Tuesday, July 24, 2012

It’s Much Ado About Nothing at the Something From Nothing Club in Tempe

Forget about Second City, Tempe’s new Something From Nothing comedy club is rocking with this hilarious spoof on evolutionary thought featuring Lawrence Krauss as the neurotic Rick Moranis and Richard Dawkins as the pompous Dave Thomas. It’s Sophism gone-wild as the Woody Allen and Bob Hope characters trade one fallacy after another over an ironically-placed stack of great books, all in front of the huge neon sign looming above assuring that it is all “Something From Nothing.” Meanwhile a sort of inverse teleprompter is recording their every precious word. The only thing missing was chapter and verse citations.

The skit begins with the usual adoration of biology’s version of the perpetual motion machine where the entire organic world appears spontaneously. But this is old news and the new news is that it is not just the biological world that happened to happen, but the whole world. And it is not just the universe that we can see, but the laws of physics and even empty space itself. It all just happens. In this all-too-real spoof, the all-knowing wise men assure the commoners that everything could have literally come from nothing.

There is the usual value-laden themes running throughout the skit. Skepticism of their lunacy is found to be pathetic and the discovery that something can come from nothing is “immensely exciting,” “stunningly exciting,” and “worth celebrating.”

Of course the metaphysics does not stop there. For the world is full of “bad design features” that “any decent engineer would send back to the shop.”

There is no one so metaphysical as those who deny metaphysics and the skit is topped off with a hilarious exchange which finds that skeptics are the ones who are guilty of cognitive dissonance. Woody Allen wonders aloud “It’s interesting to me, at the same time, how people can hold beliefs which are incompatible with other beliefs they have” [24:36] and Bob Hope reassures the younger sophist that “It demonstrates, clearly, intellectual deficiency. And, in fact, scholarly deficiency … they’re hypocrites.” [27:01]

The not-too-subtle play on SCTV to spoof evolutionary mythology is as ingenuous as are the performances of Krauss and Dawkins. We trust a good time was had by all.


  1. Actually there is now a very strong case to be made for a Theistic origin of the universe:

    Quantum Evidence for a Theistic Universe

    From the best scientific evidence we now have, from multiple intersecting lines of evidence, we now have very good reason to believe that the entire universe came instantaneously into origination at the Big Bang. Not only was all mass-energy brought into being, but space-time itself was also instantaneously brought into being at the Big Bang!!!

    "Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past."
    (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970

    “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” - (Paper announced at Hawking's 70th birthday party)
    Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston - January 2012

    Thus it logically follows that whatever brought the universe into being had to be transcendent of space-time, mass-energy. Yet the only thing that we know of that is completely transcendent of space-time, matter-energy is information. Thus the question becomes did information bring space-time, mass-energy into being?,,, simple enough question, but how do we prove it? It turns out that quantum teleportation breakthroughs have shed light directly on this question!,,, Here are a few experiments establishing the 'information theoretic' origin, and sustaining of this universe,;

    The following experiments demonstrate that energy and mass reduce to quantum information;

    How Teleportation Will Work -
    Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. --- As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made.

    Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research Page
    Excerpt: "it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,"

    Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh
    Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport.

    1. ,,,The following articles show that even atoms are subject to 'instantaneous' teleportation:,,,

      Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups
      Excerpt: In fact, copying isn't quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable - it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can't 'clone' a quantum state. In principle, however, the 'copy' can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,,

      Atom takes a quantum leap - 2009
      Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been 'teleported' over a distance of a metre.,,,
      "What you're moving is information, not the actual atoms," says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.

      ,,,These following experiments show that the teleportation of information is indeed 'instantaneous', thus demonstrating transcendence, and even dominion, of space and time;,,,

      Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video

      Researchers Succeed in Quantum Teleportation of Light Waves - April 2011
      Excerpt: In this experiment, researchers in Australia and Japan were able to transfer quantum information from one place to another without having to physically move it. It was destroyed in one place and instantly resurrected in another, “alive” again and unchanged. This is a major advance, as previous teleportation experiments were either very slow or caused some information to be lost.

