tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-203945572024-03-14T02:24:18.586-07:00Introspection of a Struggling Mad Science WriterI hope you enjoy your visit. If my experiments fail, you won't be leaving.Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.comBlogger251125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-2296924516931604132012-01-03T16:26:00.000-08:002012-03-01T12:27:42.098-08:00I have a new Mad Science Blog!Please check it out, <a href="http://madsciencewriter.blogspot.com">f<span style="display: block;" id="formatbar_Buttons"><span class=" down" style="display: block;" id="formatbar_CreateLink" title="Link" onmouseover="ButtonHoverOn(this);" onmouseout="ButtonHoverOff(this);" onmouseup="" onmousedown="CheckFormatting(event);FormatbarButton('richeditorframe', this, 8);ButtonMouseDown(this);"><img src="img/blank.gif" alt="Link" class="gl_link" border="0" /></span></span>or your own good</a>!Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-77343793032280169992011-11-20T18:41:00.001-08:002011-11-20T19:19:59.235-08:00I'll continue with Kent Hovind's infamous dissertation, but first...<span style="font-family:georgia;">I can't believe how busy I've become that I've forgotten all about blogging! Luckily, quarter's almost over and I'm getting okay grades, plus I have The Best Roommate Ever -- a mad science-type like me! -- to whom I am also teaching Spanish!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Next post will be the next part of my Kent Hovind analysis, but first, a few words from the YEC who started this mad studying of mine, as well as my response.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Technically I started this incident, on a Facebook message, thusly:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >...One other thing, though, seeing as this just happened as I got online. Just one video in on YouTube and I slipped upon and cracked my head open over this one:</span><br /><br /><a style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQXnS9narng&feature=related" rel="nofollow nofollow" target="_blank"><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BQXnS9narng" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe></a><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >I'm rubbing my scalp right now. Hurts like hell, and I wanted to share the pain.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >Reason is, it's this guy who is asking Richard Dawkins a question that makes absolutely no sense at all, hence my cranium is still throbbing.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >I started to think to myself, though, "[AR] would know what the big deal here is, wouldn't he? I should show him this."</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >I just wanted you to hear this question and tell me, in two or three sentences, why I would have a facepalm print.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >Why I would ask you to do this, I don't know. Maybe because it's the first video I've seen with the word 'creationist' in the title for a long time, and because I was just thinking of you beforehand.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >In any case, I'm not trying to belittle you or anything, I really think this is a good question to ask since I know you can do this.</span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">He wrote me back, and I responded, although I needed to post so many additional clarifications and such afterward ("...also, I forgot to mention...") that not long after, I re-edited the entire thing, incorporating all my corrections into the original text.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">In doing so, I also copied and pasted his message into my message, and responded to each of his points so that we start with a part of his response, then follow with my answer to it. This is literally my message to him, not modified in any way other than my own text is green:</span><br /><br /> <blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">"Okay, okay, we get that evolutionary theory teaches continual improvement - the idea being, that these complex organs and systems developed in less-evolved creatures, which led to the creatures themselves becoming more and more complex, etc. It's not that we think Darwinists believed the first humans or humanoids were blind - that WOULD be silly, and a blatant misinterpretation of the theory."</blockquote><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >Indeed! Although what do you mean by 'we'? So many creationism proponents also say things that you wouldn't agree with, and many of them are disparaging towards Intelligent Design for various reasons, so it's not as though 'creationists' are a coherent group.</span><br /><br /> <blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">"So I believe the guy who wrote all the little captions for this video didn't quite understand what this cat was really asking here."</blockquote><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >Actually, I often have heard some creationists literally say things like, "Evolutionists are so stupid because they think their ancestors were stumbling around without eyes and had to wait millions of years for eyes to evolve. Imagine! People unable to find food or make shelter, and they would have fallen off cliffs! Obviously, since that's impossible, then evolution is impossible, and that's why anyone who believes it is an idiot!"</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > ` I'm not joking -- this is a very prominent view, which is why I would think the interviewer had the same idea.</span><br /><br /><br /> <blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">"What he's asking, in essence, is how creatures were supposed to function WHILE these systems were coming into being in the first place - which, okay, Darwinists have a perfectly feasible explanation for, from their point of view."</blockquote><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >Well, what do you think their point of view IS? I'm interested to know.</span><br /><br /><br /> <blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">"The idea of irreducibility, simply put, is that these systems are too complex to function with any one part of them missing or incomplete - that these systems must be whole and in proper order to function and sustain the life they are part of."</blockquote><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >I know the concept; the problem is is that exactly none of the systems ever proposed are actually irreducibly complex; simpler versions exist, which instead of being non-functional have a different function. Also, their various components also have other functions in other structures -- the same parts are used over and over for different things.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > It's only a matter of combining components that already exist which can make more complex structures, which are far from irreducible. Which example would you like me to give you?</span><br /><br /><br /> <blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">"An eye may be a bundle of nerves, but it is a very specifically oriented one, unlike any other in the body."</blockquote><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >Do you think biologists aren't aware of this?</span><br /><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;"><br /> "Moreover, creationists observe patterns - we see that the eye is not really a unique system, and that, though other creatures possess variations on this theme, the eyes of most creatures are quite similar, both in their function and complexity."</blockquote><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >That's not true: When you look all over the animal kingdom, you see eyes of various 'stages' of complexity.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > That's because some animals have very simple eyes because they don't need, or are not able to use, more complex ones.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > For example, the snail-like limpet only needs simple eyes for detecting the shadow of a predator. While it is feeding underwater, it pokes its eyes out from under its shell and turns them upward. When a shadow appears overhead, the limpet clamps down and cannot be pried up. Just seeing the shadow is the difference between life and death, so even crummy vision is a life-saving trait.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > The nautilus is a more complex mollusc, also with a spiral shell, although it's more complex than a snail and has a modified foot that we call tentacles. It also has a hollow eye with no lens and seawater actually flows in and out of it. It can make out blurry images at best, and often clunks into things because its eyes don't point forwards as it swims, but this is certainly better than no vision at all.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > This also applies to you -- when you take off your glasses, you may not be able to see everything clearly, but surely this is not the same as being blind! This is why only having 'half an eye' is very valuable.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > Interestingly, the box jellyfish has many eyes, some simple and others are complex, with a retina, lens, etc. Yet, its complex eyes are out-of-focus because it does not have a brain that can process complex information:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > It is a predator of small fish, but if it could see clearly, it would confuse the motion of bits of debris with small animals, so it would be completely confused and perhaps suffer a sensory overload. So, even with complex eyes, clear vision is not always the most beneficial!</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > Here, this 3-minute video will visually show you what these eyes LOOK LIKE, on the inside, and how they can improve in a fairly straightforward manner to become more effective. It is this that biologists actually see is going on with the evolution of eyes (or any other system you can think of, including immune systems, which are at least as variable as eyes).</span><br /><br /> <iframe style="font-family: georgia;" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HTg3TrDyZ20" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >So, now you've seen with your OWN eyes -- they are not irreducibly complex!</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > Some animals, as you've seen, only have an eye that tells them of the presence of light, and the cells of their 'eyes', if you can call them that, are scarcely different from other types of nerve cells, and among other things, allows them to figure out which way is up or down.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > If a nerve cell reacts to light, rather than another stimulus, then it can be an enormous advantage. Even the simplest organisms can learn to associate one stimulus with another, such as good food and light.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > If the first microorganism with a light-sensitive cell could associate, say, feeding on photosynthesizing organisms floating on the surface of the water with this new stimulus, it wouldn't get lost if it should drift farther underwater where it's darker because it could see light coming from where it needs to go.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > So, how do biologists think that OUR complex eyes evolved in the first place?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > I'm not an expert, so I can't describe this in great detail, but the gist of it is that since we're vertebrates, our first vertebrate ancestors had rudimentary, very simple 'half'-eyes (which are seen in simple vertebrates and vertebrate relatives).</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > Our first vertebrate ancestors to have something more like an eyeball were jawless animals that might be called 'fish', for lack of a better term. In modern vertebrate embryos, this is the kind of eye that develops first before going on to develop into the type of eye characteristic of their species.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > An octopus, whose eyes are as complex as ours, is on a different branch of life's family tree, one that begins with molluscs that have simple eyes, so it could not have evolved its complex eyes from vertebrates. If you look at an octopus' eye, as it is developing, you can see that it forms in an entirely different way from that of a vertebrate's:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > Vertebrate eyes develop from our brains extending to become a retina surrounded by specialized tissues, whereas an octopus' eye develops from a light-sensitive patch of skin that pockets inwards to become a retina and other structures. In other words, similar-functioning complex structures of an octopus' eyes are not homologous to ours.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > Even more, the octopus' retina points forwards, whereas our retinae face the backs of our eyes so that incoming light has to pass through networks of nerves and blood vessels with the optical nerve 'in the way', creating a blind spot. This is one of countless things in the human body that biologists can point to as an example of the inefficiency of evolution.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > Also unlike vertebrates, the octopus focuses by moving its lens back and forth, rather than changing the shape of the lens. Clearly, their eyes are similar to ours, but these complex structures could not have evolved in the same way; they evolved in parallel, one from an octopus common ancestor (something more like a nautilus), the other from a vertebrate common ancestor (which had a spine and breathed underwater).</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > The significance is, a vertebrate's eye may be able to become more complex or super-acute in certain ways, but it can never develop like an octopus' eye because our eyes are constrained by the eyes our ancestors had.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > Insects, who belong to a completely different branch of the animal 'family tree' all have compound eyes, and why? Because they had a common ancestor that developed a cluster of tiny eyes that evolved into compound eyes, and that's what they have to work with. So on and so forth with different branches.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > This same pattern of common ancestry is found for every organ and every gene in every organism ever studied, showing the same relationships no matter what you look at; the eye is just one example out of all examples.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > Here's a twist: the same gene that triggers eye development in the first place is the same gene across different branches! Implant this gene from a mouse in a fruit fly and the fruit fly's eyes develop normally. This is one of the many clues that have led biologists to deduce that animals with eyes have a common ancestor that must have had simple eyespots, without the complexities of later eyes.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > As different branches on the 'family tree' evolved their own kinds of more complex eyes, they still used the same gene to 'turn on' eye development, even though they use other patterns of genes to make the different forms of eyes.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > So, various branches have eyes which are analogous (superficial resemblance), but largely not homologous (using the same corresponding body parts). Molluscs may have a particular homology of eye, although their eyes' level of complexity largely depends on the needs of the species, whether it be scallop, snail or octopus.</span><br /><br /><br /> <blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">"On a side note, think about xenotransplantation - how doctors are able to implant organs from other creatures into humans. While these systems are themselves markedly different from the same systems found in humans, they are often similar enough to use in place of those systems within the human body. I dunno if that really has anything to do with this, I'm just throwing it out there..."</blockquote><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >Since scientists once predicted that we can use organs from other animals because we share a common ancestor with other species and share similar cell types and functions -- similar to what I've described with the eye example -- I cannot think of why you would say that would contradict evolution in any way. Is there a specific reason?</span><br /><br /><br /> <blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">"Anyway, the idea being, we see these systems as having complexity similar to machines, such as a watch or a computer. Even as you couldn't get a watch to form by leaving a lump of metal lying around, with nothing but the elements and time to work on it, so we believe that a system as complex as the life we see on earth could not have come about by random circumstances, but by design, the action and direction of an intelligent force of will."</blockquote><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >Of course we do not see watches build themselves -- they are not alive. They are inert material that does nothing on its own. And yet, we built ourselves in nine months, with the help of our parents, and continued to develop into adults. No one put us together.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > Thus, comparing things that -- by definition -- eat, grow, repair themselves and build offspring, to something which cannot do any of these things, is a false analogy. Left to themselves, buildings fall apart, but organisms continue taking in energy, which ultimately comes from the sun, and utilize it to continue building new life. (This is how they thwart the second law of thermodynamics, thus organisms as a whole will cheat death until entropy kills the sun.)</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > Where do we see organisms come from? We don't see anything building them; we see that their parents spawn them. Organisms 'know how to' make offspring -- they are literally a creative force, whereas pieces of metal simply oxidize.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > So, if everything today came from its ancestor, and each of those ancestors came from its ancestor, all the way back to the first ancestor, then how did that ancestor come to be? What process created the creative force?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > Here's a hint: it has nothing to do with 'lightning striking a mud puddle' or 'spontaneous generation' or other completely whacked-out ideas that nobody believes. This is ridicule, pure and simple; it has nothing to do with anyone's work in abiogenesis.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > Luckily, I happen to know a video that I really think is wonderful for visually just showing you what the origin of life could look like, through the the first lipid spheres and nucleic acids to a living thing much simpler than a modern cell.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > I do recall trying to give you some idea of this before, but this SHOWS you the kinds of processes that happen in conditions more similar to lifeless planets (such as Venus or Mars, but with a more agreeable climate!):</span><br /><br /> <div style="text-align: center; font-family: georgia;"><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vjOqWkV1_tk" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe><br /></div><br /> <span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >Also, there are other, partly distinct hypothetical ways that life could originate -- the biggest problem that scientists who study abiogenesis have is figuring out which one is correct. This one is still in the running, however, since it has been experimentally verified to a fairly high degree.</span><br /><br /><br /> <blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">"While we are able to observe similarities in nature, and understand how various systems tend to be similar to one another, we do not interpret this as pointing to a common ancestry - rather, we see a unity in essence, in being, and in function."</blockquote><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >Well then, are there explanations for the fact that the family tree of common descent is always seen in nature and never broken? In other words, why is it that EVERYTHING can be classified as being some twig or other on one big tree of life, no matter what evidence you look at?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > For example, why can't God make a vertebrate with six limbs? Or a vertebrate whose eye (or anything else) develops like that of an octopus? Would God be able to make something that is half bird and half mammal, or any other impossible chimera, by combining two distant twigs into one organism?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > It amuses me that some creationism proponents say that the existence of exactly these non-classifiable organisms such as the 'crocoduck' or 'rhinopus' or Hovind's 'banana dragonfly' and 'pine cone man' would prove evolution, when in fact they go against all evolutionary rules and would actually disprove common descent.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > What about a fly that uses the mouse version of the gene that 'turns on' eye development instead of the fly version? Such things have never -- I repeat, NEVER -- been found, but if they were, common ancestry wouldn't make sense. If such 'signatures' were found all around us, we'd have reason to believe something besides evolution is going on.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > I've also found some great videos which explain this visually, giving many specific examples for illustrations, but as that would take a while, I'll skip it for now.</span><br /><br /><br /> <blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">"We see similarities exist for the sake of life being able to function together in the collective biosphere of the planet; indeed, this collective biosphere, in all its complexity and intricacy, we consider a system far too complex to be left to chance. If everything works together, in such incredible harmony, how are we supposed to believe it simply happened with no one to orchestrate that harmony?"</blockquote><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >No biologist thinks that the world's ecosystems were left to chance, at least not random chance. Evolution is not up to chance -- the environment is the designer in nature. This also means that organisms sculpt and define one another in complex ways just by interacting, which cannot be avoided. Once you understand how this works, it is easy to see how it can create the harmony in earth's ecosystems.