tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post8350851204299869184..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Back to School Part IXUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger130125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64805995623499589242012-02-08T17:28:16.396-08:002012-02-08T17:28:16.396-08:00@Thorton
Nice ad hominem attacks. Now point out w...@Thorton<br /><br />Nice ad hominem attacks. Now point out where Cornelius went wrong in a level-headed manner.<br /><br />http://physicalismisdead.blogspot.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75568487700584904672011-01-11T07:28:38.568-08:002011-01-11T07:28:38.568-08:00Neal Tedford: Of course the iPods can be objective...<b>Neal Tedford:</b> <i>Of course the iPods can be objectively classified.<br /><br />They are grouped by comparing parts and the ones that have the most matches of similar parts are grouped closer to together. Do you understand this? It is a very simple process if one is able to evaluate each component.</i><br /><br />Amazing. Neal, what is this objective classification again? You still haven't been able to give even the most rudimentary defense of the one you first proposed.<br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford:</b> <i>If taxonomist's were as opposed to categorizing organisms as you are to designed objects no one would agree on anything."</i><br /><br />Neal, do you <i>really</i> think that a taxonomist couldn't defend the decision to group marsupial mice with koalas rather than placental mice or dolphins with cats rather than fish? Isn't it odd that it is the complete consensus of essentially <b><i>all</i></b> taxonomists (even the creationist ones) that marsupial mice group closer to koalas than to placental mice? Do you really think it's only because no one thought to critically question it? That all taxonomists got together behind closed doors and decided to agree for the sake of agreeing?<br /><br />Your inanity on this subject is staggering.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21029210222475238082011-01-04T15:08:16.326-08:002011-01-04T15:08:16.326-08:00Neal Tedford,
when you examine artifacts, you wi...<b>Neal Tedford</b>, <br /><br />when you examine artifacts, you will nearly always see crossings. A battery (which is actually a very complex structure with multiple components) may be found in many different devices. That's the nature of design. But life isn't like that. Traits are inherited from the supergroup. Even when traits superficially appear to violate the nesting pattern, such as dolphin fins and fish fins, close examination reveals this not to be the case. On the other hand, close examination of the battery shows just the opposite: The exact same battery, with all its structural peculiarities, may be used in entirely different devices. <br /><br />You're also still confused on the simple statement that the leaves on a tree (whether an oak tree or an abstract tree) *necessarily* form a nested hierarchy when grouped by branch and stem. <br /><br />Finally, you seem impervious to understanding these simple concepts.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44151254282037642872011-01-04T14:58:40.704-08:002011-01-04T14:58:40.704-08:00Neal Tedford: Any group of objects that share vari...<b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>Any group of objects that share various numbers of similar components can be arranged in an "objective" nested hierarchy from least inclusive grouping to the most inclusive grouping. </i><br /><br />The question is whether there is an objective, best fit. Specifically, you claimed an objective, best fit for iPods, {classic {touch {shuffle, nano}}, then repeatedly evaded when Derick Childress pressed for details.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-280546467927949652011-01-04T13:48:11.068-08:002011-01-04T13:48:11.068-08:00Zachriel, are you kidding? You have shown repeate...Zachriel, are you kidding? You have shown repeatedly how inconsistent you are in looking at designs objectively. Of course the iPods can be objectively classified. Any group of objects that share various numbers of similar components can be arranged in an "objective" nested hierarchy from least inclusive grouping to the most inclusive grouping. <br /><br />They are grouped by comparing parts and the ones that have the most matches of similar parts are grouped closer to together. Do you understand this? It is a very simple process if one is able to evaluate each component.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73618545268438350342011-01-04T10:32:54.564-08:002011-01-04T10:32:54.564-08:00Neal Tedford: You and Derick should turn an object...<b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>You and Derick should turn an objective and critical eye towards the problems with evolution. </i><br /><br />Does this mean you have abandoned your claim concerning iPods? It was *your* claim that there existed a single, objective classification of iPods. When pressed, you haven't been able to support your claim. <br /><br />The observed nested hierarchy, and its relationship to trees, is essential evidence for the Theory of Evolution. You have shown repeatedly that you don't understand the patterns, much less their relevance to evolutionary biology.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-92082504903663416072011-01-04T07:12:53.469-08:002011-01-04T07:12:53.469-08:00Zachriel,