      Here is another experiment which demonstrated quantum information's dominion over space and time (specifically time);

      Physicists describe method to observe timelike entanglement - January 2011
      Excerpt: In "ordinary" quantum entanglement, two particles possess properties that are inherently linked with each other, even though the particles may be spatially separated by a large distance. Now, physicists S. Jay Olson and Timothy C. Ralph from the University of Queensland have shown that it's possible to create entanglement between regions of spacetime that are separated in time but not in space, and then to convert the timelike entanglement into normal spacelike entanglement. They also discuss the possibility of using this timelike entanglement from the quantum vacuum for a process they call "teleportation in time." "To me, the exciting aspect of this result (that entanglement exists between the future and past) is that it is quite a general property of nature and opens the door to new creativity, since we know that entanglement can be viewed as a resource for quantum technology," Olson told PhysOrg.com.

      and this experiment:

    2. Here’s a variation of Wheeler’s Delayed Choice experiment, which highlights quantum information's transcendence of time so as to effect 'spooky action into the past';

      Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012
      Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study.
      According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger.

      ,,,Whereas these following experiment shows that quantum information is 'conserved',,,

      Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time
      Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.

      Quantum no-deleting theorem
      Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist.

    3. ,,,Moreover, when the quantum wave state, which is defined as a infinite dimensional state which can be 'theoretically' encoded with infinite information, collapses to its particle state, the collapsed state yields only a single bit of information:,,,

      Wave function
      Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function.

      Single photons to soak up data:
      Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information.

      Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia
      Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,,

      Zeilinger's principle
      The principle that any elementary system carries just one bit of information. This principle was put forward by the Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger in 1999 and subsequently developed by him to derive several aspects of quantum mechanics.

      Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
      Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation:

      ,,,moreover, encoded information, such as we find encoded in computers, and yes, such as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of 'conserved' quantum information:,,,

      Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy - June 2011
      Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;
      In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that "more than complete knowledge" from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy.
      Renner emphasizes, however, "This doesn't mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine." The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what's known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says "We're working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it."

    4. ,,,The following logical deduction and evidence shows that consciousness precedes the collapse of the 'infinite information' of the quantum wave state to the single bit of the 'uncertain' particle state,,,

      The argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:

      1. Consciousness either precedes all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
      2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
      3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
      4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

      Three intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality

      “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
      Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.

      etc.. etc..

      Thus in about as concise a form as I can make it, Theism is found to have far more evidence going for it for creating and sustaining the universe that 'nothing' has going for it.

      Just to be fair though, here is the all the counter evidence that 'nothing' has going for it that it created the universe rather than Almighty God:

      1. NOTHING!

    5. Some good articles you have referenced here ba77, thanks mate.

    6. Jason Kay

      Some good articles you have referenced here ba77, thanks mate.

      I take it you missed the last 247 times batspit77 C&Ped exactly the same off-topic things.

    7. Thorton mate, I don't mind ba77's posts, his links make for some great reading.

      I can't understand your objection to be honest. Is it because his posts go against your beliefs?

    8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  2. Oh boy this might be fun, people who resemble SCTV characters in real life. Since you went first, my turn? Maybe Ed Grimsley Jr for BA? Or maybe a Eugene Levy,Earl Camembert , for you Dr C.

    1. Velikovsky

      what about me, who would I be?

    2. You can be either Doug or Bob Mckenzie, you're a Canuck,right? Smith can be the other. Drinking beer and eating back bacon

    3. Sorry BA, Ed Grimley not Grimsley

    4. I'll have to look up characters of the show, tbh. I'm sure you picked the good one because I hear food and beer.

      I watched Dawkins and Kraus video couple of months ago. They must have really long arms like Inspector Gadget. They were patting each other's back all evening. I hear Jerry Coyne was invited but he declined, he was too busy grooming his cats.

      I would love to say to Mr.Dawkins what would be really “immensely exciting,” “stunningly exciting,” and “worth celebrating.” A bag with two million bucks appearing out of nowhere right now.