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > Sure, mutations are random, and very common, and the individual life path of each life form is partly due to chance, and partly due to genetics. This is only a small part of evolution. What else were you under the impression was left to chance? (There are statistical patterns, yes, but this isn't what you mean by 'chance', is it?)</span><br /><br /><br /> <blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">"In particular, how are we to believe that this came out of a system predicated on the idea of competition, of the weak being trampled under by the strong - particularly when we see that the "weak" and "strong" are co-dependent?"</blockquote><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >I don't understand what you mean by this: Natural selection can work to increasingly change an organism BECAUSE the "weak" and "strong" are co-dependent. How? Simply put, today's "strong" is tomorrow's "weak": When something that can survive better than the previous 'best' of its species, it's going to raise the bar on survival standards.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > Once raised, these standards can only 'ratchet up' because while species can go for a long time without changing much, they also cannot take a step back because the least fit members of each generation are the ones that die off. Organisms with harmful traits don't generally factor into the gene pool.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > On the other hand, individuals with better survival traits, for better fighting off a particular disease, better able to outrun predators, better camouflage, etc. will consistently survive and one day be all that is left. With their new traits combined, you have a species that is better adapted to its environment.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > Yet, because of the continuous stream of mutations, there will always be some born that have more/enhanced beneficial traits, and thus will have a higher reproductive fitness and replace the ones that were previously the fittest. On and on it goes like this.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > When you factor in organism interactions, you can see that species ratchet one another along. Take for example the early cheetahs of North America. Looking at their skeletal structure, they were clearly not as fast as modern species. However, as their pronghorn prey became better at escaping, only the fastest cheetahs could survive.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > In turn, only the fastest pronghorns could outrun these faster cheetahs, thus selecting even faster cheetahs for survival. They co-evolved in this way, forcing one another to run faster and faster. This is the reason why modern pronghorns can run as fast as a cheetah, and even keep it up for longer!</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > The North American cheetahs, however, did not survive past the last ice age and human colonization -- although some of them followed herds across Beringia when sea levels permitted it, and made their home in the Old World. Nevertheless, ancient North American species of antelope-like animals can be seen as 'creating' cheetahs in this way, and vice-versa.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > Invoking Lewis Carroll, this concept can be thought of as the Red Queen's dilemma; running as fast as you can to stay in the same place. Although this is just an example, the same kind of thing can be seen happening across all species to this day, not only in competition but also in cooperation and symbiosis.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" > Does that answer your question?</span><br /><br /><br /> <blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">"Anyway, I dunno if that answers your question or not, or if I missed something you presented that would have addressed my points."</blockquote><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >I'm not sure it does, but it seems to have raised more questions.</span><br /><br /><br /> <blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">"If I dig up any videos of Darwinists being made to look dumb, I'll kick them your way, but actively pursuing such things just isn't my style."</blockquote><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >Thanks, but don't worry about it -- I've seen hundreds of them, it would seem, even without actively pursuing them! ;D</span><br /><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;"><br />"I try to have a little more respect for my opponents; at the end of the day, they're humans too, and while I may not agree with them, my God still loves them. Hey. He puts up with me... :P"</blockquote><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >While it is good to have respect for your opponents, it is not good when someone slams you for holding an argument you don't hold. THEY are the ones who have no respect, and if I've misrepresented what YOU think, just tell me.</span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Anyway, that's exactly what I wrote, and I even told him, in person, that I'd re-edited my original response to him for orderliness' sake, so that it would be easier for him to respond.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">This was at the beginning of November and he's never responded, and probably hasn't read it. And that's why I'm posting it here -- I want SOMEone to read it!</span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-15228931043143347852011-10-10T20:15:00.000-07:002011-10-23T14:31:37.761-07:00Why Hovind hasn't earned the title of 'Dr. Dino' (2a of 5)<span style="font-family:georgia;">In </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://nociceptor.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-hovind-hasnt-earned-title-of-dr.html">Part 1 of this series</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">, I described why Kent Hovind's 'doctoral dissertation' doesn't even qualify as one, from its own admission of not being original research, to exposing the school that issued it as being highly dubious indeed. If you haven't read it already, please do.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 51); font-family:georgia;" >` This time, I'm taking on Chapter 1, in which Hovind officially begins his paranoid ranting and misrepresentation of science, culture, religion and history. My favorite part is where he says that Noah's flood destroyed every living thing on earth during the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt.<br /></span><span style="font-family:georgia;">` That particular detail, however, will have to wait until Part 2b. As you may have noticed, this post is Part 2a of 5. It seems that Chapter 1 divides nicely into three fairly equal pieces, which I am now working with one at a time. It's much easier, both on me and my readers.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Also, I would like to address some criticisms:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">I've been given quite a hard time for wasting my time and talent on shredding apart what is so obviously unworthy of anyone's attention in the first place. After all, attention for being obnoxious is what these young-earth creationist proponents want, and I'm giving it in spades.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Why do I bother to beat this dead horse instead of write about something my readers would actually care about? It's not as though I would expect to convince any of Kent Hovind's fans that there may be something fundamentally wrong with his fundamentalist claims.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Even more, there's nothing at all challenging about this task other than putting a lot of time and effort into keeping myself busy with it. If I want to impress someone with my writing, then I should pick a topic that actually requires work in order to figure it out.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">So, why am I doing this? Because really, I just need the exercise. It's straightforward and not intimidating, and I think it's good practice for me to go through the motions without the pressure of having to make a difference in the world.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` In other words, I'm too lazy to be creative, original, or helpful to anyone but the very few who actually care about how mentally ill Hovind may be.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Most of all, one might think that if I am doing this for the benefit of my Arch-Rival in Taking Over the World, then I'm only shooting myself in the foot. I disagree:</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` While I'm taking all this trouble to write this series, he will probably conclude that this immense sea of writing only demonstrates that Hovind is somehow a formidable opponent and that therefore he instead must have some intellectual worth.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">After all, Kent Hovind -- while he is in federal prison at present -- has nevertheless gotten rich and successful, unlike me. Who's actually 'made it' in life -- someone who has a career, or some random blogger?</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Furthermore, who am I to criticize someone who makes a living off of telling outrageous lies so he can get attention like some spoiled brat? Never mind about his fake degree -- what credentials do </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >I</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> have?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">To answer that, I'm currently working on my transfer degree to get to a four-year university, and that will be more qualification than Kent Hovind has ever earned, as I have previously mentioned.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` I've taken classes in biology, oceanography, and other sciences, and have read a great deal about evolution and other topics of whose principles Hovind has never demonstrated having even the most basic grasp.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">So really, is this all just to make myself feel superior to some rich person who acts like an idiot? Is writing this series actually about how ignorant or dishonest I can expose someone else to be in order to stroke my own ego?</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Not really -- to me, this is a way that I can share my laughter at such utter mental retardation to anyone who cares to hear it. It's genuinely a form of (depressing) entertainment for me, so why not show the world how funny/sad Kent Hovind's ravings are?</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` The best part is, it requires that I reserve my effort for where it really matters in life right now -- working and studying hard. Priorities, you know?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Of course, writing something more timely and important may also further my career, so what is my excuse for playing silly games instead of working?</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` I admit that I don't have one, other than to develop my mad debunking skillz, as well as to invoke the Sunk Cost Fallacy by saying I spent so much time in May working on it that I'd really just love to finish maiming/glorifying Hovind's paranoid ranting.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">If this lame excuse is not satisfactory to my readers, especially if you're the type who is so traumatized by the pain of listening to Hovind's abject nonsense that you never want to hear his name again (this isn't hypothetical, I know such people), just know that I'm only going to do this once and only once. And I'm gonna do it </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >good</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">So, I should really be getting on with Part 2a already, and I would like to point out first that throughout this dissertation, Hovind shows signs of insecurity by frequently using words such as 'clearly', 'definitely' and 'obviously' in almost every point he makes.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` It seems to imply that if you can't 'clearly' see it, then you're 'obviously' stupid. I can 'clearly' see why Hovind would have to resort to this form of bullying, because in the very first sentence, he demonstrates that he seems to have no clue about what evolutionary theory is:</span><br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center; font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">THE HISTORY OF EVOLUTION</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />(Section A: Bastardizing Science)</span><br /></div><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">This is really the first sentence:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">Where in the world did the idea come from that things left to themselves can improve with time? Who would start a crazy idea like that?</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Oh, I know! </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >Creationists would!</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> In this way, they make those who accept evolution look 'crazy'! In reality, of course, biological evolution is quite different:</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` The theory of evolution is based on the idea that species adapt to their habitat </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >at the time they are alive</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">. As evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould phrased it, evolution is not a watchmaker, but a short-order cook.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Because of this, there is no clear 'progress' toward any specific goal, but rather only change through allele frequencies. Unlike wine and cheese, species are not expected to 'improve' over time according to some subjective criterion or human taste.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">It sure would be 'crazy' if people who study evolution thought it to be progressive -- now, wouldn't it? -- and that's why Hovind claims they do.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">The theory of evolution only predicts that species will adapt, which is the only thing a lineage can do to keep itself from going extinct in the face of any environmental challenge. Evolution does not plan ahead, nor strive for any particular goal; in general, changes occur because they are necessary in the immediate environment.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` This concept is as basic to evolution as the concept that 'molecules are made up of atoms' is to chemistry, so right here it is obvious that Hovind is not displaying any actual knowledge of what evolutionary theory actually is. And it goes on and on this way:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">This idea is the opposite of everything that we observe in the world today.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Darn right it is, and 'evolutionists' completely agree on that point.</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">For instance, all the highways in our nation today left to themselves decay, deteriorate, and fall apart. A house left to itself will become a wreck. It takes work and constant planning to make anything improve. Everything tends toward disorder. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are well established scientific laws that have never been observed in the universe to be broken.<br /></blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">I've explained to my Arch-Rival before, in some detail, why this makes zero sense -- it is a false analogy. To reiterate here, the sun is constantly adding energy to the earth, which allows the level of entropy to </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >decrease</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> in the earth's ecosystems.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Although life forms can reliably grow, develop, organize and create new individuals without breaking the second law of thermodynamics, billions of years from now the sun will be so hot that it will boil the oceans from the earth and eventually explode, destroying the only planet we've ever lived on (so far).</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` In other words, entropy is still the ultimate result, but until then, life will continue to grow and decay in roughly equal amounts.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Living things are not like highways or houses because they can repair themselves, increase in size, eat each other and produce many more individuals. These individuals can only do their best at competing/cooperating in the world because, as the earth turns, the sun is ceaselessly and evenly replenishing the ecosystems.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` This continuing input of energy is the only requirement necessary for evolution: as long as organisms can keep living and reproducing, their genes will continue to change -- occasionally at a very noticeable rate (i.e. new species evolving before our eyes), which I may get into later in this series.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">As I've also mentioned to the Arch-Rival, genomes can </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >increase</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> the number of genes they contain, as in gene duplication </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication">yes, there is such a thing</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">, which can cause new genes to evolve; one noteable example is </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/01/gene-duplicatio-1.html">the gene that codes for the antifreeze protein in the Antarctic eelpout</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">. The gene has a new function, yet it comes from a frame-shift mutation in an un-needed copy of another gene with a different job.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` In other words, genomes don't degenerate. They can lose genes, but they also make new genes. I'd go on with other examples, but it seems most appropriate to stick with Kent's insanity about the laws of thermodynamics:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">The first law says that matter cannot be created nor destroyed by ordinary means.<br /></blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Actually, it doesn't. It states only that energy is conserved, and as we know today, matter and energy are interchangeable. The "by ordinary means" bit is also not a part of this law.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Scientists don't say, "this happens, but only without God!", which is what Hovind seems to be suggesting. Physicists actually say, "this happens", and whether or not God is involved is left out because that is unanswerable by science.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` This comment rather seems to reveal Hovind's belief that there is indeed a way around physical laws, similar to his belief that there is a way around tax laws.</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">We do not see anything being created today, and yet we do see an entire universe of created material. This clearly indicates a Creator.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Clearly? Or perhaps this is all semantics; first, he's saying the universe was 'created', in order to imply such creation was deliberate. Just as easily, we could use another word, like 'formed', which doesn't imply the universe came about </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >on purpose.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">So, what caused the universe? We may be led to expect an answer to this question because we exist inside of time. Time began when our universe began, so our familiar concept of cause and effect would not apply.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` In other words, cause-and-effect can only work if there's already something to work </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >with</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">. If there isn't anything to work with, then it happened another way, and that's a way no one knows about.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">All that physicists know is that the galaxies are flying away from one another because space is expanding, and if you turn back the clock 13.7 billion years, all of space would have been a singularity.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Although the Big Bang is understood in minute detail only fractions of a second after its occurrence, the gist of it is that early on, all of space was filled with white-hot luminous matter before it cooled and the light 'turned off'.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` This same light is still streaming through the universe, although it's thinned a lot because the universe continues to expand. It's not visible to human eyes, however, because the expansion of space has stretched it from the visible spectrum into longer-wave light.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">This universe-wide flash near the beginning of our universe was accidentally discovered in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson, a physicist and astronomer pair who had just built the then-most sensitive radio antenna/receiver system in the world.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Although this radiation was predicted in 1948, Penzias and Wilson did not think of it when their machine picked up some 'noise' they did not expect. After ruling out all other sources of radiation, such as New York City -- as well as shooting some pigeons who had been depositing 'white dielectric material' in the horn antenna -- they concluded that it must be coming from somewhere else.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">The echoes of this flash -- called the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation because it is strongest in the microwave spectrum -- is being mapped in great detail by progressively more advanced satellites. For example, here's what the WMAP shows us:</span><br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/WMAP_2010.png"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/WMAP_2010.png" width="550" /></a><br /><br /><div style="text-align: left; font-family: georgia;">As you can see, these glowing particles were not entirely evenly-distributed, but rather lumpy, which would be just what one would expect if galaxies were to have a way to form via gravity becoming stronger in some regions and pulling material together.