You and Derick should turn an objective...Zachriel,<br /><br />You and Derick should turn an objective and critical eye towards the problems with evolution. You are certainly capable of finding even trivial issues with a topic. Why do you not turn your attention towards some of the glaring problems with evolutionary theory? <br /><br />It is the "happy faced... problems?... No problems here" attitude of evolutionists that screams your loyality to Darwinism at any cost. Any hope of having an honest discussion is spoiled because evolutionists gloss over glaring problems. For example, rather than saying that the fossils from the Cambrian eon present serious problems, you trivialize the gaps and play up the potential of the supposed ancestors. Just the opposite of what you and Derick are doing here with the examples of Designed product lines. Do you see your inconsistency?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71749538829538226792011-01-01T10:03:36.152-08:002011-01-01T10:03:36.152-08:00Neal Tedford: When taxonomists can agree that scar...<b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>When taxonomists can agree that scarce dolphin hairs are sufficient to meet the criteria for mammals... </i><br /><br />Mammals exhibit a large number of shared traits. <br /><br />Note first that dolphins are members of the Animal Kingdom, that is, like sponges, they ingest food for energy and for protein, the building blocks of their structure. In addition, they have an alimentary canal, where food passes from one end, the mouth, to the other, just like earthworms. They are also vertebrates, that is, like fish, they have a bony spine which protects a nerve cord, and a head at one end which has an array of sense organs. They share a large number of skeletal, musculature, and nervous structures, including vestigial hind limbs during embryonic development, with land vertebrates. <br /><br />More particular to mammals, they have special glands which they use to feed their young. This involves a number of behavioral characteristics we know as "mothering". Dolphins have hair follicles during embryonic development. They have three middle ear bones, and a single lower jaw bone. Like other vertebrates, they have an occipital condyle, but double-faced. Being placental mammals, they have a highly developed neocortex with a corpus callosum. <br /><br />Now, what's interesting about this is the strong correlations in traits. So, close examination of a hair follicle or jaw or brain may be enough to predict the patterns of all the other traits. Imagine being able to accurately predict mothering behavior from an ear bone. <br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>but Derick fusses over the differences in 3.7 volt lithium ion batteries ... </i><br /><br />Indeed, without a battery, an iPod wouldn't work. Nor is a battery a single trait, but an array of related structures, as a close examination would reveal. <br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>So unless you bring some reasonable consistency to your analysis your fail in your argument against grouping the iPod product line. </i><br /><br />It was *your* claim that there existed a single, objective classification of iPods. When pressed, you haven't been able to support your claim.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65262850869097191652010-12-31T12:23:25.389-08:002010-12-31T12:23:25.389-08:00Derick and Zachriel, as I said previously... "...Derick and Zachriel, as I said previously... "If taxonomist's were as opposed to categorizing organisms as you are to designed objects no one would agree on anything."<br /><br />When taxonomists can agree that scarce dolphin hairs are sufficient to meet the criteria for mammals, but Derick fusses over the differences in 3.7 volt lithium ion batteries and such what reasonable discussion is possible? Taxomomists spent much time and work in finding common criteria to group organisms. If their motive is to take issue with slight differences in order to derail the classification project they could find lots of evidence. For example, the extinct marsupial lion apparently did not have the epipubic bone. Some of the higher classification ranks are generously inclusive of many diverse characters. <br /><br />So unless you bring some reasonable consistency to your analysis your fail in your argument against grouping the iPod product line.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-885501322442450512010-12-29T08:00:41.615-08:002010-12-29T08:00:41.615-08:00Must have been the snow storm. {puts watch to ear,...Must have been the snow storm. {puts watch to ear, taps it, sighs}Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9419178432881517702010-12-29T06:39:31.247-08:002010-12-29T06:39:31.247-08:00er... if he returns.er... if he returns.