      One mil for me, one mil for you when you convert back to theism. Deal Velik?

      Now we just have to wait. Turn on some music.

      (my spellchecker wants to change Dawkins and Kraus into Hawkings and Krakatau - go figure)

    5. A little snarky,eh Eugen? I hear that some people like cats. I am sure Dawkins could also use the cash.But that is not actually the argument is it? It just proposes a mechanism.

      After all, the alternative still has the universe coming from nothing, it proposes ,God, as the mechanism. Perhaps as Ed Grimley believes,God works at the Planck scale.

      Ever visit Rationally Speaking? Pigliucci doesn't have much regard for Kraus as a philosopher.

    6. Umm if the universe comes from God then it did NOT come from nothing.

      Are you really that stupid?

    7. Lately I've begun to wonder...

      Of course, that doesn't mean you are correct. Did God create the the universe out of something?

    8. I know I'm correct. I don't need you to confirm that.

  3. Krauss and Dawkins were a laughing stock in the academic world until people wisened up and politely began to ignore them. Being the attention whores they are, I'm surprised they didn't do something *more* ludicrous than this.

  4. Hunter, I am sorry but you are mistaken about the concept of an ex-nihilo universe. Something can indeed be gotten from nothing. In fact, this is the only ontology of substance that does not lead to an infinite regress. My rationale is as follows:

    If you ask, "what is object X made of?", one can answer that X is made o molecules. If you ask, "what are molecules made of?", the answer is that they are made of atoms. The problem is that this line of questioning quickly leads to an infinite regress. The only way to answer the original question that does not lead to an infinite regress is to say that X is made of nothing. There is no way around it.

    But how can this be? How can something be gotten from nothing? The answer is simple really. Just as all the positive and negative numbers add up to zero, all physical matter must sum up to nothing. This means that we necessarily live in a yin-yang universe and that all matter must come in the form of positive and negative energies, the ultimate symmetry. The conservation of nothing is the mother of all conservation principles. Indeed, change/motion must be seen as nature's ways of correcting any violation of this principle. The consequences of this are profound.

    Of course, the above does not mean that something can create itself out of nothing as those brain-dead atheists are claiming. That would be pure superstition. Logic dictates that creation requires both a creator and that which is created. This forces us to conclude that there exists two realms 1) a spiritual/creator realm that is both unchanging and transcendent; and 2) a physical realm that can be both created and destroyed.

    This is why the ancients have always insisted that we must be one with the universe. From a Christian point of view, this is the reason that our master said that we must become one with him as he is one with his father.

    PS. Note that I'm not preaching. I'm just explaining my perspective on the something from nothing debate.. Take it or leave it.

    1. Hi Louis

      Except the observed universe is almost 100% matter not 50% antimatter. Conclusions must ultimately be derived from observation.

      You imply everything is within the category of "things which are composed of other things". You give no reason why you assert this.

      Kind regards


    2. Dale:

      Except the observed universe is almost 100% matter not 50% antimatter. Conclusions must ultimately be derived from observation.

      Well, it is a misconception that matter is the opposite of antimatter. It is a lie (I have no idea why it is being repeatedly preached by physicists) that matter and antimatter annihilate each other. The verb 'annihilate' means to turn something into nothing. This is not the case when matter and antimatter are brought together: all sorts of new particles are born from the interaction. A true matter/antimatter interaction would result in their reverting back to nothing.

      Moreover, we can only observe a minuscule part of the universe, especially if one consider that the universe is 4-dimensional. I say 4-D because there is good reason to conclude that there exists another 4th spatial dimension. And I am not referring to the nonsensical temporal dimension of relativity. Why? Because a time dimension would make motion impossible. Surprise!

      You imply everything is within the category of "things which are composed of other things". You give no reason why you assert this.

      Actually, I'm saying that this is what we would have to assert if everything were made of something as opposed to nothing. Why? Because, if everything is made of something, that something must also be made of something else, ad infinitum. We can stop this unacceptable infinite regress by concluding that everything is made of nothing.