<br /><br />Just how that expanding singularity 'happened' in the first place is still a mystery, but it may not always be as long as scientists don't throw up their hands and say, "I give up, therefore Goddidit!"<br /><br />Moving on, Hovind also implies in this passage that it's impossible for anything at all to create matter, with only one possible exception; God, and presumably not any other deities, either.<br />` Of course, human beings use particle accelerators to hurl particles around and smash them into one another, which can create matter through the ordinary rules of cause-and-effect -- it's called <a href="http://web.pdx.edu/%7Eegertonr/ph311-12/pair-p&a.htm">pair production</a>.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: left;">Thermonuclear bombs do the same thing, of course, as does the sun, to the extreme! In this process, one particle has a positive charge and the other has an equal-but-opposite negative charge -- in other words, a matter particle and an antimatter particle.<br />` Thus, their energy level is the same as the level before they were formed. However, antimatter is rare (although enough of it orbits the earth to be used as fuel according to this <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/737/2/L29/">Astrophysics Journal article</a>) because most types of antimatter tend to annihilate one another.<br />` Although annihilation produces a lot of energy, it leaves behind the same total amount of energy because one is positive and one is equally and oppositely negative. I've always pictured this as sort of like taking a string (energy) and tying it into a knot (particles) and then untying the string again.<br /></div><br />So, while this doesn't break any laws of physics, it does demonstrate that unlike what Hovind asserts, matter is <span style="font-style: italic;">ordinarily</span> created every day.<br /><br />The particle accelerator experiments help physicists figure out how matter was formed in the Big Bang, although they don't tell us where this energy that <span style="font-style: italic;">turned into</span> matter came about to begin with, or why more matter hasn't been annihilated by antimatter.<br />` That mystery (and perhaps the missing antimatter) lies <span style="font-style: italic;">outside</span> the universe and its laws of cause-and-effect, and remains to be solved.<br />` It is this mystery, and not cause and effect, that Hovind seems to be referring to -- the universe is here and no one knows why.<br /><br />Scientists who ask this question <span style="font-style: italic;">do experiments</span> to try to figure it out; they want to learn the answer because they don't know. It should be fairly obvious to anyone that not knowing the answer means that you don't know the answer -- therefore you <span style="font-style: italic;">still</span> don't know!<br />` To say you have the answer when you really don't is a logical fallacy called Argument From Ignorance. So, if someone says, "I don't know how to explain that, therefore it's evidence of ghosts/aliens/Goddiddit" the only thing that tells you is that individual's <span style="font-style: italic;">personal beliefs</span>.<br /><br />And one more important point (yes, there's more); figuring out where the universe comes from is the realm of physicists and cosmologists, <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> biologists. The origin of the universe has nothing to do with biological evolution, although there are concepts which use the name 'evolution', such as '<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution">stellar evolution</a>', which describes how stars change over time.<br /><br />Stellar evolution is the process of gravity causing gases and dust to collapse into stars and planets, which explains why they are round, and why they move the way they do. Later, when all the star's fuel is spent, it no longer has the energy to prevent its further compression and blows itself apart into a different phase, such as a red dwarf or neutron star.<br />` If it is massive enough, it becomes a singularity, called a black hole, which can be seen like a cosmic version of the Tasmanian Devil character from Looney Tunes, occasionally tearing apart other objects in a very bright and violent mess.<br />` Stellar physics has nothing to do with biological evolution because stars are not living things and are not subject to genetic variability and natural selection. In this case, the word 'evolution' refers to the changes of a single star over its 'lifetime', in the same way that 'lifetime' here means 'as long as it lasts' rather than 'as long as it is alive'.<br /><br />I think that's more than enough of my interjections -- let's move on to Hovind's next paragraph:<br /><blockquote>There are people in the world today who wish to avoid the concept of God. They do not like the idea of a God telling them what to do. Therefore, they have come up with the most dangerous, damnable doctrine every [sic] imagined, evolution.</blockquote>It is easy to see why there is literally no logic to this statement: If somebody <span style="font-style: italic;">already</span> doesn't believe in a certain deity, then why would they care if that deity wants them to behave a certain way, any more than a believer in that deity would take a different one seriously?<br />` There's no more empirical evidence for Zeus or Thor than there is for the Christian concept of God, so why would atheists (or deists, for that matter) be compelled to believe it exists, much less 'wish to avoid' it? (I suppose there are some rebels out there, but they seem to be in the minority of atheists.)<br /><br />Also, something I recall from my Philosophy of Religion class (taught by a devout Christian): If biblical morality is moral because God says it is -- as in "Thou shalt not kill" -- then God can say that killing is immoral one day and moral the next. In other words, whatever God says <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span> moral <span style="font-style: italic;">becomes</span> moral and there <span style="font-style: italic;">are</span> no objective moral standards!<br />` Although the bible is filled with instances of God (and even Jesus) telling the Israelites to kill others, this is not because the rules are being changed, but rather because "Thou shalt not kill" only applies to other Israelites, and everyone else is fair game. Either way, this is not what anyone today would consider as 'enlightened' thinking.<br /><br />My Arch-Rival has defended the example of God telling Moses to commit genocide, sparing only the virgins for the purpose of raping, as being moral because it was a necessary step in spreading God's love. And why do the ends justify the means?<br />` Because Whatever God Commands Is Good, Even If It's An Unspeakable Atrocity. Do I need to go into why exactly this is Very Bad Logic?<br /><br />I should expect that if there's a God who actually told my Arch-Rival to do something so incredibly heinous, he wouldn't be able to bring himself to do it, thus putting his own moral standards <span style="font-style: italic;">above</span> God's.<br />` However, if he were able to obey, then what would that say about him? Would that make him a religious terrorist? Would it show the strength of his faith or the tragedy of being a pawn to his belief that God Is Always Right?<br /><br />There are, however, examples of changing morality in the bible, as when God decrees slavery, and commands people to stone those who insulted him, even when they hadn't harmed anyone. In the modern world, such things are considered barbaric, so does that mean that God was a barbarian?<br />` Were those things right back then? Were they never right to begin with? How can there possibly be objective moral standards if those standards can change?<br />` The idea that God is benevolent is only believable when one has faith that everything he is said to have done is Right. If that belief is at the base of one's answer, then anything else can be justified in that light.<br /><br />Regarding scientists, they must avoid the concept of God in their <span style="font-style: italic;">methods</span>, whether they believe in God or not. This is because it is not possible to include something you can't test, or to explain some unexplained phenomenon by saying "Goddidit!" because if there is a naturalistic explanation, you can't afford to be cynical and say there <span style="font-style: italic;">can't possibly</span> be one.<br /><br />Charles Darwin himself was studying to become an Anglican minister before he became a naturalist, and according to all his writings, he himself believed all the tenants of the Church, including the literal six-day creation, until he was convinced by all the geological processes and fossils that the earth was millions of years old, and that such things as the pattern of species distribution showed that species arise mainly through natural selection.<br />` As I recall, Darwin described admitting his proposal "like confessing a murder" because of the reaction it would get, but it was no doctrine: He put his theory out there to be trounced upon by the entire scientific community, and they did, which led to it being taken apart, revised, refined and expanded enormously, which continues to this day.<br /><br />So, what is evolution through natural selection, anyway? Hovind clearly has no clue:<br /><blockquote>The technical definition of evolution means “change.”</blockquote>Whoa, Kent, that's so technical! In all seriousness, what he's trying to do is make the definition of biological evolution so vague that it can apply to any sort of change.<br />` As I've said, biological evolution is about the genetic changes in populations, nothing more.<br /><br />As the Understanding Evolution website puts it: "Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance."<br />` I recommended <a href="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/">Understanding Evolution</a> to the Arch-Rival, so that he could learn more about what he doesn't know about evolution, such as what it is and how it works, as well as its history.<br />` It's very basic, but it doesn't take a braniac to understand the concepts -- and then realize that people like Kent Hovind are giving it fictional definitions that are ripe for mockery!<br /><br />Hovind quite deliberately likes to confuse biological evolution with the idea of any other kind of change, including ideologies promoting progress. (No surprise, he's conservative to the point of wanting to bring back public executions by stoning, but that's another story.) He says:<br /><blockquote>There is no question thatthings [sic] do change. All change is directed either downward toward less order if left to themselves, or upward with a master-mind behind it.<br /></blockquote>I would like to point out that crystals do build themselves, and there's no master-mind needed to explain them. This is why crystal formation has been suggested in the past as one way that living things could have come into being (this is not part of evolutionary theory, but rather, the theory of biogenesis).<br /><blockquote>The cities that we live in have ‘evolved’ over the years. ... Not one of the buildings in your city built itself by the material rising up out of the ground.</blockquote>I would also like to point out that <span style="font-style: italic;">living things build themselves</span> -- thanks to our parents, we've all done it ourselves in nine months, and then continued growing and developing.<br />` Under the best conditions, a small number of trees can "build a whole city" of trees, with new trees literally springing up from the ground, thanks to the natural creative force of the plants' reproductive organs.<br />` These are some of the reasons that materials used for making buildings are not considered life forms, and this is why they cannot build themselves. Is this not 'obvious'?<br /><blockquote>A college professor told me that cities 'evolve' with time.</blockquote>This is true, provided that we acknowledge that the word in quotes does not refer to biological evolution.<br /><blockquote>I said to him, "I agree. If you use this as your definition of 'evolved' then you are including a design, a designer, and lots of work -- planned intelligent progress, not chaos ordered by self. Not one of the buildings in your city built itself by the material rising up out of the ground."</blockquote>True -- <span style="font-style: italic;">if we use this as our definition!</span> However, we're not talking about genetic distribution in a population <span style="font-style: italic;">because buildings don't make baby buildings</span>.<br />` When biologists speak of evolution, they are referring to the minor changes in allele frequencies that naturally occur in plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, archaea, etc. in order to adapt to their local environment. Unfortunately for Hovind:<br /><blockquote>When I speak of evolution, I am not referring to small minor changes that naturally occur as animals have to make some adjustments to their environment.</blockquote>So, in other words, he is spelling out that when he is referring to evolution, he actually isn't referring to biological evolution at all! What brilliant double-talk! How does he do it?<br /><br />Biological evolution works like this: Unlike what Hovind would say, we always expect the offspring of organisms to be the same species as their parents, although each one has their own unique mutations that even the parents don't have.<br />` Over time, genetic changes accumulate more and more so that, while their DNA is compatible with their contemporaries in their own population, over time it loses its compatibility with their ancestors of many thousands of generations before.<br />` The line between species is always a fuzzy line. The lineage at Time A may be genetically compatible with the same lineage living at Time B; and the lineage at Time B may be compatible with this lineage at Time C, and so on.<br />` However, if the population of the lineage at Time A could try to produce fertile offspring with the population at Time E, their genetic divergence may no longer allow this.<br /><br />We also see this in species that share a recent common ancestor, yet have been isolated from one another for thousands of generations. Some examples of mammals crossbreeding include donkeys with horses (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule">mules</a>/<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinny">hinneys</a>), lions with tigers (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger">ligers</a>/<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiglon">tiglons</a>), dromedary camels with llamas (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cama_%28animal%29">camas</a>), and bottlenose dolphins with orcas (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wholphin">wholphins</a>).<br />` Genetic markers and fossils show that these close relatives were once the same species, and as evidence of this, their genes still allow them to produce offspring, although it may be difficult.<br />` In some cases, the offspring are commonly fertile, as with wholphins, camas, and hybrids of various types of big cats, although in others, such as mules/hinnies, the offspring are usually sterile.<br /><br />This is also why I have pointed out to the Arch Rival the existence of ring species -- contemporary species which are only blurrily separated by space -- which is exactly what evolution predicts we'll find:<br />` Species A can breed with neighboring Species B, and Species B can breed with neighboring Species C and so on, but by the time you get to Species E, it cannot breed with Species A!<br />` There are only subtle differences between the neighboring species, but if the middle 'links' in the ring go extinct, then you have a successful separation of two distinct species which will never again be considered part of the same species and continue to differentiate as orcas and dolphins have, or camels and llamas.<br />` The Arch-Rival's response, if my memory is correct, was basically, "That's still micro-evolution." Or in other words, it wasn't 'macro-evolution' which, as we'll see just ahead, includes speciation in its definition. In other words, I described one way that new species evolve, and then he said this isn't what is happening.<br />` Well, what <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span> happening? Hovind cannot tell us:<br /><blockquote>For instance, if we released hundreds of rabbits in an area with cold winters, only the animls [sic] with the heavier fur would survive. So within a few years, the population would have a little heavier fur than the earlier populations. These small minor population shifts brought about by environment are referred to as ‘micro-evolution.’ There has been no change in the genetic material of the rabbit.</blockquote>Except, the way he has described it, there has been a change in their genetic material in that certain variants have become dominant.<br /><blockquote>There has only been a change in the ratio of the population.</blockquote>No, actually it's a ratio of the <span style="font-style: italic;">genes</span> in the population, genius.<br /><blockquote>You still have the same kind of animal. If that climate were to change back to a milder climate, the population of animals would change back to having a lighter fur.</blockquote>It might, although it might not, depending on whether that's particularly beneficial to change back.<br /><blockquote>Macro-evolution would be defined as changing into a different kind of animal. There is no similarity between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Many evolutionists will use micro-evolution to try to prove that macro-evolution is true. We must guard ourselves not to fall for this false logic.</blockquote>This 'micro-evolution' is a good description of biological evolution through natural selection, and this is not false logic, as there is in fact no solid distinction between these concepts. As such, many biologists don't even use them.<br />` If we are going to use these terms, it's like the same sort of relationship that <span style="font-weight: bold;">microeconomics</span> -- the economic activity of individual households and businesses -- has with <span style="font-weight: bold;">macroeconomics</span>, which is the collective sum of microeconomics and how it determines economics on a societal or global scale.<br /><br />In biology, these 'micro' and 'macro' terms are not always useful, because no matter what aspect of evolution one is describing, it is all based on this incremental type of change.<br />` Some biologists do call certain areas of study -- such as population genetics and ecological genetics -- 'microevolution', whereas paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, genomic phylostratigraphy and comparative genomics constitute 'macroevolution'.<br /><br />These terms were coined in 1927 by Iuri'i Filipchenko, in his work, <cite lang="de">Variabilität und Variation</cite>, in which he sought to reconcile Darwin's theory with Mendelian genetics.<br />` One of his students, Theodosius Dobzhansky, introduced them in his 1937 founding Modern Synthesis work <span style="font-style: italic;">Genetics and the Origin of Species</span>: "we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution".<br />` This was the first time anyone had heard these terms in the English-speaking biology community, although they are still not used by most biologists in the English-speaking world. While definitions vary, here's the general idea:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Microevolution</span> -- changes below the level of speciation, referring to the frequencies of alleles (i.e. alternative genes) within the species or population, as well as other changes which are not even genetic.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Macroevolution</span> -- can be anagenetic speciation, which is the change of one species to another over time, and cladogenesis, which is the splitting of one species into two, as ring species have imperfectly done.<br />` It can also apply to more specific and dramatic instances, as in Levinton's definition from his 2001 <span style="font-style: italic;">Genetics, Paleontology and Macroevolution</span>: "I define the process of macroevolution to be "<i>the sum of those processes that explain the character-state transitions that diagnose evolutionary differences of major taxonomic rank</i>".<br /><br />So, when variations in gene ratios change in favor of heavier fur, that can be called 'microevolution'. When this same thing happens with more traits, which accumulate over thousands of generations until a distinct species emerges, that can be called 'macroevolution'.<br />` Although creationists love to load these terms with great meaning, there is actually no solid line to be drawn between such abstract concepts as different aspects and degrees of evolution. You can no more draw a line between them than you could draw a line between colors in one continuous spectrum.<br />` Go ahead, try. You really can't, can you? Even so, as with colors, labels can still be handy.<br /><br />Let's go back to the rabbits: What if all the deer in one area went extinct? One could conceive of a population of rabbits taking advantage of all the food that the now-gone deer aren't eating. To adapt to this new way of life, they would become larger and taller to reach higher branches.<br />` Over thousands of generations of this happening a little bit more, and a little bit more, these rabbits could become another species altogether. A species of unusual-looking rabbit, yes, but eventually one would be tempted to give it another name. Dougal Dixon, help me out, here!<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: center; font-family: georgia;"><a href="http://speculativeevolution.wikia.com/index.php?title=Rabbuck&image=Rabbucks2-jpg"><img src="http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110809194032/speculativeevolution/images/thumb/2/25/Rabbucks2.jpg/830px-Rabbucks2.jpg" width="550" /></a><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><br />Ah, yes, why not 'rabbuck'? Notice, however, that they will always be based on rabbits -- or, you can say, 'basically rabbits' -- no matter how much they change. No one claims that they wouldn't be, except for Hovind in his inane lectures, as I've addressed elsewhere.<br /><br />Similarly, lizards can only give rise to other lizards -- for example, there are modern lizards which are adapted to marine environments, including monitor lizards.