://billdembski.com/a-new-day/

      Delete
    8. Yes, Dembski has realized that it is futile to try to get through to the willfully ignorant.

      ID is growing due to the science and the evidence. And the fact that no one else has any viable explanation for what we observe.

      Delete
    9. Baghdad Bob Joe G

      ID is growing due to the science and the evidence. And the fact that no one else has any viable explanation for what we observe.


      ID is growing? No viable evidence for evolution?

      Evolutionary science journals produce more research papers in a week that the entire ID community has produced over its whole existence. :D

      The simple fact is there is no ID "research". None. There's the DI churning out religious propaganda and that's it.

      Delete
    10. No viable evidence for evolution?

      Loser. There isn't any viable evidence for evolutionism. No one knows how to test the claim that ATP synthase arose via stochastic processes.

      ID is not anti-evolution and your cowardly equivocation is duly noted.

      Delete
    11. CaroleTim

      Note that William Dembski (arguably one of the leading intellects behind ID, if not the primary one) has decided to move on to other things: https://billdembski.com/a-new-day/


      Dembski's latest has seen him come out as an anti-vaxxer. He traded one pile of pseudoscience woo for another.

      Delete
    12. Joe: "ID is growing due to the science and the evidence. And the fact that no one else has any viable explanation for what we observe."

      OK, but where is the actual evidence for this? e.g., can you point to an increase in papers, curriculum, web sites, patents, conferences, books, citations etc? Otherwise it just seems like an assertion on your part.

      Delete
    13. Look , no one knows how to test the claim that ATP synthase arose via stochastic processes. That goes for all biological systems and subsystems. All yours has are assertions.

      AT least ID has a viable scientific methodology for testing its claims.

      Delete
    14. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    15. Evotard Horton:

      Dembski's latest has seen him come out as an anti-vaxxer. He traded one pile of pseudoscience woo for another.

      Which is the worse example of pseudoscience, being and anti-vaxxer or worshipping dirt as the mother of life? We all know the answer. Yet Timothy Horton believes that inert dirt is the mother of life.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    16. CaroleTim

      Joe: "ID is growing due to the science and the evidence. And the fact that no one else has any viable explanation for what we observe."

      OK, but where is the actual evidence for this? e.g., can you point to an increase in papers, curriculum, web sites, patents, conferences, books, citations etc? Otherwise it just seems like an assertion on your part


      Joe, you didn't answer CaroleTim's question. Where is the evidence ID is growing?

      Delete
    17. The evidence is everywhere. For example, GAS model evolution by intelligent design. Unfortunately you are too stupid to assess it.

      OTOH there isn't any evidence that unguided evolution can produce ATP synthase.

      Delete
    18. Joe G

      For example, GAS model evolution by intelligent design.


      That isn't evidence for the intelligent design of biological life. Where's your evidence the work on the ID of biological life is growing?

      Delete
    19. Timmy:
      Where's your evidence the work on the ID of biological life is growing?

      Science- for example there isn't any way to test the claims of your position and ID has a scientific methodology.

      Delete
    20. OK, you have no evidence ID is growing and are just spewing your usual non-answers to cover. Got it.

      Delete
    21. OK so you don't have anything of substance to say and you sure as hell cannot tell us how to test the claims your position makes.

      Delete
    22. Oh dear, Joe G was caught lying about ID's accomplishments again. Not surprising since he's been caught dozens of times lying about his own accomplishments.

      Delete
    23. Oh dear, Timmy is exposing his ignorance again. Not surprising there as he has been caught spewing ignorant shit for decades.

      Delete
    24. CaroleTim: "Note that William Dembski (arguably one of the leading intellects behind ID, if not the primary one) has decided to move on to other things:"

      Yes, he is perfecting the phrase, "Would you like fries with that?"

      Delete
    25. So he is taking your job? Oops, you are a bathroom attendant...

      Delete
    26. Joe/Virgil/Frankie/Toaster Boy: "ID is growing due to the science and the evidence."

      The acceptance of undirected evolution has been increasing in the US. You have a strange definition of growing.

      Delete
    27. LoL! Why does anyone accept it seeing that it cannot be tested nor modelled?

      You are obviously deluded.

      Delete
    28. Joe/Virgil/Frankie/Toaster Boy: "ID is growing"

      Only if ID stands for IDiotic Delusions.

      Delete
    29. You are an idiot with delusions, Timmy. I understand that it bothers you that your position makes untestable claims and because of that isn't science. But attacking ID with your ignorance is not helping.

      Delete
    30. Well Joe, I'd read the all the ID research but there isn't any.