      PS. Note that there is more to physical matter than it being made of nothing. Something else is needed to give meaning to physical properties, i.e., to differentiate between them. But that's another topic for a different forum.

  5. @CH: As an ID enthusiast, I would enjoy your posts more if the rhetoric was tuned down and there was more focus on the science.

    You have a PhD in biophysics, if I'm not mistaken--far beyond me. But nothing you've written goes beyond what I could write.

    1. JoeCoder

      @CH: As an ID enthusiast, I would enjoy your posts more if the rhetoric was tuned down and there was more focus on the science.

      That's the whole problem. There *IS* no "ID science" that CH can focus on. Every last OP here, every last book by Behe or Wells, every last quote-mined lie by Luskin or the other DI stooges, it's ALL focused on "ToE can't explain this to my satisfaction, so GAWDDIDIT".

      You have a PhD in biophysics, if I'm not mistaken--far beyond me. But nothing you've written goes beyond what I could write.

      You need to realize that this isn't a science blog. It's a Christian apologetics blog where CH misrepresents actual scientific findings and takes potshots at honest scientists. CH isn't a scientist, hasn't done any science since his college days. CH is a culture warrior.

    2. Thorn:

      CH is a culture warrior.

      Unlike you, Dawkins, Myers, and the others, of course. Not.

      Answer me this, Thorn: Your opinion is worth more than spit because of what again?

    3. Hello Thorton,

      I have to disagree with you. I've only read a few articles from Meyers, but I find the writings of Behe and Luskin to be quite enlightening and very science focused.

    4. JoeCoder

      Hello Thorton,

      I have to disagree with you. I've only read a few articles from Meyers, but I find the writings of Behe and Luskin to be quite enlightening and very science focused.

      Really? Can you cite some examples where they provided positive evidence for ID, as opposed to "evolution can't explain this so it's ID by default"?

      I am unaware of even one such case.

    5. puppet:
      Can you cite some examples where they provided positive evidence for ID, as opposed to "evolution can't explain this so it's ID by default"?

      Liar- no one says that.

      Unlike your position the design inference is based on our KNOWLEDGE of cause and effect relationships. And yes that means it goes through your lame position, meaning it is a requirement of the design inference (and science) to first rule out necessity and chance before considering design.

      However puppet master is ignorant of all things science...

    6. Hey Chubs, what's the CSI of a Krispy Kreme double glazed?

    7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  6. Louis Savain

    Answer me this, Thorn: Your opinion is worth more than spit because of what again?

    My opinion is worth no more or no less than anyone else's who posts here Louis.

    However, my knowledge and the scientific evidence I can present is worth infinitely more than any silly ID fantasies about Seraphim "POOFING" the entire universe into existence.

    1. Thorton, God's spit healed a blind man!

      The Miracle of Spit and Sight
      Passage: And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they brought a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him. And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit in his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought. And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking. After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly. And he sent him away to his house, saying, Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town.

      David Crowder Band - After All (Holy) [Acoustic] - Music Videos

    2. Just as I thought. Thorn's opinion is worth less than spit.

    3. Pity that there's nothing that can heal your rudeness and ignorance.

    4. Pity that there's nothing that can heal your rudeness and ignorance.

      Says the rude and ignorant man. How does the taste of your own medicine grab you? LOL.

    5. Louis,
      You don't have a leg to stand on if you are going to criticize him for being rude! He is right to call you out, although he is obviously being hypocritical too.

      But listen, Thornton can't help himself. All his thoughts and actions are determined by the chemical processes occurring in his brain. And he doesn't believe in absolute right and wrong, so he can freely justify anything he wants to and not feel like he is wrong. He has an excuse, but you don't.

      You think revenge is the way of Christ? Revenge belongs to God. We are clearly instructed in the Bible to let revenge in God's hands. He will have to give account for every word he speaks. He wont't get away with it. You don't need to worry. We are all responsible for our own actions and we will give an account.