<br />` A point of interest with this is, at one point in the earth's history, the sea was home to fully-aquatic, whale-sized monitor lizards called Mosasaurs, which looked like this:<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center; font-family: georgia;"><a href="http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=91879.0;attach=110627;image"><img src="http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=91879.0;attach=110627;image" width="550" /></a><br /><br /><div style="text-align: left;">See? That's a lizard! It's quite different from the ones we know, in that is had flippers, but it's still a lizard! It's not even difficult to picture similar marine lizards evolving again, although meat-eating whales would probably have to go extinct for this to happen.<br /><br />Also, unlike what Hovind will tell you, lizards are different types of reptiles from dinosaurs, in the same way as turtles are different from mammals. It amuses me, then, that Hovind suggests (in his lectures) that the gigantic browsing ornithopod, reminiscent of a rhinoceros, Triceratops, has evolved (but he doesn't call it that!) into a tiny predatory chameleon.<br /><br />Now, chameleons have prehensile tails and feet, which they use to slowly move through tree branches while swaying back and forth like a leaf, eyes that look in different directions independently for finding insects, and a sticky, spring-loaded tongue for catching prey.<br />` It isn't an insane proposition to suggest that one animal could evolve into one that is so different, but the basic skeletal structure of dinosaurs have different derived characteristics than those of lizards, such as different openings in the skull, not to mention their limbs, joints and torsos are built quite differently from one another because of their different postures (e.g. splayed vs. upright).<br />` In other words, they are both reptiles which share a common reptile ancestor, but they took different paths in evolution -- they've diverged to begin with -- so one did not evolve into the other!<br />` Hilariously, though, Hovind has actually stated that dinosaurs are merely large versions of today's lizards, but this is as absurd as saying that dinosaurs are merely large versions of today's marsupials. They really are that different, although describing why would take a really long time.<br /><br />And while I'm on the subject of lizards, I'd like to bring up one (of many) instances of visible lizard evolution -- one which shows just how fast an animal can evolve in response to its environment:<br />` Only 36 years after biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their habitat in Pod Kopiste to the island of Pod Mrcaru, <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm">the population was noticeably different</a>:<br />` Since they had adapted from eating insects to plants, their heads were much larger and deeper for chewing, their teeth were flatter, and they had even developed cecal valves in their guts for digesting plants, which is a rare trait among lizards.<br />` Their social structure had also changed, as plants are so plentiful that the lizards no longer needed to defend a territory. This whole thing did not even take four decades. It happened literally before the biologists' eyes, as they had been watching the whole time. Given another few thousand years, what else could happen?<br /><br />Kent has refused to acknowledge the fact that biologists expect that lizards can only give rise to lizards, and, in one of Kent's "debates" I've discussed with the Arch-Rival, that plants can only give rise to plants and animals can only give rise to animals, but just what type of plant or animal it can evolve into depends on what branch on the family tree it derives from.<br />` This is why molluscs can only evolve into other species of molluscs, although we may call them clams, snails, or squid, for example. They have the same basic body plan, and genetics, but seem much different from one another. In the same vein, vertebrates will always be vertebrates, although they range in form from sharks to elephants.<br /><br />Reptiles include groups as diverse as snakes, mammals and birds, which share an even more ancient common reptilian ancestor. Those on the mammal branch can only give rise to other mammals, be they whales, bats, naked mole rats, or possibly rabbucks.<br />` Monkeys can only give rise to other monkeys, including apes, and apes can only give rise to other apes -- even if they're bald, big-brained and bipedal, they're still 'savannah apes'.<br /></div></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">The idea that evolutionists try to get across today is that there is a continual upward progression. They claim that everything is getting better, improving, all by itself as if there is an inner-drive toward more perfection and order.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Again, this statement merely demonstrates that the 'evolutionists' haven't gotten anything across to </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >him</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">, because evolution has got nothing to do with progress, much less an inner drive toward it.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">I should add that, the word 'evolutionists' is used to make people who accept evolution seem somehow on par with 'creationists', or 'Marxists'. In other words, this word is used to make it seem as though biological evolution is merely an ideology or belief.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Now, Aristotle argued that such upward progression must exist, from lower to higher forms, and so did Lamarck in his now-discredited not-even-theory of Lamarckian evolution -- both because of their </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >spiritual views</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">. However, no biologist today would make such a ridiculous claim of progress because a) it doesn't make sense and b) all the evidence is against it.</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">This is totally opposite of the first and second law of thermodynamics.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Actually, it seems that this 'progress' idea would only go against the second law, but that is more than enough for it to be wrong. And, as Hovind's idea of evolution is wrong, it's good that no biologist believes it.</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">It goes against all scientific evidence that has been accumulated.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Yes it does -- he's right! But that's the idea of 'evolution' that he's peddling and not the theory that biologists use!</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">Yet, this lie is what many men believe today.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">This could only apply to men who don't understand how evolution works, and this lack of understanding is one good reason why it needs to be taught better in schools -- the last thing we need is more people like him!</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">We don't see any evidence of this in the fossil record.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Indeed, there is no evidence of </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >direction</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> in the fossil record because species must adapt from one habitat to another, even if that means becoming </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >less complex</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">. That's evolution.</span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: left; font-family: georgia;">From the perspective of someone who has a basic understanding of evolutionary theory, Hovind's repeating-as-mantra the idea of evolution-as-progress reminds me of the childish lies of an old friend of Arch-Rival's and mine -- Restraining Order Rick.<br /></div><span style="font-family:georgia;">` When Rick claimed that he was planning on moving to a house overlooking Stephen's Pass, I didn't know whether to believe him or not. However, my Second-In-Command, Lucas, knew that this area is nothing but rugged state parkland, so to him it was so obviously a lie that it was presumably hard for him not to roll his eyes.</span><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">` So it is when Hovind describes evolution -- it is so blatantly not evolution that I have trouble not rolling my eyes, along with any evolution-studying scientists who might be reading. This comparison in itself doesn't mean that Hovind is lying, but it does illustrate how people who know what evolution actually is view these statements of his.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Even so, I'm pretty sure that what's going on here is that he is using his knowledge of the fact that, the more times you repeat something, the more likely your audience will think it's true, and the more difficulty others will have with correcting these distortions.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Well, I've come to the end of Section 2a, but next up in the queue is Section 2b of Hovind's thesis: Bastardizing the World's History and Religions.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 153, 255); font-family:georgia;" >` If any of my science-minded friends have any suggestions or would like to correct me on anything, please leave me a comment so that I can fix it. After all, I did not so deeply research this section because most of what I wrote is ubiquitous in any text about evolution to the point where it seems to have become hard-wired into my brain.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Also, if any fans of Hovind would like to correct me about Hovind's position on anything, do let me know.</span><br /></div></div></div></div>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-71944129792132587502011-09-29T21:24:00.000-07:002011-09-29T23:40:32.786-07:00My Annotation of NOVA's 'Judgment Day' Dover Trial Special<span style="font-family:georgia;">While my next post would be my ripping apart the so-called doctoral dissertation of one of my Arch-Rival's young-earth creationist role models (</span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://nociceptor.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-hovind-hasnt-earned-title-of-dr.html">starting here</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">), it's taking such a long time that I thought I'd post something else, which I had previously written, in longhand, just for him.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Back in February, the Arch-Rival brought up the subject of Intelligent Design and claimed that the evil atheists were suppressing its acceptance as real science. Having studied the subject extensively on and off since the late 90's, I of course argued otherwise, but as he was about to leave for work, he recommended that I watch the 'documentary' with Ben Stein called </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` He also asked me how scientists explained how life was supposed to have begun, and that the theory of spontaneous generation had been debunked long ago. I started off by telling him that the theory of abiogenesis (beginning of life) has nothing to do with the theory of evolution (change of life), nor the completely wrong concept of spontaneous generation, and that it's quite a large and complex area of study, which I could tell him more about if he didn't have to leave just then.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` On his way out the door, smirking, he winked and said something like "I think you'll be surprised" or "impressed" or something like that, as though he expected that I would be stunned by what the movie 'reveals'. I immediately went to my computer and found </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >Expelled</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> for Instant Download on Netflix.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">I watched it no fewer than three times, becoming less impressed with each viewing, let's just say.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">On one level, I became so deeply offended by its childish demonization and Nazification of evolution and the people involved in its study that I actually started to get angry and teary-eyed. On another level, I vowed to clear up this distortion, so I wrote down each of the movie's claims, and, over the next few months, I managed to use the power of facts to debunk every last one of them.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Within the next few days after viewing, however, I did manage to write up about fifteen pages of criticism and gave it to him to read. To my surprise, he conceded that I had indeed exposed some actual 'yellow journalism', and I'll have to type that up for this blog.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` However, as that would take way too long, and because I already have a massive project going here, I should probably just wait until I post that.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">As a teaser, though, just after I wrote those fifteen pages shredding </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >Expelled</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">, I remembered a rather good documentary that my biology teacher (years ago) had assigned for us to watch because she was terrified that some of the students would think that trying to teach them evolution was some attempt to subvert their religious beliefs.<br />` (And she was terrified -- shaking in fact -- because she's probably had to deal with such people!)</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` This documentary was a PBS Nova special called </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">, and I had thought it was such a good choice that I actually began to write up a blog post about what the other students had to say about it. As was common at the time, I didn't publish it, although someday I will dredge it up for all to see.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">This documentary, I thought, might at least impress the Arch-Rival in the fact that it contains lengthy commentary from both 'sides', rather than sound bites which are taken out of context to make one 'side' look bad -- as I saw in </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >Expelled</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">. Also, its informativeness and its utter lack of </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Lord%20Privy%20Seal">Lord Privy Seals</a><span style="font-family:georgia;"> might also give him some idea of its level of quality.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` I told him that if he was interested in seeing a documentary that I would regard as accurate, that he should watch </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >Judgment Day</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">, and he agreed to the next time he went to the library.<br />` To help him out, I wrote him up five pages of notes of my narration/commentary of what I thought was most important, for his own reference, and his own use in formulating a response.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">To my knowledge, he still hasn't watched this documentary, even though I've sent him a link <span style="font-style: italic;">two separate times</span> to the online video, </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >last spring</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> after he had gotten himself a computer!<br />` If you want to beat him to it, you can watch it at </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://video.pbs.org/video/980040807/">this link</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">, and there's also another one at the bottom of the post.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">I am not sure if he has read the notes I've given him, but as I have them back now, I can transcribe them here for my loyal readers (assuming I have any) so that at least someone can really appreciate this!<br />` Plus, I've added just a few more bits and pieces for your own enjoyment -- including a video demonstrating the evolution of a bacterial flagellum!</span><br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center; font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">My notes/annotation/augmentation:</span><br /></div><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">One Dover high school student did a very well-done mural of human evolution, which mysteriously disappeared one day. This seems to have to do with the fact that many Doverians were angry that only Darwin's theory was taught in exclusion to anything else, and suggested Intelligent Design as an alternative, which they claim is based in science, not religion.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` They wanted a statement read in class, informing the students of its existence, and that there is a textbook called </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >Of Pandas and People</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> in the library explaining what it is.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">I am not suggesting that a court of law should settle scientific matters, because </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >the evidence should</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> -- but that is another issue. The issue here is whether or not "ID" is even based on scientific research, and, failing that, whether or not it is based in scripture.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">The Dover residents talk about "creationism" versus evolution. Is ID based on biblical creationism? We go back to earlier court cases of evolution and creationism -- Scopes losing his trial, and evolution removed from textbooks so as to prevent any more trouble from creationists.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` When Sputnik sparked new interest in science, evolution started going back into the textbooks, and creationists spoke out again. Since creationism is bible-based, it violates our Constitution's Establishment Clause if taught as a fact of the world in government-run schools, and was banned in </span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-family:georgia;" >1987</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Creationist Bill Buckingham was appointed by creationist Adam Bonsell to review Dover's textbooks. Buckingham did not like the 9th-grade biology textbook by Ken Miller and Joe Levine because it was "laced with Darwinism," and said he did not feel comfortable approving it. The book was put on hold.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Then, we have a very brief overview of the discovery that broke the back of Darwin's proverbial camel: When finding help in classifying Gal</span><strong style="font-weight: normal; font-family: georgia;">á</strong><span style="font-family:georgia;">pagos' various birds, which looked like woodpeckers, mockingbirds, etc., he found that they were all different species of finches.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Instead of different types of birds having been separately created on different islands, it seemed that the most likely explanation was that they were all made by one species of finch having spread to different habitats and adapting to different niches.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Whoa, that one finch has a more than 'slightly' larger beak! There were, of course, many more different types of finch beaks than the ones shown. We see a simplistic explanation of natural selection and descent with modification. Nevertheless, all this is based on the observation of countless species and not some religious text.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Some people feel that this idea takes God out of the picture, including Bill Buckingham, who was allegedly the one who had destroyed the evolution mural, and enjoyed watching it burn.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` In looking for a way to mitigate evolution's being taught in school, the Thomas More law firm directed him to websites about Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute, which was consistent with his creationism views.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` He and Adam Bonsell wanted to add </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >Of Pandas and People</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> to the curriculum, but it didn't happen. A few weeks later, 60 copies of </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >Pandas</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> turned up at the school, with a statement to be read to students about 'problems' with evolution, and pointing to the textbooks.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Six school board members resigned in protest, and their reason was that it's creationism. In September of 2004, eleven parents filed suit against the school board, saying it was violating their Constitutional Rights -- the government should not endorse/discourage the practice of any religion. They were represented by the ACLU.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">[This fact doesn't win any Brownie Points with the Arch-Rival, because according to him, the ACLU is atheistic, evil and communistic, which was especially amusing when I started to do my own investigation into the matter -- but, I digress.]</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Teachers refused to read the statement, so it was read for them. As we'll see a tiny hint of, ID is far from being a scientific theory because </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >scientific processes</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> are what decide valid and useful theories, </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >not</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> interference with the school board, just so we're clear on that.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` After all, when was the last time you heard of scientists trying to force unaccepted theories on kids, for any reason? There's a reason for that; bypassing the scientific community doesn't prove a thing -- but evidence does!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` ACLU was to find evidence that ID is a clever way to disguise creationism as science so that creationists could use it to get creationism in a science classroom, skipping the scientific process. Thomas Moore was to show that ID is to "make students aware of another scientific theory" and that "it is not religion."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">This was what President G.W. Bush and Senator Santorum had thought too, evidently, so they made sure that the conservative Judge Jones would be presiding over the case. The first thing he would examine was whether or not ID was science. ACLU assembled some science expert witnesses. (Pay attention to the way they word their explanations.)