      Delete
    31. LoL! You couldn't understand scientific research if your life depended on it. I would read all of the undirected evolution research but there isn't any.

      No one knows how to test the claims your position makes, Timmy. Obviously you are just a gullible infant.

      Delete
    32. I understand that it bothers you that your position makes untestable claims and because of that isn't science. But attacking ID with your ignorance is not helping.

      Delete
    33. I love the way Joe's multiple chins quiver when he gets angry. :)

      Delete
    34. LoL! As if your ignorance and scientific illiteracy makes me angry.

      I love the way Timmy has to try to distract from the fact his position doesn't make scientific claims.

      Delete
  5. Disinherit the Wind- a new play exposing the BS of evolutionists and evolutionism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A better title for the latest ID-Creationist propaganda effort would be Breaking The Wind. You can even get Bill Dembski to do the soundtrack like he did for his Judge Jones animation. :)

      Delete
    2. So now facts are propaganda- you are one sad and pathetic person...

      Delete
  6. You do realize that Darrow lost the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your point is?

      All evolutionists are political animals. Their pseudoscience triumphs only via propaganda, deception and constant proselytizing.

      Delete
    2. You do realize that Darrow, like the coward he was, refused to be questioned even after he agreed to it.

      Delete
  7. BTW the "Loading" link on the James Tour thread seems to have broken. You can no longer load posts past number 200. Seems to be a problem with the javascript.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most likely a problem with your computer. I cleared my cache and now it loads for me

      Delete
  8. I am beginning to realize that Darwinists are stupid. Seriously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are just beginning to realize that?

      Delete
    2. Not nearly as stupid as the fat fool Creationist who claimed

      wavelength = frequency

      and

      ice isn't water.

      :D :D :D

      Delete
    3. Ice isn't water. Ice may be made up of water molecules but it has a specific matrix that water does not have. Can you swim in ice? No. Can you swim in water? Yes.

      And when I turn the frequency dial of my signal generator the only thing that changes is the wavelength! Go figure.

      Delete
    4. But then again there is no way Timmy will understand any of that...

      Delete
    5. Poster Boy Joe: "And when I turn the frequency dial of my signal generator the only thing that changes is the wavelength! Go figure."

      So that is what you are calling your anatomically correct inflatable doll now.

      Delete
    6. Your mother is not an inflatable doll.

      Delete
    7. Here's a challenge for you Joe.

      I'll give you the frequency of a signal propagating through the medium of my choosing and you tell me the wavelength.

      Should be easy since you claim frequency = wavelength, right?

      Will you take the challenge or will you cowardly puss out like you always do?

      Delete
    8. I'll give you the frequency of a signal propagating through the medium of my choosing and you tell me the wavelength.

      So you are too stupid to understand my explanation, as predicted.

      Every specific wave has one and only one wavelength and one and only one frequency that corresponds directly to tat wavelength.

      Delete
    9. I'll give you the frequency of a signal propagating through the medium of my choosing and you tell me the wavelength.

      You should be able to do that as there are such calculators on the internet

      Delete
    10. I am beginning to realize that Darwinists are stupid. Seriously.

      They are not just stupid. They are stupid as dirt. Anybody who believes that order can arise out of chaos via random process is an idiot and should be relentlessly vilified and ridiculed.

      The dirt worshippers are convinced that they are smarter than everyone else. Their insufferable pomposity is legendary. Their deceptive nature is worse than their stupidity. They think they are so smart as to fool the entire world. Problem is, the world will reject them and their stupid superstitious religion.

      Delete
    11. Joe G

      GR: "I'll give you the frequency of a signal propagating through the medium of my choosing and you tell me the wavelength."

      You should be able to do that as there are such calculators on the internet


      Joey! Joey! Here puss puss puss puss puss puss! Joey!

      Darn. Looks like Joe G pussed out again when his stupidity was challenged. He always does.

      Delete
    12. LoL! Timmy gets caught moving the goalposts and has its usual hissy-fit.

      As I said over on atbc if the wave is on my o'scope I can easily tell you both its frequency and wavelength just by looking at the same wave.

      And when I turn the frequency dial of my signal generator the only thing that changes is the wavelength! Go figure

      If I was wrong then that wouldn't happen

      Delete
    13. Joey! Joey! Here puss puss puss puss puss puss! Joey!

      Yep. Joe pussed out and ran from his claim. Happens every time

      Delete
    14. Wow, Timmy is proud to be an ignorant coward.

      How did I run away from my claim when I supported it? Oh, that's right, you are too stupid to understand that support.