      Don't take offense at his insults. That's just who he is. If you were an unbeliever in his shoes, convinced that you are right and that those Christians are liars, deniers, etc. who are hindering the cause of science, you might feel the same way he does. That doesn't excuse his actions or rudeness or anything. He is still responsible for his choice of words, pride, rudeness, and rejection of God, but it explains his thoughts.

      But, you are doing the exact same thing back to him! What makes it OK for you and not OK for him? If you are a follower of Jesus, it makes it doubly bad!

      In so doing, you are ignoring the clear teaching of your Lord as to how we are to treat those who malign us and persecute us. Sure, Jesus showed righteous anger at the hypocritical pharisees, but He was exposing their sin. You are simply attacking Thornton, trying to belittle him, and I don't think I would be wrong in assuming that there it is not being done out of loving concern for him.

      I'm 100% on your side Louis, but like Jesus said, “Why do you notice the small piece of dust that is in your friend’s eye, but you don’t notice the big piece of wood that is in your own? ..."

      Clean up your own act and then you can talk to Thornton about his sin.

      If he wants to be characterized by rudeness, vacuous words, and ridicule, fine. That's his choice. But you, you are representing Jesus - again assuming you are a child of God,

      I recognize that not all IDers are believers in Jesus, so I'm sorry if I made a wrong assumption here.

    6. tjguy: I recognize that not all IDers are believers in Jesus, so I'm sorry if I made a wrong assumption here.

      I don't think you need to worry much about this problem. The two ID supporters who are not Christians have already been hired by the Disco 'tute to parade in front of the public.

    7. oleg is an ignorant tool There are many non-christian IDists and many non-christian creationists.

    8. So many that Joe G can't even name them.

    9. That is true. Can you name every evolutionist that is not an atheist?

      Ya see oleg the ignorant, ID doesn't have anything to do with Christianity. But then again you don't know anything about ID nor Christianity.

    10. I can name quite a few evolutionists who are Christians.

      Simon Conway Morris.
      Kenneth Miller.
      Francisco Ayala.
      Francis Collins.
      Darrel Falk.
      Joan Roughgarden.
      Dennis Venema.

      Let's see how long your list of atheist IDers is.

    11. I doubt any one of them are christians. Ya see just calling yourself a christian doesn't make it so.

      And if I ever get any of them on the witness stand I will expose them as the liars they are.

      As Provine said:

      In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.


      The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.


      Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

      Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.


      As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.

      But anyway one does not have to be an atheist, just a non-christian, to refute your nonsense.

      And for that there is myself- a non-christian, Lee Spetner, jewish, and all the muslim and Hindus who do not accept evolutionism.

    12. And don't forget Antony Flew- the one-time atheist and ID opponent who changed his mind because of the scientific evidence and became an IDist.

    13. Antony Flew is now a deist, not an atheist. Whether he supports intelligent design is not clear.

      Oleg 7, Joe 0.

    14. oleg, you ignorant fool. This is about non-christian IDists. Flew was not a christian and yes he accepted ID.

      I am not a christian and accept ID. Spetner is not a christain and accepts ID.

      And not one on your list is a christian. Not one. Meanin g you have nothing. Besides i aksed you to list ALL non-atheistic evoTARDs. You gave 7 that are suspect.

    15. BTW oleg- Flew is now DEAD. But he was an atheist who finally, because of the scientific evidence, accepted ID.

    16. Muslims are not christians and they accept ID. Hindus are not christains and they accept ID.

      Unfortunately YOU are too ignorant to understand any of that.

    17. This starts out as non-christians being IDists and oleg the dishonest ignoramus has to switch it to atheists who are IDists.

      Typical but still pathetic...

    18. Anyone else on your list, Joe? Mine has 7 people, and I only included professional biologists on it.

    19. I did- again your ignorance is getting in the way, as usual.

    20. Where did you name them? Link?

    21. In this thread, in my responses to YOU.

      Again your ignorance, while entertaining, means nothing to me.