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73766005528597969862010-12-28T08:44:08.103-08:002010-12-28T08:44:08.103-08:00Yes, I was just giving Neal food for thought for w...Yes, I was just giving Neal food for thought for when he returns. (And I was mostly commenting on his reply from the 23rd)Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48092144938094095062010-12-27T06:10:00.334-08:002010-12-27T06:10:00.334-08:00Derick Childress: Neal, what happened to that Tedf...<b>Derick Childress</b>: <i>Neal, what happened to that Tedford tenacity? </i><br /><br />To be fair, it is the Christmas season. Neal may be spending some time with his family. We await his response. <br /><br />(Note to selves: Avoid arguing iPod taxonomy with Derick.)Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27456064930979178002010-12-26T08:01:25.165-08:002010-12-26T08:01:25.165-08:00And so it ends not with a bang, but with a whimper...And so it ends not with a bang, but with a whimper.<br /><br />Neal, what happened to that Tedford tenacity? Was there nothing in my last post worthy of a rebuttal? Of a comment? Just a few lines whining about classifying mice? <br /><br />Me: " [is comparing packaging to environment] a bigger leap than considering it a feature? Explain why."<br /><br /><b>Neal:</b> "..."<br /><br />Me: "What are the values for x, y, and z, [number of iPod components] and what definition of did you use to to calculate them?"<br /><br /><b>Neal:</b> "..."<br /><br />Me: "Why does the number of components outweigh the 20 things I listed? And where does the classic fit in?"<br /><br /><b>Neal:</b> "..."<br /><br />Me: "Which one of your arguments for a single, objective nested hierarchy of iPods based on a panoply of traits have I not completely and thoroughly dismantled?"<br /><br /><b>Neal:</b> "..."<br /><br />Maybe you're working on responses to these questions, so I shouldn't consider them <i>un</i>answered, just not answered <i>yet.</i><br /><br />Or maybe you've realized that you just simply can't make a single, <b>objective</b>, best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits of iPods, for the reasons given in this thread and others. Is that the case?Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46431363173025983462010-12-23T18:28:44.823-08:002010-12-23T18:28:44.823-08:00Neal Tedford: Mammals have about a half dozen trai...<b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>Mammals have about a half dozen traits that distinguish them. </i><br /><br />You mean distinguishing between marsupial and placental mammals? First, it's important to note that they share a huge number of characteristics; a complex cell structure with mitochondria, ingest food for nourishment, alimentary canal, vertebrae, nerve cord, a cranium with complex sensory organs, similarities in skeleton, nerve, organ and musculature, and nurse their young with a proteinous secretion produced by special glands. <br /><br />The most obvious difference is that marsupials have a pouch (marsupium) and give birth very early during development resulting in extended lactation. But there are actually a number of strongly correlated traits. In marsupials, the brain case is smaller with a less-developed neocortex and no corpus callosum. The female and male reproductive organs exhibit bifurcation. The auditory bulla is usually absent, and if present, it's formed primarily from the alisphenoid rather than the tympanic. The skeleton includes epipubic bones. Teeth have well-defined stylar shelves, entoconid and hypoconulids, and a basic pattern of 5/4, 1/1, 3/3, 4/4 = 50, the last premolar being the only deciduous tooth. They have a large jugal bone which articulates with dentary bone in mandibular fossa. Et cetera. <br /><br />The correlations are sufficient that an expert can recognize a marsupial from just part of a skull, or even a tooth. Imagine, being able to determine that an animal cares for its young in a pouch from a tooth.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25536620448067745552010-12-23T18:23:12.353-08:002010-12-23T18:23:12.353-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86675313921955721002010-12-23T14:04:24.065-08:002010-12-23T14:04:24.065-08:00Derick,
Marsupial mice were categorized as being ...Derick,<br /><br />Marsupial mice were categorized as being more similar to koalas than placental mice because men wanted to find common ways to group and organize them. They agreed on the criteria. If taxonomist's were as opposed to categorizing organisms as you are to designed objects no one would agree on anything. Mammals have about a half dozen traits that distinguish them. How about Chordates? A couple? <br /><br />Derick said, "So far, out of nearly 7 billion people, you're the only one I've encountered so far who believes iPods can be classified in the same way, based on a panoply of traits."<br /><br />That's about as scientific as the rest of your reply.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3305345004433857772010-12-23T13:12:25.533-08:002010-12-23T13:12:25.533-08:00continued from above"