      Delete
    15. I love the way Timmy has to try to distract from the fact his position doesn't make scientific claims.

      Delete
    16. Joey! Joey! Here puss puss puss puss puss puss! Joey!

      Joe G is such a cowardly puss.

      Delete
    17. LoL! Timmy admits that it is too stupid to understand simple explanations. And like the coward it is, moves the goalposts and doesn't grasp the fact that there are wavelength and frequency calculators that do what it is asking of me.

      Talk about a desperate loser...

      Delete
    18. Joe,

      Timothy Horton is just playing his homosexual fantasy game with you. Don't let him.

      Delete
    19. All Timmy can do is play games. It sure as heck doesn't grasp science.

      Delete
    20. Mapou: "
      Timothy Horton is just playing his homosexual fantasy game with you. Don't let him."


      Yup. No obsession with homosexuals from Louis. Move along. Nothing to see here.

      Delete
    21. You two can't fool me. I know that both of you are closet gays. You can't fake your writing styles.

      Delete
    22. Cornelius must just love what Mapoo and Chubs bring to the ID-Creationism intellectual table. :D

      Delete
    23. Calling for your mommy again, Timothy?

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    24. The only reason that the two of you are here is that you are two Christophobic atheist homosexuals with a bone to pick against Christianity. This is your main obsession.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    25. Cornelius must just love what Mapoo and Chubs bring to the ID-Creationism intellectual table.

      But "ID-Creationism" exists only in the minds of the willfully ignorant...

      Delete
    26. Mapou: "The only reason that the two of you are here is that you are two Christophobic atheist homosexuals with a bone to pick against Christianity. This is your main obsession."

      Again with the homosexual obsession.

      Even if GR and I were gay, how does that advance your argument? Maybe I am missing something here.

      Delete
    27. The argument has been advanced. The homo bit is to show that you are deranged and deviant and that is why you cannot address it or understand it.

      Delete
    28. Cornelius, you must be so proud to have these mental midgets (oops, little people) supporting your cause. Are you as big a homophobic bigot as Louis?

      Your silence on this matter does not paint you in a good light. Why don't you come out and say whether or not you support Mapou's and Joe's homophobic, bigoted, obscenity laden views? You seem to be quick to criticize GR's and my comments, but keep silent on Beavis and Butthead's. Do you have so few supporters that you fear alienating these two morons?

      Delete
    29. William Spearshake

      Cornelius, you must be so proud to have these mental midgets (oops, little people) supporting your cause. Are you as big a homophobic bigot as Louis?


      Then there's

      Joe G: "all the other evoTARDs there were being dicks."

      Joe G: "he has been caught spewing ignorant shit for decades."

      Joe G "I see two raging buttholes desperate fro attention and shitting everywhere"

      Joe G: "Timmy's job is to shit on everyone"

      Joe G: "obviously you are just spewing shit"


      I remember when Cornelius used to maintain Christian standards.

      Delete
    30. Ghostrider, it is sad when the two people who display the most "Christian" character (Nic excluded) are the two atheists. Doesn't say much for Cornelius.

      Delete
    31. A homosexual man is the God-father of my youngest. So much for William's BS.

      And guess what? I only spew "obscenities" when needlessly and ignorantly attacked by cowards who cannot support the claims of their position.

      It's as if you are totally retarded.

      Delete
    32. Ghostrider, it is sad when the two people who display the most "Christian" character (Nic excluded) are the two atheists.


      BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA- you two are the problem. If it wasn't for your continued ignorant attacks this blog would be great.

      Delete
    33. Timmy:
      I remember when Cornelius used to maintain Christian standards.

      But then he decided to let you and WS post and all was lost

      Delete
    34. Joe: "A homosexual man is the God-father of my youngest. So much for William's BS."

      And some of my best friends are black. I have heard this nonsense before.

      Delete
    35. You are nonsense. All you do is spew nonsense. That's your life and the main reason that you lie when you say that you display any christian character.

      Delete
    36. And some of my best friends are black.

      I know you are lying because you don't have any friends...

      Delete
    37. Your black sock puppets don't count.

      Delete
    38. You seem to be quick to criticize GR's and my comments,

      Mainly because they are nothing but ignorant spewage. Not because they actually make a valid point that needs to be addressed.

      Delete
    39. Joke: "You are nonsense. All you do is spew nonsense. That's your life and the main reason that you lie when you say that you display any christian character."

      Are you suggesting that atheists cannot demonstrate Christian character? I hate to be the barer of bad news, but you are responding to one who is a better Christian than you. That must hurt.