    22. As far as I can see, you only mentioned Antony Flew by name. I may be wrong—the thread is large—so perhaps you can name them again?

    23. tjguy,

      Please spare me with your holier-than-thou, manipulative sermon. I am not that kind of Christian. What kind of Christian am I, you ask? I'm a kick-ass Christian. That's what kind.

      I have a different take on what Jesus taught than most so-called Christians out there. King David, a man after God's own heart, not only killed his enemies, he circumcised the SOBs. Did he walk up to Goliath and kissed on the cheek? No. He knocked the jackass out with a stone and cut his head off with his own sword. Yet David was promised resurrection and eternal life. God is the same always. So you obviously don't understand what Jesus taught.

      PS. When the prophet Elijah comes before the end of this world order, he will be nobody's bitch, you can bet on that. And that includes many self-righteous "Christians". Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    24. oleg-
      As far as I can see, you only mentioned Antony Flew by name.

      Thank you for proving that you are one unobservant chump...

      And you are supposed to be a scientist?

    25. No, I think it proves you to be a liar.

    26. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  7. LOVE the SCTV reference Dr Hunter, spot on! ;-)

  8. Of related interest. Here is a new video that was just posted on UD:

    Evidence for an Engineered Universe - Walter Bradley - video

  9. Why does all this sound like a rather hasty change of subject after the DI-bacle over chromosome fusion?

    1. Ian-

      You didn't even read the book pertaining to the alleged chromosome fusion. That means you don't have any idea what they said about it. And that means you should just stuff a sock in it and be happy...

  10. puppet sez:
    However, my knowledge and the scientific evidence I can present is worth infinitely more ...

    YOU don't have any knowledge and you can't produce any science that supports your position.

    You are a liar.

    1. Chubby G

      YOU don't have any knowledge and you can't produce any science that supports your position.

      Chubs, you need to get a new writer. Your kindergarten level temper tantrums use to be entertaining, but now they're just boring.

      Go back to bragging about how you're an Iraqi war hero, and an Olympic class power lifter, and an experienced GA coder. At least tell us the one about how you're a scientist because you tried to get ticks to eat watermelon in your basement.

    2. puppet- I get it, the truth about you hurts and you don't like it. And now all you can do is spew your usual lies as if that means something.

    3. Really, ticks eating watermelon? Sounds like Nobel material.

      Thorton ,got to go with Big Jim McBob, your catchphrase is"Blow'd up good,Blow'd up real good" ,later used by Bill Murray in "Stripes" with Harold Ramis,both SCTV alums.

      Seems to fit, with regards to Earl Camembert's posts

    4. Really, ticks were on the watermelon. Not there on day one but there on day three.

      Don't know if they were eating it or just drinking...

    5. Wow, on day three no less. That's the most devastating evidence against evolution I've ever seen. Maybe the DI is willing to fund a follow-up research project. This time you've really made it into the big science leagues.

      CU in Stockholm.

    6. And another psycho-loser chimes in with its usual nonsense and misconceptions...

    7. That is where the science comes in,Mayor.

      Now in my experience with ticks,( dogs,Texas and ticks) eating and drinking are the same thing. But I am not a biologist.

    8. That is no psycho loser,that is Billy Sol Hurok ,expert on all tick related research.

    9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    10. Hey Chubs, remember that time you tried to argue that ice isn't water?

      That was a hoot!

    11. Hey puppet-

      Ice has a melting point, water does not. Water has a boiling point, ice does not.

      Hail is made up of ice, rain is made up of water.

      Even bartenders know there is a difference between ice and water. So what is your excuse?

    12. Again,Mayor,not a biologist but don't ticks feed of the blood of the host? Like Mosquitos? The way they eat, obtain nourishment, is thru liquid intake. Now if you had said chew, nosh,nibble or masticate,I see your value of your research. You need a operational definition.

    13. Oleg, Count Floyd, might know better but I thought it is possible to go directly from ice to vapor.

    14. Thorton:

      Hey Chubs, remember that time you tried to argue that ice isn't water?