Neal Tedford: Yes the ...continued from above"<br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford:</b> <i>Yes the Touch has a flash drive, but the Touch possesses so many more features than either of these <b>it is obvious that the Shuffle and Nano are grouped together. </b></i><br /><br />Have I mentioned how much I <i>love</i> it when you call something <i>obvious</i>? It's usually an indicator that I'm going to have an especially easy time demolishing your argument. When you say something is 'obvious' it usually means it is 'demonstrably false.' Again, where does the classic fit in? What if it's closest to the nano in number of components? They both have screens, storage, cases, batteries, but the nano has a few features that the classic doesn't: FM tuner, pedometer, Nike + iPod support. So, it may be that in listing number of components, you have: shuffle, classic, nano, touch. Every criteria you've picked so far has yielded a different result. Do you really not understand how thoroughly this eviscerates your argument?<br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford:</b> <i>Whoever designed the colors, cases and packaging of the Apple iPods, had these <b>two</b> grouped together. It wouldn't surprise me if <b>both</b> units were developed within the same kind of structural and ascetic guidelines (something that Apple takes very seriously).</i><br /><br />Neal, I take it you've never been in an Apple Store. Almost <i>all</i> Apple packaging looks similar. Not only do the nano, shuffle, <i>and</i> touch containers have a nearly identical look, (adjusting for size) they're similar to the Magic Mouse packaging as well: clear plastic shell that opens into two parts, product displayed prominently, accessories/documentation in opaque white partition, info and specs on the back. (or bottom, depending on how they're stacked) The shuffle, nano, and touch all three have the product names on the side in grey, and the Apple logo on top in grey. (http://bit.ly/gmWXLM) So whoever designed the colors, cases, and packaging of the the shuffle, nano, and touch had those <b>three</b> 'grouped' together.<br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford:</b> <i>Do you really buy into the notion that the environment and RANDOM mutation and natural selection could do this? </i><br /><br />Neal, you put the emphasis on the wrong word. I do buy into the notion that the environment and random mutation and natural SELECTION could do this, because that's where all lines of evidence seem to point. But even if I didn't, that wouldn't have any bearing on the fact that marsupial mice are <b>objectively</b> categorized as being more similar to koalas than placental mice, <i>by every single taxonomist in the world.</i> Not just the 'evolutionist' taxonomists; all of them. The whole modern classification system was even created by a Creationist. That's what we mean when we talk about <i>objective</i> nested hierarchies. So far, out of nearly 7 billion people, you're the only one I've encountered so far who believes iPods can be classified in the same way, based on a panoply of traits. And given your dearth of intelligible arguments on this thread, and the ease at which I've pulled them apart, t seems to be for good reason that no one seems to agree with you.<br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford:</b> <i>The marsupial and placental traits point to a pattern of design based on typology. The mixing and matching of traits throughout the immense mosaic of life.</i><br /><br />Neal, what credibility do you have say what marsupial and placental traits <i>point</i> to if you can't even understand what those traits <b>ARE?</b><br /><br />Pastor Tedford, you keep bringing marshmallows to the gunfight. Reading your responses is entertaining enough, but I'm really starting to feel guilty letting you humiliate yourself with the ridiculous things you keep saying. <br /><br />Which one of your arguments for a single, objective nested hierarchy of iPods based on a panoply of traits have I not completely and thoroughly dismantled?<br /><br />Again, I await your response with morbid curiosity.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82036690167737425942010-12-23T13:10:03.993-08:002010-12-23T13:10:03.993-08:00continued from above:
Neal Tedford: The colors o...continued from above:<br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford:</b> <i> The colors of the Shuffle are a perfectly matched subset of the Nano colors. </i><br /><br />Neal, I'll let you answer your own point:<br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford:</b> <b>It would not make any more sense to group a blue Shuffle closer to a blue Nano than it would be to group animals by hair color.</b><br /><br />Blam. I can't argue with that. So why did you bring up color again? Neal, you're arguments are so absurd, you can't even convince <i>yourself.</i><br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford:</b> <i>Your analysis of the 3.7 lithium ion batteries shows your straining to make your point. </i><br /><br />Another assertion. I can say the same thing, that <i>your</i> analysis of the batteries shows <i>you're</i> straining to make your point. The only difference is, <b>I</b> can explain <i>why:</i> You said that the batteries were the <b><i>same.</i></b> The shuffle's battery has a capacity of .19 Watt-hours, while the nano's has a capacity of .39 Watt-hours. Unless by "the same" you mean "different," That statement is just plain wrong. Maybe you are getting the definitions of 'same' and 'different' mixed up; after all, you did say the nano and shuffle had the <i>same</i> flash drive even though their drives are not only a different capacity, but a different manufacturer as well. If I say: "Hey, you've go the same car as me," do I most likely mean: "Hey, you've got the same <i>color</i> car as me," or "Hey, you've got the same <i>model</i> car as me?" Both the batteries and the flash storage in the nano and shuffle are different models.<br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford:</b> <i>The Shuffle has less components than the other iPods, the Nano is next. It is basically a flash drive, audio codex and click wheel. The Touch is much larger and complex than both of these. </i><br /><br />So your newest claim is that when you take shuffle components (x), nano components (y), and touch components (z), the result: is x < y < z. What are the values for x, y, and z, and what definition of 'components' did you use to calculate them? And even if that equation is correct, <i>why does the <b>number</b> of components outweigh the <b>20</b> things I listed?</i> And where does the classic fit in? My hunch is that it has less components (however you're defining them) than the touch, dismantling your argument <i>once again.</i><br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford:</b> <i>The Nano possesses nearly everything the Shuffle has with the exception of the click wheel hardware (as far as similar technology). Yes the flash drives have different manufacturers, but its still flash technology. </i><br /><br /><b>...flash technology which they share with the touch as well.</b> How many times to I need to point out that in order to group the shuffle and nano together by features, <i>you have to pick features that they don't also share with other iPods? </i><br /><br />continued below...Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22724609628206019982010-12-23T13:09:25.871-08:002010-12-23T13:09:25.871-08:00Neal Tedford: Zachriel and Derick, the rumors of a...<b>Neal Tedford:</b> <i>Zachriel and Derick, the rumors of a evolutionist victory have been greatly exaggerated.</i><br /><br />Neal, who's talking about evolution? I don't think I've discussed evolution with you in weeks. Maybe months. I'd like to, but for now we're talking classification of objective, verifiable traits; traits in iPods, traits in animals. We haven't even begun to apply this to ancestry yet; you're still stuck on the basics. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Are you just too terrified to concede <i>anything,</i> no matter how irrelevant it is to the main subject? I have a lingering suspicion that you know full well that iPods can't be grouped into a single, objective best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits, but you're continuing to argue for other reasons. If it's to show everyone how smart you are, then, well, it's time to pick a new strategy.<br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford:</b> <i>Derick, you got me on the model numbers. </i><br /><br />Actually Neal, I've gotten you on pretty much <i>everything</i> so far. I can't take all the credit though; you do make it pretty easy. And how did that happen, by the way? I thought grouping by model number was <b>OBVIOUS</b> because it was based on <b>simple</b> observation?<br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford:</b> <i>But your other attempts at making a point fall far short. Comparing packaging to environment is a huge leap. </i><br /><br />A bigger leap than considering it a <i>feature</i>? Explain why. (betcha won't)<br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford:</b> <i>Your going to find whatever you want to find... </i><br /><br /><b>EXACTLY.</b> That's because grouping iPods together is <i>subjective,</i> because they have so many mixed-and-matched features. It's amazing how many times you've demonstrated my point without intending to, and apparently without realizing it.<br /><br />continued below:Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57874658338040045752010-12-23T08:10:54.796-08:002010-12-23T08:10:54.796-08:00Zachriel and Derick, the rumors of a evolutionist ...Zachriel and Derick, the rumors of a evolutionist victory have been greatly exaggerated.