      Delete
    40. LoL! What a moron- I am suggesting that you do not demonstrate christian character. BTW I am not a christian but you don't have any idea how to behave like one.

      Delete
    41. I hate to be the barer of bad news, but you are responding to one who is a better Christian than you.

      Well I hate to be the BEARER of bad news but you are a proven liar and loser who can only ignorantly attack and never actually defend a position.

      Delete
    42. Once again we see the pattern. Everything Joe Gallien touches turns to crap. He just can't control his mouth or his need to be an attention whore.

      Delete
    43. But I am intrigued. What faith do you have Joe? Muslim? Hindu? Buddhist? Scientology? What is it?

      Delete
    44. Once again we see the pattern.
      Yes, the evos can't support their claims and have to ignorantly attack everyone who exposes their faith for the crap that it is

      Delete
    45. What faith do you have Joe? Muslim? Hindu? Buddhist? Scientology? What is it?
      LoL! A Muslim is a person, Islam is the faith.

      But anyway I am not religious and that is why evos are going to cry when I bring them to Court for having their agenda-driven nonsense passed off as science.

      Delete
    46. Everything Joe Gallien touches turns to crap.

      Look just because I am exposing you as an ignoramus and a coward, that is no reason to get all touchy and throw a tantrum

      Delete
    47. It is just sad when someone suffers from serious psychological problems. We shouldn't be making fun of people like Joe and Louis. We should give them our sympathy, and support them in any way possible. It is not their fault.

      Delete
    48. Joe G

      But anyway I am not religious and that is why evos are going to cry when I bring them to Court for having their agenda-driven nonsense passed off as science.


      Pity you didn't volunteer to represent ID at Kitzmiller vs. Dover. It would have been a riot watching your lard butt try to squeeze into the witness box.

      Delete
    49. It's truly pathetic watching two Christophobic atheist homosexuals giving morality lessons to a Christian (Cornelius) on his own blog. And then they frequent a Christophobic (with an overwhelming homosexual undercurrent) forum at antievolution.org where they use a homosexual epithet (Cornholio) to refer to the same Christian.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    50. WS:
      It is just sad when someone suffers from serious psychological problems.

      And you do suffer from psychological problems. That much is clear from your posts.

      We shouldn't be making fun of people like Joe and Louis.

      LoL! Losers like you can't make fun of anyone.

      You just don't know your place and that is funny.

      Delete
    51. Timmy:
      Pity you didn't volunteer to represent ID at Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

      I will have my own day in Court. And that you think that I am fat just proves that you are an ignoramus incapable of assessing the evidence.

      But we knew that already.

      Delete
    52. Thanks to Timmy and WS for exposing their true, very non-christian, behaviour.

      Funny that after giving each other kudos they show their true selves.

      Nice own goals, losers.

      Delete
    53. Joe G

      I will have my own day in Court. And that you think that I am fat just proves that you are an ignoramus incapable of assessing the evidence.


      Sure you will chubs. That picture of you on the YEC website you were supporting had you well north of 300 bills. But maybe you dropped a few hundred pounds since then.

      Delete
    54. Tell us more about the evidence you'd provide during your "day in court" Chubs. What are you going to do, scream at the judge "YOUR SIDE HAS NO EVIDENCE!!" :D

      Delete
    55. Timmy tutu:
      That picture of you on the YEC website you were supporting had you well north of 300 bills.

      Only an ignoramus would say such a thing and here you are.

      Nice own goal, loser.

      Delete
    56. Timmy tutu:
      Tell us more about the evidence you'd provide during your "day in court"

      You can read the transcript. You are too stupid to assess any scientific evidence. And you are too cowardly to try to support evolutionism.

      Too bad you won't volunteer to help the evoTARDs. Your testimony would make my case for me.

      Delete
    57. Joe G

      Tell us more about the evidence you'd provide during your "day in court"

      You can read the transcript.


      How can there be a transcript when you haven't been to court yet Chubs? You're not very bright.

      Delete
    58. There will be a transcript Timmy TuTu. Please hold your breath and wait for it.

      And too bad you won't be testifying. You could easily make my case for me.

      Delete
    59. I see Chubs. You have no evidence to present and are doing the usual IDiot shuffle again.

      Delete
    60. LoL! The evidence I will present is already on my blog. I will start with the genetic code and watch the evoTARDs squirm because they have nothing to explain it. I will bring up the 10 million dollar challenge that will still be available because evoTARDs don't have a clue as to how to test the claims of their position.