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Tiktaalik, an even more dramatic transitional fish-tetrapod fossil than Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, etc., had been discovered too late to be used in the trial as one of the transitional fossils, a few of which we see in this documentary.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` What is a theory? The ID proponents complain that evolution's not a fact, but in science, the word 'theory' means something much greater than a fact, as is explained.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Also, the word 'law' means something quite different from a theory -- laws are simple descriptions, like the law of gravity. A theory is a complex explanation, like gravitational theory, which is meant to explain why the </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >law</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> of gravity exists.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` So, to review; law = description of a very simple natural phenomenon; theory = complex explanation for described phenomena. It's like apples and oranges.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Though evolution through natural selection and other processes has been described, there is no 'law' of evolution because the number of variables (i.e. type of organism, type of niche, environment, what changes could happen, what DNA is available and what mutations occur, etc.) make it impossible to predict with complete accuracy as to what the next 'move' will be.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Genetics was an enormous test to Darwin's theory -- it could have contradicted this explanation, but instead confirmed it. (The "great details" are left out of this documentary, presumably for simplification's and time's sake.)</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` A simple example is shown -- why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes whereas our closest genetic relatives have 24. It turns out that we all have the same chromosomes, except that two of these in chimps correspond to one large human chromosome that has been found to be made up of two chromosomes fused together.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Darwin proposed his theory in 1859, and his basic ideas have been built upon and used for practical purposes (which depend on his theory being true), including medical research and even self-designing technology (through selection), as well as understanding virtually any given detail of the living world.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` What understanding does ID give us? What predictions does it make? What practical purposes does it have?</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Its proponents say that looking at nature as if it were designed is supposed to be a practical value unique to ID, but it is not; looking at the 'machinery' of nature as though it </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >should</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> be put together in a semi-orderly way -- by evolution's somewhat sloppy processes -- has always been helpful in figuring out how it works.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">When you think about it, Intelligent Design doesn't have anything new to offer because it is almost entirely based on (unsubstantiated) claims that evolution doesn't make sense, and not on positive arguments for what one should expect in nature.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` So, even if evolutionary theory </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >were</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> overturned, we would then have no theory to explain all of biology, only that "something somehow designed species and it isn't evolution." It doesn't tell us what the designer is, how it designed or when. If you can't even define what it is you're arguing for, then how can you possibly test this idea?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">See how that's a negative argument and not an independent concept that explains facts? It's not even a scientific hypothesis because it doesn't actually try to explain anything at all!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` And, because it isn't testable, as any scientist would explain -- even my Oceanography teacher, come to think of it -- it isn't science. How can you determine if something is true or not if you can't even check the idea against the </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >real world?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">By now, 8 of 9 seats on the school board were empty, including Buckingham's, and the situation for the people in Dover is getting very hairy -- as in death threat-hairy -- for the people who are trying to keep ID out of schools.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` What do the ID advocates in court have to say? Five of their witnesses dropped out. The remaining ones were asked whether there was a valid reason for teaching ID other than religious purposes.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` So, Michael Behe explains that design is the inference that parts which look designed are actually designed, and the most 'visually striking' example is the bacterial flagellum, which has parts he claims are ordered for a purpose. He asserts that if any of the parts are missing, then it can't function, thus there would be nothing for natural selection to act upon.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` He cites a 1998 paper by Dr. Daniel DeRosier, who studies such flagella, saying that this type of flagellum "resembles a machine designed by a human." So, De Rosier himself is asked and he says that he doesn't think it </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >actually is</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> designed, because it is clearly an evolved system, built up gradually by the messy process of natural selection.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">So, does a 'half-formed' flagellum have anything for natural selection to act upon? Yes.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Just one example is the one they showed here, a 'half-formed flagellum', which is actually a 'syringe' that </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >Yersinia pestis</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> uses to inject poison into human calls -- it functions just fine as evidenced by the historical success of the bubonic plague.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` There are also other examples not included in the documentary, including a version that uses even fewer parts. Importantly, the proteins making up the flagellum are used in other structures in the cell, so it isn't as though they would have to appear just for the purpose of making the flagellum, as Behe would have you think.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">* In one of my reams of </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >Expelled</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">-analysis, I drew a full-page illustration explaining how the flagellum could have plausibly evolved, and which has been backed up by actual biological experiments.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Since it's on notebook paper and would have to be shrunk to show on screen, it would look very hazy and undecipherable, so I found a YouTube video that shows a somewhat informative animation of the same thing:</span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center; font-family: georgia;"><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SdwTwNPyR9w" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe><br /></div><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Also, the </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >genetic</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> evolution of each of these proteins is now understood. Cell biologists can see that the gene for one protein has been duplicated, that is, an extra copy was made, and this is seen to occur in nature. Because only one gene is all that is necessary to make a certain protein, one of these genes was now free to mutate without disrupting the production of that protein.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` A beneficial mutation caused one of the genes to make a different protein with a different job. This kind of thing has happened again and again, for each of the proteins, splitting and changing into new versions as different beneficial mutations accumulated in different lineages, creating new and different proteins:</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` (Ignore the white dots -- they're supposed to be black but I can't get them to be!)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(153, 0, 0);font-family:georgia;" >Original Protein</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:georgia;" >. ..</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(153, 0, 0);font-family:georgia;" >|</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:georgia;" >.</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(153, 0, 0);font-family:georgia;" >|</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:georgia;" >. .</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(153, 0, 0);font-family:georgia;" >\ </span><span style="font-family:georgia;">.</span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-family:georgia;" > <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">/</span></span><span style="font-family:georgia;">. . . . . . . . . <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">(mutation)</span> . . . . . . . . . . .<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">(subsequent mutations)</span></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:georgia;" >. . .</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(153, 0, 0);font-family:georgia;" >V</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:georgia;" >. . . . . . . . . . . . . . </span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);font-family:georgia;" >V</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:georgia;" >. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);font-family:georgia;" >V</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. . . . . . . . . .</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">V </span></span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);">TAAACGTGA</span> </span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 0, 51);font-family:georgia;" >--</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> <span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);">TAA</span></span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 153, 0);font-family:georgia;" >C</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);">CGTGA</span> </span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 0, 51);font-family:georgia;" >--</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> <span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);">TAA</span></span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 153, 0);font-family:georgia;" >C</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);font-family:georgia;" >CGTG</span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-family:georgia;" ><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 0);">T</span> <span style="color: rgb(51, 0, 51);">--</span></span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> <span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);">TAA</span></span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 153, 0);font-family:georgia;" >C</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);font-family:georgia;" >CG</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(153, 255, 255);font-family:georgia;" >G</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);font-family:georgia;" >G</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 204, 0);font-family:georgia;" >T</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` </span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-family:georgia;" ><span style="color: rgb(51, 0, 51);">\\</span> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:georgia;" ><span style="font-style: italic;">. </span>. . . . <span style="font-style: italic;">. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .</span></span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-family:georgia;" > <span style="color: rgb(51, 0, 51);">\\</span></span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` . </span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 0, 51);font-family:georgia;" >--</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);font-family:georgia;" >TA</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(102, 255, 153);font-family:georgia;" >C</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);">ACGTGA</span> </span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-family:georgia;" ><span style="color: rgb(51, 0, 51);">--</span> </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);font-family:georgia;" >TA</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(102, 255, 153);font-family:georgia;" >C</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);font-family:georgia;" >ACGTG</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 51, 204);font-family:georgia;" >C</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. . . . . . .</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 0, 51);">--</span></span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-family:georgia;" > </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);font-family:georgia;" >TAA</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 153, 0);font-family:georgia;" >C</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);font-family:georgia;" >C</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 102, 255);font-family:georgia;" >C</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);font-family:georgia;" >TG</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 204, 0);font-family:georgia;" >T</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 0, 51);font-family:georgia;" >-- </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);font-family:georgia;" >TAA</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 153, 0);font-family:georgia;" >C</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);font-family:georgia;" >C</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 255);font-family:georgia;" >C</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);font-family:georgia;" >T</span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-family:georgia;" ><span style="color: rgb(255, 153, 255);">T</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 0);">T</span></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:georgia;" >` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 0, 51);font-family:georgia;" >\\</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . </span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 0, 51);font-family:georgia;" >--</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 102, 255);font-family:georgia;" >G</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);font-family:georgia;" >A</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(102, 255, 153);font-family:georgia;" >C</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);font-family:georgia;" >ACGTG</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 51, 204);font-family:georgia;" >C</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 0, 51);font-family:georgia;" >--</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-family:georgia;" ><span style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);">G</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">C</span><span style="color: rgb(102, 255, 153);">C</span></span><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);font-family:georgia;" >ACGTG</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 51, 204);font-family:georgia;" >C</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">...and so on.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">[My original illustration was more extensive and didn't use short strings of letters, but I hope you get the idea. As this text-illustration is off the top of my head, it does not represent an actual genetic sequence, but rather represents the basic explanation for the patterns that are seen to occur in actual genomes over longer stretches of DNA.]</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">This pattern of genetic diversification is also seen in the genes coding for the proteins in our immune system and our blood-clotting factors. Let me emphasize that this is one way that </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >new information</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> arises in our DNA, from which natural selection can work with.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Another way is when retroviruses insert their genomes into their host's DNA, adding all their genes! When this happens in a germ cell, the retrovirus can be passed on to the offspring, and host cells have even been observed to use retroviral DNA for their own purposes!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` I mention this, of course, because one of the claims of creationists and ID proponents is that no new information can be naturally created. Since it actually does happen, that claim is disproved.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">In the court reenactment (from the transcript), we see how Michael Behe testified that we have no sufficient answers for the evolution of the immune system. He says he hasn't ever read the stacks of books and scholarly articles on the subject that the lawyer presents to him, yet confidently (enough) maintains that there are no sufficient answers.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` But... if he hasn't even examined the research, then how can he judge that for himself?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">After weeks of 'science class' in the courtroom, ID is not deemed any sort of science -- although, that does not mean it is religion. So, they ask, is it?</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` According to a catalog in the bottom of one of the boxes of donated books, </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >Of Pandas and People</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> is listed under 'Creation Science' (i.e. biblical creationism). Since </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >Pandas</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> is the manner in which ID has been presented in the school, the question is: Is </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >Pandas</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">, and by extension Intelligent Design, actually just 'creation science'?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">An old newspaper article was found, about a biology book which 'presents both evolution and creation' by Charles Thaxton. This article was published just before the 1987 trial where creationism was banned in schools for violating the constitution.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Charles Thaxton is also the editor of </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >Pandas</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">. Was this 'creation and evolution' textbook the same as </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >Pandas</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">? An investigation into earlier drafts shows that this is the case. (Also, the documentary doesn't mention that the original title was </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >Creation Biology</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">! Really!)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Looking at two drafts of this book, one just before the 1987 verdict and one just after, they show that the texts are very similar, except that in the former draft, language such as 'God' and 'creation' are used, and in the latter, these words are changed to 'Intelligent agent' and 'design' (and references to the bible are also omitted).</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` According to the former draft, 'creation' is defined as 'various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator, with their distinctive features already intact -- fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc."</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` In the latter draft, the same definition is given for Intelligent Design except that it's through an 'intelligent agency.' In making this transition, one of the editors mistakenly replaced 'creationists' with 'design proponents', resulting in a 'transitional fossil' of sorts -- '</span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-family:georgia;" >c</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">designproponents</span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-family:georgia;" >ists</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">.'</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Another good question comes; does ID offer only a critique of evolution, or does it offer something more? ID proponent and leader Paul Nelson, was asked this question, and here was his response:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family:georgia;">"Easily, the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. <span style="font-style: italic;">Without a theory</span>, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" -- but as yet, no general theory of biological design."</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">(BTW, even to this day they haven't reported making progress on this objective.)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">In other words, ID is not a scientific theory and Nelson presumably knows this. Or, is it scientific? Michael Behe, whose definition of a scientific theory includes supernatural (i.e. non-testable) phenomena, says that astrology would be considered a scientific theory under his definition.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Science is known as 'science' because it is based on empirical evidence, which astrology has none of, other than evidence against. Which reminds me, I remember a bill being proposed to re-define what kids are taught that science </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >is</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">, that it doesn't need empirical evidence.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` The point of this bill was to allow ID to be taught in government-run schools. Of course, lying to our kids that about science being something </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >other than science</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> only serves to keep them from understanding how science actually works and how it actually requires evidence.