<br /><br />Derick, you got me on the model numbers. But your other attempts at making a point fall far short. Comparing packaging to environment is a huge leap. Your going to find whatever you want to find... and that is the problem with evolutionist thinking. The colors of the Shuffle are a perfectly matched subset of the Nano colors. Your analysis of the 3.7 lithium ion batteries shows your straining to make your point. <br /><br />The Shuffle has less components than the other iPods, the Nano is next. It is basically a flash drive, audio codex and click wheel. The Touch is much larger and complex than both of these. The Nano possesses nearly everything the Shuffle has with the exception of the click wheel hardware (as far as similar technology). Yes the flash drives have different manufacturers, but its still flash technology. <br /><br />Yes the Touch has a flash drive, but the Touch possesses so many more features than either of these it is obvious that the Shuffle and Nano are grouped together. <br /><br />Whoever designed the colors, cases and packaging of the Apple iPods, had these two grouped together. It wouldn't surprise me if both units were developed within the same kind of structural and ascetic guidelines (something that Apple takes very seriously).<br /><br /><br />Your a thinking man, doesn't it strike you as odd that scores of Marsupial animals should have supposedly evolved independently of the placental animals, yet many look strikingly the same? Mice for example. Do you really buy into the notion that the environment and RANDOM mutation and natural selection could do this? <br /><br />The marsupial and placental traits point to a pattern of design based on typology. The mixing and matching of traits throughout the immense mosaic of life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3217669100121316072010-12-23T05:10:37.366-08:002010-12-23T05:10:37.366-08:00The officers surround Cyrano, er Derick de Bergera...The officers surround Cyrano, er Derick de Bergerac, congratulating him.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41782244935974546912010-12-23T05:07:41.678-08:002010-12-23T05:07:41.678-08:00Derick de Bergerac: Ay, poet, Sir! In proof of whi...<b>Derick de Bergerac</b>: <i>Ay, poet, Sir! In proof of which, <br />While we fence, presto! all extempore <br />I will compose a ballade. </i> <br /><br /><b>Neal de Valvert</b>: <i>A ballade? </i><br /><br /><b>Derick de Bergerac</b>: <i>Belike you know not what a ballade is. </i><br /><br /><b>Neal de Valvert</b>: <i>But. . . </i><br /><br /><b>Derick de Bergerac</b> (reciting, as if repeating a lesson): <br /><i>Know then that the ballade should contain <br />Three eight-versed couplets. . . </i> <br /><br /><b>Neal de Valvert</b>: <i>(stamping): Oh! </i><br /><br /><b>Derick de Bergerac</b> (still reciting): <br /><i>And an envoi <br />Of four lines. . . </i><br /><br /><b>Neal de Valvert</b>: <i>You. . . </i><br /><br /><b>Derick de Bergerac</b>: <i>I'll make one while we fight; <br />And touch you at the final line. </i><br /><br /><b>Neal de Valvert</b>: <i>No! </i><br /><br /><b>Derick de Bergerac</b> (declaiming): <i>No? <br /><br />The duel in Hotel of Burgundy—fought <br />By De Bergerac and a good-for-naught! </i> <br /><br /><b>Neal de Valvert</b>: <i>What may that be, an if you please? </i><br /><br /><b>Derick de Bergerac</b>: <i>The title. </i><br /><br />THE HOUSE (in great excitement): <br /><i>Give room!—Good sport!—Make place!—Fair play!—No noise! </i><br /><br /><b>Derick de Bergerac</b> (shutting his eyes for a second): <br /><i>Wait while I choose my rhymes. . .I have them now! (He suits the action to each word): <br />I gayly doff my beaver low, <br />And, freeing hand and heel, <br />My heavy mantle off I throw, <br />And I draw my polished steel; <br />Graceful as Phoebus, round I wheel, <br />Alert as Scaramouch, <br />A word in your ear, Sir Spark, I steal— <br />At the envoi's end, I touch! </i><br /><br />(They engage): <br /><i>Better for you had you lain low; <br />Where skewer my cock? In the heel?— <br />In the heart, your ribbon blue below?— <br />In the hip, and make you kneel? <br />Ho for the music of clashing steel! <br />—What now?—A hit? Not much! <br />'Twill be in the paunch the stroke I steal, <br />When, at the envoi, I touch. <br /><br />Oh, for a rhyme, a rhyme in o?— <br />You wriggle, starch-white, my eel? <br />A rhyme! a rhyme! The white feather you SHOW! <br />Tac! I parry the point of your steel; <br />—The point you hoped to make me feel; <br />I open the line, now clutch <br />Your spit, Sir Scullion—slow your zeal! <br />At the envoi's end, I touch. </i><br /><br />(He declaims solemnly): <br /><i>Envoi. <br />Prince, pray Heaven for your soul's weal! <br />I move a pace—lo, such! and such! <br />Cut over—feint! </i><br /><br />(Thrusting): <br /><i>What ho! You reel? </i><br /><br />(Neal de Valvert staggers. Cyrano salutes): <br /><i>At the envoi's end, I touch! </i><br /><br />(Acclamations. Applause in the boxes. Flowers and handkerchiefs are thrown <br />down. The officers surround Cyrano, congratulating him.)Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11133463312618630292010-12-23T04:58:52.609-08:002010-12-23T04:58:52.609-08:00A short poetic interlude.