      Ken Miller will get caught lying- that will be worth everything. Evos will have to admit that theirs is not science because it cannot be tested.

      But anyway you have nothing but your ignorant spewage and all you do is the imbecile shuffle.

      Again too bad you won't be testifying...

      Delete
    61. I love how Timmy TuTu gets all upset because his position is unscientific and unsupportable gibberish.

      Delete
    62. LOL! Poor Joe has no evidence for ID-Creationism, just the same hot gas he's been belching for years. :D

      I hope you tell the judge "post-ID research doesn’t have anything to do with ID." :D

      Delete
    63. Well ID-Creationism still exists only in the minds of the willfully ignorant. So that would be the reason.

      ID research = detecting and studying design in nature

      post-ID research is not about that at all.

      It's as if Timmy TuTu thinks that OoL research and evolutionary research are the same thing.

      Again too bad you won't be testifying. I would love to see your meltdown in front of a judge.

      Delete
    64. And how would you know whether or not ID has any supporting evidence? You are too stupid to assess evidence and you sure as hell cannot produce any that supports your position.

      So perhaps you should stop using words that you clearly don't understand.

      Delete
    65. Timmy TuTu?

      Timothy Horton wears a tutu?

      ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete

    66. William: "And some of my best friends are black."

      Joe G: "I know you are lying because you don't have any friends..."

      Not true, he has me.

      Delete
    67. As far as we know you are one of his sock-puppets. :)

      Do you know him personally? Or just from the internet? If it is just from the internet then it doesn't count.

      Delete
    68. Joe G,

      "If it is just from the internet then it doesn't count."

      Thanks, Joe. I wasn't aware you set the parameters for defining friendship. I'll keep that in mind for the future.

      Delete
    69. If you don't hang out together, and never have, then yours is not a friendship.

      So you don't know him personally and for all you know he could be a psycho-killer. Some friendship, Nic...

      Delete
    70. But hey, if you want to be friends with a known liar and loser, that is totally up to you. I bet you think the girls that you talk to on those 1-900 numbers are you girlfriends...

      Delete
    71. Joe G,

      "If you don't hang out together, and never have, then yours is not a friendship."

      Like I said, I am now aware your the arbiter of friendships. I'll act accordingly in the future.

      "I bet you think the girls that you talk to on those 1-900 numbers are you girlfriends..."

      You really are a gutter rat, aren't you?

      Delete
    72. Nic, the spineless Christian:

      You really are a gutter rat, aren't you?

      At least, he has a spine. More than I can say for the spineless maggots who comment here.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    73. Yup, Mapou and Joe should do well when they go to court. Repeat after me, "contempt of court". But they will be able to get three meals a day and have regular sex in jail.

      Delete
    74. Too bad WS won't be testifying- it is too stupid to form a coherent argument

      Delete
    75. Nic, I apologize for stepping on your dreams...

      Delete
    76. We all apologize for stepping on your dream Joe - that someday you'll be seen as more than an ignorant YEC internet-tough-guy clown.

      Delete
    77. LoL! Timmy you are too tiny to step on anything. And your ignorance is already legendary, as are your puss antics.

      Too bad you won't be testifying

      Delete
    78. Big fat puss Joe G. You'll never live down that time you were running your mouth and threatening to beat up people. Someone called your bluff and you gave an address of where you could be found "any time". Only the address you gave was in a vacant lot 50 miles from your real address.

      We laughed about that one for months!

      Delete
    79. LoL! More drivel from the drivel master. I am more than willing to take on any of you, Timmy. But only a moron would think I would invite losers like you over to my house.

      Convenient parking lots do fine- but then again you have always pissed and soiled yourself whenever someone asked you to step outside...

      Delete
    80. LOL! Joe G, big fat internet tough guy. :D

      Delete
    81. LoL! Timmy TuTu, all around loser, coward and ignoramus- living proof humans and chimps can mate

      Delete
    82. Joe, you keep indulging evotard Timothy Horton in his homosexual fantasy game. Getting emotionally personal with a heterosexual male is one of the things they crave. I see it all the time in my business partner and my next-door neighbor. You simply have to put a stop to it.

      Delete
    83. Both Timmy and WS are bully- wannabe's. I am here to stop them from doing so. However they have already proven to be willfully ignorant cowards.

      Delete
    84. What are you going to do Chubs? Sit on us and squash us?

      Delete
    85. I will just keep exposing you as the ignorant cowards that you are. That seems to be working just fine.

      Delete
    86. In other words you'll just run your mouth and make impotent "internet-tough-guy" threats. Same as you've been doing for the last 15 years.