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">The Wedge Document, which highlights the ID Movement's strategy, reveals their motives and ideals. It starts out, "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built..."</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Wait... what about the Ancient Greeks? Their philosophy, arts, mathematics, architecture, science, etc. were instrumental in the development of Western civilization. What happened when Christianity took over? The Dark Ages -- that is, the decline of civilization and the spread of ignorance!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` And what happened when people started paying more attention to the Greeks' and others' ancient texts, and rediscovered all that literature and critical thinking and science? The Renaissance -- that is, the flourishing of Western culture!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` If it weren't for people who didn't believe that we're created in God's image, Western civilization might still be floundering in superstition and oppression, and wouldn't have modern technology and medicine unless another civilization invented it!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">The Wedge Document also argues that the idea that we come from nature causes people to give up objective moral standards -- as though nature could possibly command us to do so!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` I can't think of anything more ludicrous -- the more-or-less objective portion of my morality certainly dictates that mass-murder is wrong, but if I thought a deity which created me wanted me to go on a suicide bombing mission, or a crusade, or kill all the Jews, or go to war in Iraq, and that anything this deity told me to do was right regardless of my compassion and concern for others, then I would have to abandon my objective moral standards in order to do it!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` It is is difficult to get people to do things they generally know not to do -- the aforementioned atrocities, excommunicating family members, genital mutilation, etc. -- unless they believe that it's for the best. This is true of any ideology, of course, not just religions -- however:</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` If it's based on a 'crazy ideology' of 'mere humans', there's a small chance they could bring themselves to question it. But; what if they think that an action is being proposed by something that is supposed to be looking out for them, is all-knowing, all-good, and who promises them an eternal reward for believing, obeying, and loving -- and an eternal punishment for not doing so? It would be much more difficult to back out.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Additionally, this idea that we either come from nature or from God is a false dichotomy -- most Christians in the world also accept evolution, and in this country, because there are so many Christians, most Americans who accept evolution are Christians.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` In other words, these people think that God made them through evolution, that </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >both</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> things are true. How would accepting evolution mean that God wasn't responsible? Most people have a way around such black-and-white thinking.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">But, back to the point -- is there religious motivation behind ID? The documentary does not mention this, but there is plenty of other documentation, including records from church meetings and public religious forums, which are hard to interpret in any other way.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` An example I can recall from the top of my head was a 1999 article for </span><em style="font-family: georgia;">Church and State </em><span style="font-family:georgia;">magazine entitled </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_199904/ai_n8836398/">Missionary Man</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">, which is about the scarily-fanatical speakers at a Right-Wing Christian conference:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;"> <p>Johnson calls his movement "The Wedge." The objective, he said, is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to "the truth" of the Bible and then "the question of sin" and finally "introduced to Jesus." </p> <p>"You must unify your own side and divide the other side," Johnson said. He added that he wants to temporarily suspend the debate between young-Earth creationists, who insist that the planet is only 6,000 years old, and old-Earth creationists, who accept that the Earth is ancient. This debate, he said, can be resumed once Darwinism is overthrown. (Johnson, himself an old-Earth creationist, did not explain how the two camps would reconcile this tremendous gap.) </p></blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">I can't picture this as being quote-mining, due to other, more direct sources I've seen, but if you'd like to challenge me on that, go ahead.<br />` Also, the second paragraph is important, because a big part of the object of Intelligent Design is to get rid of the details of which creation story one goes by. Did it occur over a long time? Just how much of Genesis do you have to take literally?<br />` These details are deliberately left out in order to garner maximum support. At the same time, without these details, there can be no hypotheses in order to test how this thing is supposed to have happened -- automatically making it not science!<br /><br />The other thing is that the <span style="font-style: italic;">goal</span> is to get evolution out of our culture, which one can only do if one has sufficient reason. If the entire object of your operation is to put forth a <span style="font-style: italic;">conclusion</span> and then find supposed evidence to rationalize it, that's the opposite of science!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Continuing on with the documentary, the Wedge strategy's twenty-year goals include "to see intelligent design theory as the </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >dominant</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> perspective in science." and "To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life."</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` In order to do that, they would need to do scientific research that supports their claims of ID as valid -- and they haven't! Phillip Johnson explains that the goal is to reverse cultural changes. This is their motivation, but where is their evidence of ID, and of supposed 'cultural changes'?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Now, Judge Jones must find the motivations of the Dover School board members, who proposed the teaching of ID. In the courtroom re-enactment, they show the tape of William Buckingham suggesting that evolution should be balanced with "creationism", but he says the meant to say "intelligent design."</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Also, Buckingham and Bonsell had sworn in their depositions that they did not know who had donated the books to the high school. In the trial, Buckingham admitted that he had given the check he had written for buying these books to Alan Bonsell, and that the 'unknown businessman' who had bought the books was Bonsell's father. Alan Bonsell must have known who this 'unknown businessman' was, yet he claimed that he hadn't! Accused of lying under oath, Bonsell claimed he misspoke.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Dover's local school board election was national news -- all eight elected opposed ID. December 2005, Jones' decision -- ID is not science, and was introduced for religious reasons, and thus is unconstitutional to teach in Dover science classes.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Jones says, "Both defendants and many of the leading proponents of Intelligent Design make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being, and to religion in general. To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect, however, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis, grounded in religion, into the science classroom, or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the board who voted for the Intelligent Design policy."</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` "The crushing weight of the evidence indicates that the board set out to get creationism into the science classrooms, and intelligent design was simply the vehicle that they utilized to do that."</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` "In an era where we're trying to cure cancer, where we're trying to prevent pandemics, where we're trying to keep science and math education on the cutting edge in the United States, to introduce and teach bad science to ninth-grade students makes very little sense to me. You know, garbage in, garbage out, and it doesn't benefit any of us. We benefit daily from </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >scientific</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> discoveries."</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Of course, Buckingham and Bonsell disagree, as did the ID proponents, and were somewhat appalled. Even Jones received death threats, and he and his family needed police protection. Although the trial is over, he's right -- this issue isn't settled!</span><br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-family:georgia;" >The End!</span><br /></div><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;"><br />Assuming you, my reader, have read all these annotations/additions to </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >Judgment Day</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">, I hope you have appreciated it! To watch the actual documentary, now with the information I've provided in mind as a background reference, click </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://video.pbs.org/video/980040807/">here</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">As for my Arch-Rival, I am not really surprised that he apparently hasn't seen this documentary, despite repeatedly assuring me that he would. I guess that when you think you're right about something, it's not worth taking a good look at your opposition.</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">` Which reminds me, in order to tie up the abiogenesis conversation we'd had, I later did try to show him a science magazine article about the various different studies that show how life could have arisen, and handed him the magazine, but he literally </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: georgia;">rolled his eyes</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> and did not even look at the article!</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" ><br />Well, I hope at least someone out there has enjoyed my annotation -- now back to destroying Hovind's dissertation!</span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-5303034724234878902011-09-04T16:22:00.000-07:002011-10-20T23:56:38.570-07:00Why Hovind hasn't earned the title of 'Dr. Dino' (1 of 5)<span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 102); font-family:georgia;" >I've long since stopped picking on creation-evangelist Kent Hovind because I figured I might be criticized for going at such an easy target. As most creationists seem to think he's a kook, I thought it best to pay attention to someone more mainstream. After all, I'd probably never spend significant amounts of time with one of his fans, right?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Well, I was wrong.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Turns out that my Arch-Rival in Taking Over the World has apparently bought into Kent Hovind's treasure trove of wacky ideas, which largely consist of factual distortions, quote-mining, and general denialism (<a href="http://www.denialism.com/2007/03/what-is-denialism.html">here's an overall description of what I mean by 'denialism'</a>).<br />` While I've told him just a few drops in the bucket about what I know on this subject, it literally takes mountains of de-scrambling to go up against Hovind's creativity.</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> Thus, I've decided to start building this mountain by exposing the true amount of effort Hovind put into his doctoral dissertation.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 255); font-family:georgia;" >Unfortunately, even this takes half a mountain. In fact, I started taking it apart in May, but then had to work all day for weeks, and was sick for the next month and a half, etc. Even then, that's not even why it's taking so long -- this dissertation is actually just so packed with misinformation that it takes seemingly forever to tease apart, to the point where it's increasingly becoming tedious.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Deception overload is a typical strategy of young earth creationism proponents, so much so that it's been named 'The Gish Gallop' after Duane Gish, whose anti-evolution arguments are so packed with multi-layered nonsense that his opponent would need ten minutes to unpack and refute each one.<br />` This is an effective strategy because he and his opponents are both given the same amount of time, yet his opponents <span style="font-style: italic;">need</span> much more time than he does. Even when his opponents address his arguments before he gives them, he still gives the same argument, word-for-word, by the script, without even acknowledging his opponent's counterarguments.<br /><br />That isn't going to happen here, on this blog. I have no such time constraints here, so no matter how big the document is I can take it apart. Even better, once I do this, these arguments will not get up and re-assemble themselves as though I hadn't done anything to them.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">I am not even finished with Chapter One of this dissertation, so in order to finally post part of this endeavor, I have decided to break it up into five parts -- this one about the document itself and its introduction, and then one for each of its four chapters.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` So, here goes:</span><br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center; font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Why Hovind hasn't earned the title of 'Dr. Dino'</span><br /></div><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Regarded as a good source of information by certain creationists -- while others regard him as a good source of embarrassment -- Kent Hovind is best known for preaching that evolution is a false 'doctrine' used to justify atheism, as well as much paranoid ranting about various conspiracy theories and one-sided debating that he 'always wins', largely by not acknowledging his opposition's arguments.<br />` It's amazing how well that works when your audience doesn't know or care what the 'other guy' is trying to say.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Hovind is perhaps most famous for earning himself ten years in Club Fed for not paying his taxes, and the fact that he and his wife made several withdrawals just under the $10,000 required reporting limit suggests that they wanted to keep their wealth a secret. He didn't apply for his properties or programs to have a tax-exempt status, so why does he think he shouldn't have to pay taxes?<br /></span><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Because, as I have always noticed, he doesn't live in the real world, or at least he pretends that he doesn't. Better yet, where does he actually <span style="font-style: italic;">claim</span> to live? According to the <span style="font-style: italic;">Pensacola News Journal</span>, Kent's property is not taxable because:</span><br /><blockquote face="georgia">When asked where he lived, Kent Hovind replied, "I live in the church of Jesus Christ, which is located all over the world. I have no residence."</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Seriously? He even claimed that he shouldn't have to tax his employees' income because they're "missionaries", and besides, all his income belongs to God anyway, not the government. From this, he's claiming that the government is persecuting his religion.<br />` Just like all his other tactics for upsetting the status quo, such distractions as presenting oneself as a religious martyr does not get one anywhere in reality -- especially not in a court of law.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` This does not surprise me, considering that Hovind has long ago fallen from the edge of the Religious Right into a vortex of spinning conspiracy theories in which The Country's Dominant Religion is Being Persecuted.<br />` Honestly, I think that Kent Hovind is an artful master of twisting thousands of pieces of half-truths and other false evidence into one seemingly-coherent picture in the most creative ways. That's something to keep in mind during this series of posts, and the reason why is coming up next:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Hovind is also known for bragging about his Ph.D. to the point that, not only does he call himself 'Dr. Dino', but he even had the astonishing egotism to be listed in the Pensacola phone book with the actual prefix 'Dr.'. Seriously -- who <span style="font-style: italic;">does</span> that?</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` All his bizarre behavior aside -- does he really deserve that title? More importantly, does he even deserve to be regarded as an authority figure on the topics on which he preaches?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Let's start with the first question: Is he a doctor, of anything?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">In order to get an advanced degree like a Ph.D, you are required to write a doctoral dissertation (a.k.a. doctoral thesis). That means you must generate a body of original research, which must </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >add</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> to existing knowledge -- otherwise, it's basically a term paper.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Once it is approved by a thesis committee of 3-5 individuals, it is considered to be a completed document, is archived for anyone to access, and does not change. That doesn't mean the author can't continue to pursue the thesis topic, only that the thesis itself can't be amended.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">In 1999, a critic by the name of Skip Evans sent a request to Hovind for a copy of his dissertation. Hovind replied that it had been lost in a move, so Evans requested permission to acquire a copy from Hovind's alma mater, Patriot University.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Hovind granted him permission, and Patriot sent Evans the 101-page document -- that is, </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/12/read_for_yourself_kent_hovinds.php">the original, not a copy</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">, complete with pictures that had been literally scotch-taped onto the paper.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Evans repeatedly emailed Mr. Hovind requesting permission to publish it online. These emails were ignored for about a year until Hovind replied on January 16, 2000:</span><blockquote face="georgia">Anyone wishing to get a transcript of our current material to post on a web site or distribute to others is free to do so as long as no changes are made and credit is given including my name, address, and web site. Permission is given only for the most recent version to be posted.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Most recent version? Does that mean it earned him his most recent version of his Ph.D.? As Hovind's original thesis was not the 'most recent version', Evans wasn't allowed to take direct quotes from it.<br />` The same went for Karen Bartelt, who earned a Ph.D. in organic chemistry at <a href="http://www.montana.edu/">Montana State</a>, and who posted an </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/hovind2.htm">online review</a><span style="font-family:georgia;"> of the thesis, which Evans had sent to her.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Interestingly, Bartelt's own dissertation includes this paragraph:</span><br /><blockquote>"In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment for a doctoral degree at Montana State University, I agree that the Library shall make it available to borrowers under the rules of the Library. I further agree that copying of this thesis is allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with 'fair use' as described in the U.S. Copyright Law. Requests for extensive copying should be referred to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Microfilms_International">University Microfilms International</a>, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48106, to whom I have granted 'the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute copies of the dissertation in and from microfilm and the right to reproduce and distribute by abstract in any format.'"</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">If you want to see how easy it is to find UMI's dissertations -- and the bulk of universities archive with this company -- </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://disexpress.umi.com/dxweb">check out the UMI search engine</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;"><br />Karen Bartelt noted that one of Hovind's website FAQs, '</span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.drdino.com/FAQs/FAQmisc13.jsp">Where did you get your degree?</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">' began with the idea that inquiries into his education often lead to an attack by 'evolutionists', and that:</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:Book Antiqua,Times New Roman,Times;" ><strong></strong></span><blockquote face="georgia">They mistakenly think that by belittling the man they have answered his points and won the debate. When the opponent in a debate begins using ad hominem attacks, it is an obvious signal that they are losing the debate on facts and must resort to other means to try to save face or divert attention. It is also interesting to watch how the evolutionists will spend much time and effort scrutinizing a subject like my degree or credentials yet won't spend 2 seconds scrutinizing how ridiculous the evolution theory is! They truly strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Matthew 23:24</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Swallow a camel?