Neal de Valvert: I'...A short poetic interlude. <br /><br /><b>Neal de Valvert</b>: <i>I'll treat him to. . .one of my quips!. . .See here!. . . Sir, your nose is. . .hmm. . .it is. . .very big! </i><br /><br /><b>Derick de Bergerac</b>: <i>Is that all?. . .</i><br /><br /><b>Neal de Valvert</b>: <i>What do you mean? </i><br /><br /><b>Derick de Bergerac</b>: <i>Ah no! young blade! That was a trifle short! <br />You might have said at least a hundred things <br />By varying the tone. . .like this, suppose,. . . <br />Aggressive: 'Sir, if I had such a nose <br />I'd amputate it!' Friendly: 'When you sup <br />It must annoy you, dipping in your cup; <br />You need a drinking-bowl of special shape!' <br />Descriptive: ''Tis a rock!. . .a peak!. . .a cape! <br />—A cape, forsooth! 'Tis a peninsular!' <br />Curious: 'How serves that oblong capsular? <br />For scissor-sheath? Or pot to hold your ink?' <br />Gracious: 'You love the little birds, I think? <br />I see you've managed with a fond research <br />To find their tiny claws a roomy perch!' <br />Truculent: 'When you smoke your pipe. . .suppose <br />That the tobacco-smoke spouts from your nose— <br />Do not the neighbors, as the fumes rise higher, <br />Cry terror-struck: "The chimney is afire"?' <br />Considerate: 'Take care,. . .your head bowed low <br />By such a weight. . .lest head o'er heels you go!' <br />Tender: 'Pray get a small umbrella made, <br />Lest its bright color in the sun should fade!' <br />Pedantic: 'That beast Aristophanes <br />Names Hippocamelelephantoles <br />Must have possessed just such a solid lump <br />Of flesh and bone, beneath his forehead's bump!' <br />Cavalier: 'The last fashion, friend, that hook? <br />To hang your hat on? 'Tis a useful crook!' <br />Emphatic: 'No wind, O majestic nose, <br />Can give THEE cold!—save when the mistral blows!' <br />Dramatic: 'When it bleeds, what a Red Sea!' <br />Admiring: 'Sign for a perfumery!' <br />Lyric: 'Is this a conch?. . .a Triton you?' <br />Simple: 'When is the monument on view?' <br />Rustic: 'That thing a nose? Marry-come-up! <br />'Tis a dwarf pumpkin, or a prize turnip!' <br />Military: 'Point against cavalry!' <br />Practical: 'Put it in a lottery! <br />Assuredly 'twould be the biggest prize!' <br />Or. . .parodying Pyramus' sighs. . . <br />'Behold the nose that mars the harmony <br />Of its master's phiz! blushing its treachery!' <br />—Such, my dear sir, is what you might have said, <br />Had you of wit or letters the least jot: <br />But, O most lamentable man!—of wit <br />You never had an atom, and of letters <br />You have three letters only!—they spell Ass! <br />And—had you had the necessary wit, <br />To serve me all the pleasantries I quote <br />Before this noble audience. . .e'en so, <br />You would not have been let to utter one— <br />Nay, not the half or quarter of such jest! <br />I take them from myself all in good part, <br />But not from any other man that breathes! </i>Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57687552312565996422010-12-23T00:15:46.146-08:002010-12-23T00:15:46.146-08:00continued from above:
Neal Tedford: Grouping in b...continued from above:<br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford:</b> <i>Grouping in biology is not always as clear cut... For example, would you group Marsupial Mice with the Koala before the placental Mice? Why? Does it really make sense to you that these supposedly evolved independently?</i><br /><br />Neal, with this statement, you're a shoe-in for the QQOQQ Award. the QQOQQ Award is given for a creationist question made in the confident expectation that there can be no possible answer.<br /><br />The first winning quote was made by a YouTuber name 'stonedcommander' who said "You [atheists] have no idea why [the planets} are all perfectly round. You stupid [atheists], you don't know nothin'. You don't know anything about anything." (He has since conceded that gravity makes the planets round.)<br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford:</b> <i>Grouping in biology is not always as clear cut... For example, would you group Marsupial Mice with the Koala before the placental Mice?</i><br /><br /><b>YES.</b> And so does <b>EVERY TAXONOMIST IN THE WORLD. UNAMBIGUOUSLY.</b><br />I can't fathom how little you'd have to know about biology to ask a question like that in such an imperious way. The idiocy of that question is just staggering. In the same way that dolphins look like fish, but share a panoply of traits with other mammals, the marsupial mouse looks like a placental mouse (for the same reason a dolphin resembles a fish - they live in similar environments) but it nonetheless shares a panoply of traits with other marsupials. The fact that you consider your vacuous iPod hierarchy more 'clear cut' than the grouping of two marsupials together by every taxonomist in the world is icing on the cake. It's simply astounding.<br /><br />Neal, are you done? I'm getting embarrassed for you. But I must admit, your inane tenacity never ceases to amaze me.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.com