      Delete
    87. LoL! Whatever Timmy. You are a known liar and loser. You couldn't support the claims of your position if your life depended on it.

      Too bad you won't be testifying. You could make my case for me.

      Delete
    88. What is your positive case for ID-Creationism Chubs? You haven't made one, ever.

      Delete
    89. LoL! You are a willfully ignorant troll, Timmy TuTu. And ID-Creationism exist only in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

      That said, I and many others, have made a positive case for ID. OTOH no one has ever made a positive case for unguided evolution. Heck Darwin said that to falsify his claims one has to prove a negative.

      Life, the genetic code, the laws that govern the universe, biological systems and subsystems- all are evidence for ID and your position doesn't have anything to explain them.

      You are a loser

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  10. ghostrider:
    Poor baby engineer. So much ignorance, so little time.

    Researchers Demonstrate Possible Primitive Mechanism of Chemical Info Self-Replication

    But what do those idiot OOL researchers at Caltech know compared to a new EE?
    ?

    Oh I thought we were discussing OOL in which molecules are considered that actually have some kind of precursor status with the RNA world or something, You know nucleic acids, proteins, etc.

    Researchers Demonstrate Possible


    Looks like these guys are thinking what's possible too. Dreaming what's possible with crystals, instead of realistic, energy and information processing arrangements.

    And wow that's really big science. Telling us what possibly might have happened. Should be front page news.

    Look at me I'M AN ENGINEER!

    Hey ghostrider: since I'm using a screen name, why would I care that anyone notices my training, and give me kudos. But I wouldn't expect you to consider that.
    There's maybe one person reading here knows my identity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look at me I'M AN ENGINEER!

      Hey ghostrider: since I'm using a screen name


      If you C&P more homework from your undergrad EE classes all the girls will know you're a fart smella, er, smart fella!

      Delete
    2. Yeah, Timmy just drools and soils itself to try to get a date

      Delete
    3. Chubs, isn't this where you normally start posting your porn links? I'm sure Cornelius will love that side of you too.

      Delete
    4. What porn link? You are obviously lying again.

      Delete
    5. C'mon Chubs, post your "tunie" pic that got you banned at TSZ. You know you want to.

      Delete
    6. That wasn't porn. And I posted it there because the blog owner and all the other evoTARDs there were being dicks.

      Delete
  11. ghostrider: If you C&P more homework from your undergrad EE classes all the girls will know you're a fart smella, er, smart fella

    Hey ghostrider, since I'm a bass player and a sax player I totally made up the problem.

    Now I'm going to give you a little more science, to overcome your bias against science on this thread. See a taut string is a transmission line. Transmission lines are fun to play with and are characterized with what are called distributed parameters, and modeled as partial differential equations, with boundary conditions dependent on the endpoint behavior (say whether or not there is damping there, or whether the endpoint is fixed or has lateral freedom). But if the string is carefully excited in certain ways it can be modeled as having lumped parameters like in what you study in basic electric circuits and so can be described by ordinary differential equations of any order, which is the amazing thing, just on the basis the excitation spectral makeup. The excitation is the input and the sound is the output.

    I'm going to give you the rest of the tutorial, but I have a reminder: Since you are all about the natural sciences what course in the colleges of natural sciences would possibly have the string problem on a test? I asked you before don't you know what undergraduate course would have it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! The baby engineer is so funny trying to impress the adults. You must have non-existent social skills.

      Delete
    2. Well it beats your strategy of drooling and soiling yourself....

      Delete
  12. LOL! The baby engineer is so funny trying to impress the adults.

    Hey ghostrider you asked me plenty of times in the past and I answered you, remember on Nyquist sampling? When you learned a little bit on that? (more of which I can help). So I know you can answer us here.

    Now you must love the natural sciences but then maybe you disdain those of us on this board some with PhD's, for no reason, unless I read you wrong. Why not just go ahead and tell me what class that is that the bass guitar string problem would pop up.

    You must have non-existent social skill

    To the contrary, I've been very helpful and reasonable towards you, like I am with all my friends, which btw many of them I make on stage around a city in the top 10 metro in the country. I have provided you with some rudimentary info on estimators and Shannon and about transmission lines. You have benefited from my goodwill towards you and the young readers. BTW I made an incorrect statement about estimators on a previous thread if you want to go find it. Very important for the natural sciences

    Remember too I asked you something on Nyquist sampling and you answered? So I know you can do it.

    So what class for that word problem test?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LoL! You just can't buy a date, can you?