      That was a hoot!

      Thorton: are you saying that hydrogen and liquid hydrogen are the same thing? (Not the same element, the same thing)

      And are you saying that ice is more dense than water, as is usual for all known molecules?

      You're too smart by half.

    15. PaV Lino

      Thorton: are you saying that hydrogen and liquid hydrogen are the same thing? (Not the same element, the same thing)

      You're going to look awfully silly trying to defend Chubby G's stupidity on this one PaV.

      What is the chemical formula of water in its solid state?

      What is the chemical formula of water in its liquid state?

      What is the chemical formula of water in its gaseous state?

      What is the chemical formula of water in its supercritical state?

      Forms of water

      Here's a hint PaV - it's all the same answer.

      Here's another hint PaV

      Wiki: Ice

      "Ice is water frozen into the solid state."

      Another hoot - one IDCer fool trying to defend another. :D

    16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    17. And why isn't it that water is melted ice? What makes wiki an authority? Oh, that's right, wikipedia admits it ain't an academic reference

    18. From your own blog Chubs:

      Joe G:

      "Hail is made out of water?

      Are you really that stupid?"

      Everyone can read it and see the context for themselves.

      You're getting caught in one lie after another today Chubs. Maybe you should take a break and cool down.

    19. Hail is made up of ICE, you moron. RAIN is made up of water.

      Do you really think your ignorance impresses people and refutes what I say? Really?

    20. Thorton:

      I can't believe you're this stupid.

      I said they're not the same "thing", not that they were the same element---or, for the case of water, the same molecule.

      If hydrogen--the gas--is the same as hydrogen--in liquid form--then why is a distinction made?

      Ice is the word we use for frozen water. Why? Because the physical properties of liquid water are different from those of frozen water (e.g., outside of the miraculous, you can't walk on water; but you can walk on ice), just as the physical properties of liquid hydrogen are different from the physical properties of hydrogen gas (e.g., does Boyle's Gas Law apply to "liquid hydrogen").

      Just because you can't grasp subtlety is no reason to lampoon others. Instead, it should be a wake up call to you to think things through more thoroughly.

    21. Chubby G

      Hail is made up of ICE, you moron. RAIN is made up of water.

      What is ICE made up of Chubs?

    22. In true coward form the puppet tries to change the subject-

      What is water made up of? Melted ICE

    23. Chubby G

      What is water made up of? Melted ICE

      That wasn't the question Chubs.

      Here, I'll give your lard butt a running start:

      "What is ICE made up of? Frozen _ _ _ _ _"

    24. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    25. Chin Farmer Joe

      BTW ice is made up of tightly packed molecules of H2O-

      And what is the common name for H2O?

      C'mon Chubs, you can say it....

      "W A T E _ "

    26. It, the common name for H2O, all depends on what state the H2O, is in.

      With respect to hail we call it ICE

    27. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    28. LOL! Poor Chubs. Backed into a corner, just can't admit that H2O is water.

      Par for the course from the same YEC who claims the Earth is young but that God built it from 4.5 billion year old rocks.

    29. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    30. Chubby G

      Hail is made up of ice

      Ice is made up of water molecules.

      You lose Chubs.

    31. Water is made up of melted ICE. And a molecule of H2O is neither water, ice nor steam.

      You are still a loser, puppet.

      Ice is made up of water molecules- now THAT is funny....

      Water is made up of ice molecules- ya see allegedly, according to puppet's position
      (which it is ignorant of) the water we have here on earth came here in the form of ICE from comets, asteroids and meteors. That means the water is made up of ice molecules- using puppet "logic".

    32. Poor Chubs. Still too stupid to understand that there are more forms of water than just liquid water.

    33. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    34. Now take a look at the definition of rain:


      a: water falling in drops condensed from vapor in the atmosphere

      Just as I said- rain is made up of water, hail is made up of ice and thorton is made up of lies and syphilis.