</span> Right. Scrutinizing evolutionary theory and looking for errors is what biologists tend to focus on for a living, but I know that's not what he means.<br />` After Hovind is done being defensive, he finally answers the question, although notice he doesn't mention that his degrees are in </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >Christian</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> Education. In fact, he doesn't like to mention this at all despite the fact that his profession involves being a pastor and talking about everything in relation to the bible.<span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:Book Antiqua,Times New Roman,Times;" ><strong></strong></span><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">... I finished my Masters (1988) and Doctorate (1991) degrees in education from Patriot University. At the time it was small Christian university [sic] in Colorado Springs that offered an extension program for people involved in full time ministries. I was taking courses from Patriot University (established 1980) while it was a ministry of Hilltop Baptist Church and offered a Ph.D. in education. ... Long after I graduated, Patriot became independent of the church, moved their offices into a house and dropped the Ph.D. in their education program. ...</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Indeed, Hovind only needed three years to complete his 'doctorate', and it probably cost him less than $2,000, judging by Patriot's current prices. After defending Patriot University, he mentions his dissertation, which, note, he describes as being longer than 101 pages:</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:Book Antiqua,Times New Roman,Times;" ><strong></strong></span><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">My 250-page dissertation dealt with the subject of the effects of teaching evolution on the students in our public school system. ... My itinerary is available from my office or on my web site, and any evolutionist interested in a public debate any place they chose [sic] is welcome to contact me to arrange a time while I am in their area. Since they think I don't have a degree, they can call me Kent, Mr. Hovind or even "hey you," if it will make them feel better. Since they don't think I am "properly educated" it should be easy for them to demonstrate how wrong I am....</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">It is, as we'll see, but that's beside the point. Such defensive writing shows that he must have been affected by the criticisms of his thesis. This, as we'll see, is not because these criticisms are </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >ad hominem</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">, as there is no reason to resort to <span style="font-style: italic;">ad hominem</span> other than for amusement.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` I'd like to mention, though, that this FAQ has actually been deleted and then taken off the internet archive in September 2010, so although I have seen it in the past with my own eyes, I now only have </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm">others' copies of it to cut and paste from</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">One other important detail -- how many pages did his thesis have? The document that Evans and Bartelt criticized was only 101 pages. Hovind told Evans in the aforementioned email:</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:Book Antiqua,Times New Roman,Times;" ><strong></strong></span><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">My dissertation was originally about 100 pages. I continued adding material and it grew to 250 pages. Over the last 10 years I have constantly been adding material. It is now many hundreds of pages and will be put into book form as time permits.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Wait a second! I thought he said it was lost in a move, but now he's got it <span style="font-style: italic;">and</span> is adding to it? Since a dissertation is finished and in the archive, that doesn't sound like one. Incorporating a thesis into a book is one thing, but it sounds like he's waiting to officially publish it when it's 'completely' finished -- it should <span style="font-style: italic;">already</span> be published!<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:georgia;">I had to see this document in order to judge for myself just whether it's meant to be a dissertation, and what it actually says -- thankfully, I found </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Young-earth_creationist_Kent_Hovind%27s_doctoral_dissertation">a PDF of it on Wikileaks</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">: it exactly matched Bartelt's description, including the fact that it lists sixteen chapters and actually has only four.<br />` Not only that, but the 'almost quotes' (which Karen used to get around not being able to <span style="font-style: italic;">directly</span> quote the thesis), were quite obviously from the same document.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">But, hang on! Patriot Bible University denies this is Hovind's dissertation </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.patriotuniversity.com/PriceOfTruth3.html#20100717">in their FAQ section</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">, (beginning by incorrectly stating that Wikileaks is affiliated with Wikipedia), and that this whole thing started many years before when someone who claimed to be a fan of Hovind's called up to ask for Hovind's dissertation:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">When told that Patriot does not retain student works he begged for “..anything you have by Hovind...I just love him so much I’ll take anything you have...”. In Patriot’s naivete a ROUGH DRAFT of his dissertation PROJECT was sent to the caller. </blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">And then, suddenly, they found that "a scientist" had done a critique of it on the internet! This story seems to refer to to Evans and Bartelt.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">An important point; if, unlike any normal university, they </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >don't</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> keep student works, then what were they doing with a rough draft of a pre-thesis?</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Also, this page says that Patriot University lets students distribute their own works at their own discretion. If this is so, then why would they send his notes/rough draft to the caller? Is there a way to make sense of this?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">This is my top suggestion: The real purpose of this page is to generate some doubt for the idea that this document was even Hovind's 'original' dissertation in the first place, and to say that </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >since</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> they don't have copies of his 'real' dissertation anyway (and neither does Kent, evidently), then no one can check to make sure!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Brilliant! Now how will Kent show anyone that he's actually earned a Ph.D.?</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;"><br />Another purpose of this page is to distract from the whole authenticity-issue by saying that:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">The controversy and battle over Hovind's dissertation is not about the quality of his work. It is a spiritual battle over worldview. Evolution v. Creation. Man's "knowledge" or God's Word.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Before this claim can be substantiated, </span><span style="font-family:georgia;">the page instead ends with a threat:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">Those whose [sic] have chosen to reject the Savior will be cast into the lake of fire FOR ETERNITY. That is a long time. There are no “do-overs”. Eternity is longer than the 17 billion years evolution claims for the present age of the earth.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Whoever wrote this seems not to realize that a) 'evolution' is not an entity that makes claims, and b) there is yet to be any scientist who studies evolution or the rest of nature who will claim that the earth is as old as 17 billion years. (Quote-mining opportunity!) Trust me, they won't.<br />` They will, however, claim that the earth (and the rest of the solar system) is 4.5 billion years old, which is only about 1/4 that amount of time. This figure comes from the results of many independent dating techniques on the earth and its inhabitants, as well as the moon, meteorites, and the sun.<br /></span><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Furthermore, the astronomical sciences show that, for example, judging the rate that space is expanding, the entire universe was a singularity between 13 and 13.5 billion years ago, and so no object in the universe can even </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >be</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> 17 billion years old.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` If you look this information up yourself, you'll see that whoever wrote this page does not know how to use a search engine before writing down their blind assumption as to what scientists actually think or have found.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">My other observations about this page include more typographical errors, and at the bottom, a touchy-feely Jesusy video that automatically starts playing and cannot be stopped, and is apparently placed there in order to distract people from the supposed purpose of the page.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Which brings the question; what has the validity of Christianity (or the warning that non-Christians will burn for eternity, much less distracting videos) got to do with whether or not </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >Kent Hovind's dissertation is the real thing?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">That's right, it doesn't, as it neither addresses the criticisms nor defends Hovind's reputation.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Yet, remember that Hovind </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >himself</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> said that the original dissertation was about a hundred pages -- this document is 101 pages long!</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> This would very much seem to indicate that, not only is this Hovind's </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >original dissertation</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">, but that he isn't finished with his degree, either. (Maybe he's had more time for that in prison?)</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Judging by reading this 'masterwork', Hovind had also thought that by achieving its 101-page length with help from the powers of double-spacing, increasing the margins to two inches, heavily padding it with three-inch margin quotations, repeating himself needlessly and rambling aimlessly, that it somehow came off as more impressive.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">My next point is -- you guessed it! -- that the length of the thesis is not nearly as important as its content, and that is what this five-part blog series is <span style="font-style: italic;">really</span> about. After all, work like Hovind's is the very epitome of wild distortions being claimed to amount to evidence.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">As I've stated, a dissertation must be original research -- for example, Carl Sagan's dissertation predicted that the planet Venus would be as hot as it is because of the greenhouse effect. This was an important addition to our body of knowledge, and it turned out to be correct. (Incidentally, it was also 85 pages, single-spaced.)</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Kent Hovind's dissertation, as you will see ahead, contains no original research, as he freely admits </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >in the introduction</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">, and it is so badly researched and written that if it were a high school book report it would receive an 'F'.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Which brings one more question before I begin dismantling this document; what kind of thesis committee would let Hovind pass? The dissertation says it is written to be reviewed by Dr. Wayne Knight, who is currently the president of Patriot Bible University.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` I'm not sure of the size of this school when it was sending Hovind books, but when I went to its website (last updated in 2006), </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.patriotuniversity.org/index.php?mod=Articles&menuid=40">it listed six staff members</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">, no teachers (except for the Holy Spirit and some Christian authors), and I also found that its current location is indeed listed as a residential address.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Patriot's </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.patriotuniversity.com/Secure/infoAccreditation.htm">website informs us</a><span style="font-family:georgia;"> that it is accredited by Accrediting Commission International</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">, which (at least according to </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.degree.net/accreditation/fake-accrediting-agencies_199911302319.html">Degree.net</a>), is<span style="font-family:georgia;"> a corporation which is not recognized by either the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, the United States Department of Education, UNESCO, and other education departments around the world </span><span style="font-family:georgia;">.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/dm3.html">According to John Bear</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">, the FBI's principal consultant and expert witness on diploma mills and fake degrees for 12 years, the ACI was known as the IAC until it got busted:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">In 1982, there opened for business in Missouri the International Accrediting Commission (IAC). They aggressively marketed their accreditation services among hundreds of then-unaccredited institutions in the United States. Their standards were rather modest, but they were operating within the law, and they were able to bestow that magical word "accredited" upon their clients. <p>More than 130 institutions had achieved IAC accreditation by 1989, when one Eric Vieth established the Eastern Missouri Business College and immediately applied to the International Accrediting Commission. Vieth opened his headquarters in a one-room office in St. Louis, Missouri, and issued an eight-page typewritten catalog that listed faculty members such as Arnold Ziffel, Edward J. Haskell, M. Howard, Jerome Howard, and Lawrence Fine.</p> <p>Trivia buffs may recall that Arnold Ziffel was the pig on the TV show Green Acres, Eddie Haskell was the obsequious friend on Leave It to Beaver, and the Messrs. Howard, Howard, and Fine were collectively known as the Three Stooges.</p> It gets better. The college seal was emblazoned with the phrase <em>Solum pro Avibus Est Educatio</em>, which means "Education is only for the birds," and the motto was <em>Latrocina et Raptus</em>, or, loosely translated, everything from petty theft to highway robbery. Doctorates were offered by mail in dozens of fields, from aerospace to marine biology. The marine biology textbook was identified as <em>The Little Golden Book of Fishes</em>. <p>Unlike what you may have been imagining, Eastern Missouri Business College founder Vieth was wearing a white hat. As assistant attorney general for the state of Missouri, he had set up this clever sting operation. And when the head of the International Accrediting Commission stopped by, had a quick look around, accepted a cashier's check, and pronounced the East Missouri Business College fully accredited, he was immediately slapped with an injunction and was ultimately fined heavily and ordered to shut down his agency.</p> <p>End of story? Sadly, no. Immediately after the closing of International Accrediting Commission, there opened, the next state over, in Beebe, Arkansas, the <a href="http://www.accreditnow.com/">Accrediting Commission International (ACI)</a>, which immediately invited all of the IAC schools (except, presumably, Eastern Missouri Business) to become automatically accredited by ACI.</p></blockquote><p style="font-family:georgia;">Sure is hard to slip through <span style="font-style: italic;">their</span> fingers! I also found that, <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070928152427/http://www.accreditnow.com/default.aspx?page=0-introduction&main=&selected=pnl1Item0-0">according to the ACI itself</a>:</p><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">We are primarily a religious school accrediting agency. Due to the views of most of our schools concerning the separation of church and state, we have never applied to the U.S. Department of Education for any affiliation with the government.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">And until they do, they will be free to continue accrediting dubious universities. Aside from its own questionable credentials, is there any reason to think that Patriot Bible University should be considered a respectable institution?</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Considering the fact that anyone from there could possibly accept Hovind's ramblings -- full of gross spelling, grammatical, punctuational, and most of all factual errors, with </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >no</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> formal citations at all, nor footnotes, and with page numbers hand-written in every ten pages -- as an actual doctoral dissertation, I submit that it is not.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Even if this document is a rough draft, as Patriot claims, or simply unfinished, as Hovind claims, it is not based on reality enough to be salvaged into something that is even remotely respectable, as I will shortly demonstrate.</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-family:georgia;" > (As I have decided to divide this into five parts, almost all of my demonstration will come after this post. Sorry for the inconvenience.)</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` As a reference, I have reproduced most of Hovind's dissertation in this series, and am working from a PDF of the original material, which I downloaded from </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Young-earth_creationist_Kent_Hovind%27s_doctoral_dissertation">the Wikileaks page</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">, thanks to </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.utorrent.com/downloads/complete?os=win">uTorrent</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">, although I later found that </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/ni/comment/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertationa.pdf">the PDF can be more simply viewed on Ratbags.com</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Feel free to judge it for yourself.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Before I break the skin of this document, I would like to remind my Arch-Rival that the only word I am trying to shake his faith in is the word of this man, and by extension, anyone who publicly espouses the same false claims.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` It seems unlikely to me that anyone who takes Hovind seriously would change their opinion of him, but if they are curious and patient enough to read through this series of criticisms, they may wind up with some idea of an outsider's perspective.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Far from being one long </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >ad hominem</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> attack, or an attack on Christianity or spirituality, this is a legitimate (and thoroughly-referenced!) criticism of the quality and factual content of Hovind's work, which demonstrates that he has neither the credentials he claims, nor that he should be taken seriously as an authority on history, science, or even religion (particularly ones that aren't his own)!<br />` Here it is:<br /></span><br /><div style="text-align: center; font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Dissertation for Doctor of Philosophy In Christian Education</span> </div><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">This heading would have been the title of Hovind's thesis, but it has none. This is presumably because his thesis also lacks a subject to which one can assign a title.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Although it is </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >supposed</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> to be about "The Effects of Teaching Evolution on the Students in our Public School System", which is a legitimate subject for an advanced degree in education, this thesis largely consists of off-topic rumination.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">On the Dedication Page (actually more than one page), Hovind mentions that he's not even the one responsible for typing it up! This is a most unfortunate thing for one's thesis committee to find out, so it's quite bizarre for someone to trumpet in the first words of one's thesis:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">I can think of many people who have been influential in the production of this book. Miss Kim Van Gundy spent countless hours typing, correcting and retyping the manuscript.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Let's just say, we'll see just how well Kim Van Gundy has helped in the correcting department, as well as the sentence-structure department:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">My Mom and Dad supplied the computer for this work to be done on. There have been many times they financially supported my ministry.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Wait -- if he typed this himself on his parents' computer, then why did he need Kim Van Gundy and her typewriter? Also, if he used a computer for this, even back in 1991, I would expect it to have spell-check!