      Delete
    2. Oh yeah, your ignorant spewage really adds to the discussion. Why do you even bother? You must have been beaten up a lot when you were a kid

      Delete
    3. Don't look now MSEE but I think Joe G is interested in meeting you, such a smart available man.

      Delete
    4. And more ignorant spewage from the master of ignorant spewage. You should seek psychological help, Timmy.

      Delete
    5. See thing is ghostrider, young girls are not interested in gay male engineers so you can drop the young girls thing OK?

      Delete
    6. Uh oh MSEE, now you'll never be rid of Joe's attention! I hope you like 'em roly-poly.

      Delete
    7. And Timmy TuTu's substance-free spewage continues....

      Delete
  13. AMEN
    Jones was a incompetent judge/lawyer for many reasons.
    Indeed probably with a agenda to censor creationism just because he said it was not true and to say creationists are bad people for trying to bring it into schools. Or rather trying to stop state censorship.
    Another case is needed.
    It should not be hard to defeat state censorship especially if religious concepts are bumped into.
    Better layers please.

    The old case of Scopes is very suspicious. I understand it was not to ban creationism but include evolutionism.
    Anyways if the cases and movies about them are meant to persuade people then it must matter what people think.
    So let the people vote these things in or out.
    What are they afraid of?
    LOSING!!

    Hollywood had a anti christian agenda and so does the law associations and TIME.
    They don't represent real americans in any way. they shouldn't be the boss.

    ReplyDelete
  14. AMEN
    Jones was a incompetent judge/lawyer for many reasons.
    Indeed probably with a agenda to censor creationism just because he said it was not true and to say creationists are bad people for trying to bring it into schools. Or rather trying to stop state censorship.
    Another case is needed.
    It should not be hard to defeat state censorship especially if religious concepts are bumped into.
    Better layers please.

    The old case of Scopes is very suspicious. I understand it was not to ban creationism but include evolutionism.
    Anyways if the cases and movies about them are meant to persuade people then it must matter what people think.
    So let the people vote these things in or out.
    What are they afraid of?
    LOSING!!

    Hollywood had a anti christian agenda and so does the law associations and TIME.
    They don't represent real americans in any way. they shouldn't be the boss.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Excellent points, Robert.

    Darwinists are indeed losing and they absolutely hate people like Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. James Tour who are not afraid to expose them as zealots of a secular religion. I love watching Darwinists squirm under the interrogation spotlight. Even the corrupt mainstream media cannot save them.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Unfortunately the legal team did a poor job of bringing out the truth. You should have been there. And the media was there to make sure the religious truth was suppressed.

    The media is pro abortion, divorce, and gay marriage. Is it any wonder they promote evolution to counter religious truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The media is pro abortion, divorce, and gay marriage. Is it any wonder they promote evolution to counter religious truth."

      oxymoron.

      Delete
    2. Where "religious truth" = any Creationist woo I feel like believing that day.

      Delete
    3. LoL! As opposed to the woo-woo you two morons are spewing. Neither of you would know the truth if it was sitting on your face.

      Delete
    4. Peter W.: "counter religious truth."

      William: "oxymoron."

      And exactly how do you know religious truths are an oxymoron?

      Delete
    5. What are the religious truths Wadeck was talking about?

      Delete
  17. ghostrider: uneducated laymen [here] have zero understanding of the subject. To the professional scientific community the claims [discussed here] really are just silly rhetoric.

    Poor baby engineer. So much ignorance, so little time. Look at me I'M AN ENGINEER


    OK let's go back a few years when ghostrider was trying to throw some enginering prowess at yours truly and get shown his own ignorance: http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/08/gene-myth-part-i-addendum.html

    You claim to be an EE - how often do you need to sample an analog voice signal to recreate it with enough fidelity to be understandable?

    my answer: There is not a mathematical definition of the condition you propose

    Well duh since there is no mathematical definition of enough fidelity to be understandable?

    so then ghostrider goes: LOL! In other words you don't have any understanding of sampling theory or Nyquist frequency either. I guess you never read that big statistics book you were crowing about. ....I asked about the practical limits of the digitization rate to reproduce human voice just to see if you understood the issues with digital sampling of analog signals. It's obvious you don't.


    Poor guy doesn't know that function sampling is not statistical and so is not covered in a statistics book. It is demostrated purely through analysis using the Fourier transform.