  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  12. Joe G as the institutionalized Mayor Tommy Shanks

    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    2. Not a character Joe, I personally have been fond of the Shemenge Brothers, always fancied wearing a pinkie ring and playing polka,but would gladly opt for John Candy's Curly Howard .

      Look at this way ,Mayor Franks, you are top dog in Melonville,which ironically brings us back to ticks eating melons,your area of expertise.

    3. It's a new character based on your obvious psycho-loser persona

    4. You would need a time machine,Mayor, to create a character in the past, I heard you are an electronics whiz, got one?

    5. Nope, I just use my evo-imagination- ie like evos I can make it up as I go...

    6. Chubby G

      I can make it up as I go...

      That you can. Like how you made up you were a Muslim, and a war hero, and a pilot, and an Olympic caliber athlete, and a scientist, and a master programmer, and a non-YEC.

      I'm sure I've forgotten some of the many other "accomplishments" you made up along the way.

    7. more lies from the thorton child molester.

      I never made up that I was a muslim. I never made upI was a war hero. I never made up I was an olympic caliber athlete, nor a master programmer. And only a dickhead would put me in with YECs.

      puppet is still upset that I have expsoed its ignorance, again.

    8. Chubby G

      I never made up that I was a muslim.

      Posted by Joe G (as John Paul) at evolutionfairytale.com

      "Creationists come in many denominations. I happen to be a Muslim who is not a follower of the Nation of Islam. I know of Hindu Creationists. Islam, Judaism, and Christiantity all share Abraham and they all share Genesis."


      Go ahead Chubs. Lie about posting that as "John Paul", the Muslim creationist from Massachusetts.

    9. Nothing there that indicates I am a YEC and "John Paul" was several people. Nor does anything indicate i made anything up.

      You are just a confused molester...

    10. One lie after another Chubs. Here's how you identified yourself during a debate to Fred Williams who runs evolutionfairytales:

      "Intelligent Design - Is it scientific?

      For the Affirmative: Joe Gallien (John Paul), Field Service & R&D Engineer

      For the Negative: Chris Seibold (former handle: skepticboy)"


      Give it up Chubs. I'm even feeling a tiny bit guilty embarrassing you this badly.

    11. Yes, puppet, that ONE debate was just me.

      Again just because your little-bitty brain can't think doesn't mean your ignorance actually amounts to something.

    12. LOL! So for that one debate you posted as John Paul, but for all the other times (until you got banned for mouthing off, like you always do) it was someone else just hijacking your user name.

      You're a gem Chubs. A real gem.

    13. No. Again your inability to think, while entertaining, is not a refutation.

      One more time for the child molester-

      John Paul was several people- each having some input as to what would be posted. On ONE occasion I took over to have a debate with someone who had been hounding me.

    14. Joe G

      John Paul was several people- each having some input as to what would be posted.

      Sure he was Chubs. Internet discussion boards are just full of groups of people who band together and post with a single user name because no one wants their individual thoughts to be known.

      You're a gem's gem Chubs.

    15. Whatever, molester. Your ignorance still means nothing...

  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  14. Chubby G

    Over on Cornelius Hunter's blog Thorton tried to put me in my place when I had said:

    Psst...hey Chubs...this is Cornelius Hunter's blog.

    You're so busy working on that next chin you forgot to fix what you C&Ped.

    Tell us again how you're not a YEC even though we found your XXXXXL picture listing you as co-author on a YEC website.

  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

  17. Once again, I'm facepalming over all the name calling in the comments here.

    "When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff" --Cicero

    "I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem" --Christopher Hitchens

    Graham's Hierarchy of Discourse

  18. Joe,wasn't that the whole point of Earl's post? Ridicule and ad hom as argument, I for one think it was one of his best. I was thinking he could do A Team theme next.

    Don't worry soon it will be a garden of " comment removed by blog administrator",

  19. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  20. Hilarious, but for the absolute tragedy of it.

    1. I know I shouldn't be doing it, but it is addictively entertaining for me to make JoeBoi dance.

      I imagine when CH comes home this whole thread will be deep-sixed, as well it should be.

    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.