    And so I answer: You can significantly undersample an analog voice signal and it will have more and more unpleasant screeching distortion from aliasing, that is, overlaping of the spectral image aliases into audio range. But THERE IS NO MATHEMATICAL DETERMINATION OF HOW MUCH UNDERSAMPLING CAN BE TOLERATED BY HUMAN HEARING before understanding of language is impacted.

    then later ghostrider says High quality DVDs use a 24-bit A/D and run at a sampling rate of 192KHz. When a recording is made and played back with the matching 24 bit D/A (and a good amp and speakers), the results are virtually indistinguishable from a live singer. Lots of samples = better fidelity.

    The problem with this is it is wrong. DVD audio is recorded at 48 or 96 Ksps and 16 or 24 bit resolution and it is played back at 192 Ksps @24 bits. I made an error here thinking he was referring to CD standard and not DVD's, but he got the recorded sample rate incorrect, and "fidelity" is not a scientific/engineering term and he is trying to throw around a little scientific and engineering "prowess"

    Now ghostrider: LOL! Yes MSEE it's really that obvious. You fancy yourself a "highly trained engineer", but you're too dense to understand the most basic things about sampling theory.

    .... I notice you cowardly ignored the question about how the Gallup poll can get accurate statistics by sampling just a few tenths of a percent of the whole population. I guess that big statistics book on your table is beyond you after all.


    See problem is ghostrider is confusing statistical sampling with sampled time functions. A statistical sample is a SET of data points. A time function sample IS a data point. They are entirely non-equivalent. One is handled by statistical methods, the other is handled analytically.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The funniest part is you have no clue as to how immature and desperate you look.

      Delete
    2. Yes it is funny that Timmy TuTu has no clue as to how immature and desperate it looks.

      Delete
    3. Joe if you want to ask MSEE for a date just go for it. No need to be so coy.

      Delete
    4. And Timmy TuTu's substance-free spewage continues....

      Delete
  18. ghostrider: uneducated laymen [here] have zero understanding....

    ReplyDelete
  19. Darwinism is in its death throes. Good riddance!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, evolution is dead again, 5735th time.

      What do you propose we replace it with that explains the deep time fossil and genetic evidence better?

      Delete
    2. ID is not anti-evolution. Obviously Timmy TuTu has a willful ignorance problem.

      Evolutionism cannot explain the fossil record nor the genetic evidence.

      Delete
    3. Hey Chubs, science quiz. How old is the Earth?

      a) 4.54 billion years
      b) 6000 years but it's made from 4.5 billion year old material
      c) YOUR SIDE HAS NO EVIDENCE!!

      Delete
    4. No one knows how old the earth is. To determine the age of the earth you have to know HOW it was formed.

      Not that a simpleton like you could understand that.

      Answer A requires the proto-earth to be so hot that no crystals from the accretion debris survived. Not that you could understand that either

      Delete
    5. Fat Joke

      No one knows how old the earth is. To determine the age of the earth you have to know HOW it was formed.


      Funny then that every geologist and physicist on the planet knows how old the Earth is. But Chubby Joe missed that day in school.

      Delete
    6. LoL! Another prediction fulfilled. Timmy TuTu is too stupid to understand simple explanations.

      Delete
    7. Science quiz 2 Joke. How long were dinosaurs on the Earth?

      a) 135 million years from the Triassic (231 MYA) to the end of the Cretaceous (66 MYA)
      b) 1500 years from Creation to Noah's Flood
      c) YOUR SIDE HAS NO EVIDENCE!!

      Delete
    8. Science quiz for Timmy TuTu:

      How can we test the claim that ATP synthase arose via natural selection, drift or any other stochastic process?

      The same goes for any biological system or subsystem.

      What does unguided evolution predict?

      Delete
    9. Evotard Timothy Horton's mission has nothing to do with science. It has to do with his malignant Christophobia. And he hates and fears Christianity because he sees them as a threat to his homosexuality. Indeed, his militant atheism is driven by his homosexuality. This is why he worships dirt.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
  20. "Darwinism is in its death throes. Good riddance!"

    I must have missed the headlines. Remind me again, how many schools are teaching ID in the science class?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are they teaching wrt evolutionism? There isn't any science that supports it and its claims cannot be scientifically tested.

      Delete
    2. You can always count on Chubby Joe to act the attention whore every time someone posts.

      Delete
    3. LoL! Nice projection, Timmy TuTu, biggest attention whoe on the internet

      Delete
    4. You can always count on Chubby Joe to act the attention whore every time someone posts.

      Delete
    5. Projector boy, Timmy TuTu, strikes again

      Delete
    6. You can always count on Chubby Joe to act the attention whore every time someone posts.

      Delete
    7. You can always count on attention whoe Timmy TuTu to post substance-free drivel

      Delete