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Also, why would he even need his parents' help, considering that he was 38 at the time, with a wife whom he thanks for all his infernal <span style="font-style: italic;">reading of books</span>, as well as his three children, whom he also thanks for helping him set up and pack up at his lectures.</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">Most of all I must thank my Lord Jesus Christ for patiently working with me and equipping me for the work of the ministry.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Apparently, Jesus didn't have spell-check either, nor the ability to help him correct all of his masses of egregious factual errors, which we'll see soon enough. (Honestly, I couldn't blame Jesus for not helping this guy.)</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` But first, let's look at his introduction. Notice that it starts out very much like his lectures, and not at all like a serious dissertation:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a creation/science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high school science teacher since 1976. I’ve been very active in the creation/evolution controversy for quite some time. ...<br /><br />It is my burning desire to help Christians get back to a simple faith in God’s Word. Satan’s method has always been to instill doubt in God’s Word. The first sentence that came from Satan that is recorded for us in the Bible is: “Yea, hath God said?” He started by questioning God’s Word in the garden of Eden. It worked there so he has used it ever since.<br /></blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">As I seem to recall, my Arch-Rival himself has told me that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was just that -- a snake. After all, if the bible says it's a snake, then why add an interpretation?<br />` As we'll see in Chapter One, this whole 'Satan in the Garden of Eden' thing is how Hovind uses the bible as 'evidence' that Satan spread the 'doctrine of evolution' to Adam and Eve and then on to the rest of humanity. He then argues that various religions, cultures, historical events, and even science, are linked to the snake's words as written in the Book of Genesis.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Hovind's critics (like me) have a problem with </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >how</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> he argues this, rather than </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >that</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> he argues this, so I'll let him walk us through at his own pace:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">In the twentieth century the major attack Satan has launched has been against the first eleven chapters of Genesis. He knows that the entire Bible stands or falls on the validity of these chapters. I believe that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, inspired, perfect Word of God.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Interestingly, Hovind's faith plus his claim that Satan is part of, and personally agrees with, </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >his</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> interpretation of the bible, would seem to serve as the foundation for this entire dissertation, as it is very noticeable in the way he presents his evidence fragments.</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">In this book I’ll be covering, in a nutshell, the creation/evolution controversy. I will explain why it is so important, the effects that the theory of evolution has had on our society, the creation alternative, and what we should do about the problem. I will try to answer questions that modern science has raised from a Scriptural viewpoint.<br /></blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Except, as we'll see, he doesn't ever get around to that -- at least not in his first four chapters!</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">I have been saved for twenty-two years by the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son. I believe that God’s Word is infallible and flawless in every detail. If the Bible says that something was created a certain way, then that is just the way it happened.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Again, he's stating what he has faith in, and then he seems to contradict himself:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">Now, as a science teacher, I want to keep an open mind and understand why, how, and when God created the earth, if those things can be known. There are some things we cannot understand, and some things I believe that we can.</blockquote><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:georgia;" >So, does that mean he'll keep an open mind just in case it didn't happen the way the Bible says it did?</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> I'm actually not sure what he means by this, so if my Arch Rival could help me....</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` A scientist, I should mention, is trained to figure out how something has occurred, rather than to throw up their hands when they don't know the answer and say, "I give up, therefore it's evidence of my inner convictions!"</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">That is really what science teachers ought to teach their students -- especially if they claim to have been teaching for fifteen years! -- although, I should mention that Hovind only taught at private schools, and according to the </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos318.htm">Bureau of Labor Statistics</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">, "private school teachers do not have to be licensed but may still need a bachelor's degree."</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Hovind doesn't even seem to have a real bachelor's, much less a Ph.D, and here's <span style="font-style: italic;">his own admission</span> that his 'thesis' is not original research:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">I will be quick to point out that “there is nothing new under the sun” Most of my ideas are the result of the input of hundreds of Godly men and women through the years. I have attempted in this book to simply explain the things I have learned through many years of studying both science and the Bible.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">In other words, <span style="font-style: italic;">this is not a thesis</span> -- it's largely a rehash of what he's learned, not adding to our knowledge. Basically, it's like a book report on all the books he's read from his correspondence courses at Patriot (and, I could add, a rehash of his radio shows and presentations). Already, it's disqualified as being a doctoral dissertation, yet it goes on:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">Many things I can document and verify with the “experts” (whatever an expert is). Some things in this book I couldn’t prove to anyone.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">How can anyone verify something with an expert if they don't know what one is? Also, is he bragging that some of his ideas are unacceptable to anyone but him? If he can't prove some of these things to <span style="font-style: italic;">anyone</span>, then why are they in his dissertation?</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Instead of a table of contents, he talks about how the 16 chapters of his thesis were inspired by the topics he spoke about on his </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >radio show</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">.</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">Each broadcast dealt with a different topic. We have selected some of the most helpful topics and developed them into chapters toward this book.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Helpful to make his case, perhaps, but not the most relevant to the subject. In any case, only four of these chapters were finished by 1991, which can only mean he had completed his Ph.D. -In-Progress, right?</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">Several legitimate questions about the creation account given in the Bible need to be answered. Number one, "Don't all scientists believe in evolution?"</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">As one can notice, that question has nothing to do with the bible. To answer it, though; modern biologists accept evolution because they </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >understand</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> what it is, understand what one should expect to see in the world if it's true, actually see those things in the world, and thus have no need to "believe in" it.<br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">`</span></span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> People like Kent, however, don't show any glimmerings of recognizing the difference between their own definition of 'evolution' versus what <span style="font-style: italic;">evolution-studying scientists</span> would call 'evolution'. In any case, that's a whole topic that a thousand blog posts would not cover.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;"><br />One may recall that there is a certain notorious petition which asked scientists if they agree that evolution should be questioned and analyzed. First of all, since all scientific theories must be put under intense scrutiny at all times, and since more details concerning evolution are being discovered and studied, it is being scrutinized in ways it's never been scrutinized before.<br />` Second, that's the way things are <span style="font-style: italic;">supposed to be </span>in science, so what kind of scientist would disagree with <span style="font-style: italic;">whether</span> evolution should be questioned and analyzed?<br />` Note that this tells us nothing about whether or not</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> these scientists thought that evolution <span style="font-style: italic;">makes sense</span>, but the screwy part is that creationism proponents claim that <span style="font-style: italic;">this</span> was the question being asked.</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> (There's also more to this, but I'll have to get to it in some other post.)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">To be sure, before 1958, when Darwin and Wallace first told the world of their powerful and predictive theory of evolutionary workings, other people couldn't have accepted this theory because they hadn't known about it.</span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" ><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">`</span></span><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:georgia;" > To say that great minds like Galileo did not accept that life forms evolve is meaningless because they lived before Darwin and Wallace had explained how it could even plausibly work. True, there had been some notions of "evolution" before Darwin and Wallace, but these ideas lacked any plausible mechanism, so who would believe them?</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">While all of the evidence is not in yet, I feel it is still the, [sic] best option to take God’s word at face value. The Bible has never been proven wrong yet, and I believe it never will be.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">It's great that Hovind believes the bible is not only God's word but is so undistorted that it can definitely be taken more or less literally at face value. Let's just say, people who study the bible's history would very much disagree, for countless reasons.<br />` To take a random example, I was recently reading <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/jerusalem-scholars-trace-bibles-evolution-092932128.html">this AP article</a> about a group of bible scholars, many of them Orthodox Jews, who have been at work for 53 years on a very special project at Hebrew University in Jerusalem -- tracking every single change that has been made to the Old Testament.<br />` When I say studying the bible, I mean <span style="font-style: italic;">studying the bible</span>:</span><br /><blockquote>This is an endeavor so meticulous, its pace so disconnected from that of the world outside, that in more than five decades of work the scholars have published a grand total of three of the Hebrew Bible's 24 books. (Christians count the same books differently, for a total of 39.) A fourth is due out during the upcoming academic year. ...<br /><br />Bible Project scholars have spent years combing through manuscripts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Greek translations on papyrus from Egypt, a printed Bible from 1525 Venice, parchment books in handwritten Hebrew, the Samaritan Torah, and scrolls in Aramaic and Latin. The last member of the original team died last year at age 90.<p id="yui_3_3_0_1_1315209849285513">The scholars note where the text we have now differs from older versions — differences that are evidence of the inevitable textual hiccups, scribal errors and other human fingerprints that became part of the Bible as it was passed on, orally and in writing. ...</p><p>The <span class="yshortcuts cs4-visible" id="lw_1313142742_4">Book of Jeremiah</span> is now one-seventh longer than the one that appears in some of the 2,000-year-old manuscripts known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some verses, including ones containing a prophecy about the seizure and return of Temple implements by Babylonian soldiers, appear to have been added after the events happened. ...</p></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-family:georgia;">It is this kind of study, rather than belief, that causes people to come to this conclusion. So, what role does belief play in this work?</span><br /></p><blockquote>"A believing Jew claims that the source of the Bible is prophecy," said the project's bearded academic secretary, Rafael Zer. "But as soon as the words are given to human beings — with God's agreement, and at his initiative — the holiness of the biblical text remains, even if mistakes are made when the text is passed on."</blockquote><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:georgia;" >In contrast, there are no arguments in Hovind's thesis which support the idea that the bible can be taken at face value other than his claim "I b</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">elieve". Needless to say, when your whole thesis rests on the assumption </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >that</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> the bible can be taken at face value, and yet you fail to support this assumption, then saying that you </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:georgia;" >believe</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> it's true does not substitute for an argument.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 204, 255);"><span style="font-family:georgia;">` The next section up for analysis is Hovind's first thesis chapter, 'History of Evolution'. I'm not sure when I'll be finished with it, considering that school will probably interfere, but let me warn you all first; it's much longer than this blog post! (As are the other three chapter analyses so far!)</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 204, 204);"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:georgia;"><br />I do think that this post is long enough, but as I didn't type out every bit of the text, I did leave out parts which I could have commented on but didn't think they were particularly important. Especially in comparison with what's coming up.<br />` Still, questions/potential corrections/comments always welcome, even ones that contain insults and death threats -- my favorites!<br /><br />(Of course, sometimes it gets out of hand, which is why I'd like to thank the Montreal Police, <a href="http://notroswell.com/2011/08/david-mabus-arrested-in-montreal/">for arresting this guy</a>, who's actually sent hundreds of hate-filled spam emails my way! Thanks, David Mabus, for saying you'll chop off <span style="font-style: italic;">my</span> head! I feel so special now!)<br /><br />Well, off to work on the next post in this series....<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">(Edit: I'm done! </span><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://nociceptor.blogspot.com/2011/10/why-hovind-hasnt-earned-title-of-dr.html">Please go here for the next section</a><span style="font-weight: bold;">!)</span><br /></span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-30130528979517767462011-08-23T14:44:00.000-07:002011-09-04T14:54:01.027-07:00My diploma mill achievements<span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 153); font-family: georgia;">I have so many different posts going on, and then keep getting sick/distracted that I don't know what to do with myself! However, I have been able to catch up somewhat with my <a href="http://seequine.blogspot.com">photojournaling efforts</a>, so at least there's that. There are so many other posts about various things, but I'm all over the place! How do I keep up with everything?</span>
<br />
<br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">I haven't yet earned my degree, however I have received a fake one from a prestigious diploma mill, and here's a crummy, blurry picture of it:</span>
<br />
<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvW0-tq1sc0J8gybSQrxLCtD1mU4cnkP8Yf8g0QvelwThy2_XOH00fY_MgKNX5MYh7uHloGhiCmiwHqh6akeQCHpzFCS7_3qHmdZMWcuNBdY05U5x6wepViUCZ0UWXpzHHKCYh/s1600/My+degree+sux.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 600px; height: 358px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvW0-tq1sc0J8gybSQrxLCtD1mU4cnkP8Yf8g0QvelwThy2_XOH00fY_MgKNX5MYh7uHloGhiCmiwHqh6akeQCHpzFCS7_3qHmdZMWcuNBdY05U5x6wepViUCZ0UWXpzHHKCYh/s400/My+degree+sux.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5648624617930635442" border="0" /></a>
<br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">Because I'm worth it!</span>
<br />
<br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">Speaking of diploma mills, my next post will be about someone who is famous for having a fake degree. Who is it? Well, we'll just see!</span>
<br />Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-62599685724833601342011-07-26T12:57:00.001-07:002011-07-29T12:12:31.236-07:00Some YEC-y dialog with A.R.<span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 255); font-family:georgia;" >Here's part of the monstrosity that's turned into its own monstrosity!</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 102); font-family:georgia;" ><br />` This post refers to the discussions I've been having with my ArchRival (see </span><a style="color: rgb(255, 204, 102); font-family: georgia;" href="http://nociceptor.blogspot.com/2011/07/this-monstrosity-is-whats-taking-me-so.html">previous post</a><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 102); font-family:georgia;" >), </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 102); font-family:georgia;" >who is a Young-Earth creationist.<br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 255, 153);">` I figure this might as well double as public web material, I thought I would put more of it on display so that I can at least have something on one of my blogs. After all, I've already done the the hardest part -- writing it in the first place!</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Leaving off from the last post, here's the next message I sent to 'AR':</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">I've always thought how strange it was that the more I learn about an unfamiliar subject, the more I realize I don't know. For example, when I started doing some research about the bible, I thought I knew squat. Now I know that I know even less than that!<br />` For example, in the past I might have said "Didn't Jesus say 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is wrong?' Well, doesn't that mean that God was wrong?" But now I know that doesn't make sense because that was meant to be a law to the magistrates, saying that if a man kills a king, you only kill the man, not the man's whole family, because the family didn't do anything. What Jesus was criticizing was that people were taking this action into their own lives and exacting revenge on others, when it wasn't meant for that. [?supposedly?]<br />` I don't remember if it was you who told me that or some Anglican bishop or whoever, but now I know that's wrong and won't make such a criticism. Of course, I'm learning about it not so that I can make better criticisms of it, but all the same it shows the danger of making false claims, especially if they form the basis of some criticism. I should know better, so I'm always trying to be more and more careful!<br /><br />I bring this up because, as I've said, creationists (that is, creationism proponents) make criticisms about evolution that similarly make no sense. Such as, in the last message, Hovind saying that "scientists think a non-dog can come from a dog" and of course they don't! I've read about Hovind saying that a duck laying a tomato instead of an egg would prove evolution. No, that would prove magic! The only thing that scientists have EVER said is that species diverge gradually into slightly more and more different species until the descendents can no longer breed with the ancestors.<br />` Yet, no matter how many times scientists tell him, "That's not what we think, Hovind!" he would continue with the same arguments, claiming that "evolutionists can't disprove me!" As though it's really true! The other creationists do the same thing, which I'd like to try demonstrating to you.<br /><br />However, something I do know about is evolution and basic science, which these creationists continue to misrepresent -- except Hovind because he's in Federal prison for fraud.<br />` They're never going to teach you about science because no matter how many times you correct them, they won't learn from their mistakes. Which then, must mean that those aren't mistakes but are intentional -- even if they're debating a biologist and the biologist has already disproven them by showing them that their argument is based on a false assumption, they continue on with their script as though nobody had challenged them at all. And yes, some of the creationists in the audience DO notice this -- and some don't!<br />` I get the idea that these creationism proponents know they're lying, but as with people who say fraudulent holy relics are real, they are probably just committing 'pious fraud' in order to get more converts (and make money, like those 'faith healers' on TV!). I can't help but think that if Jesus were here, he'd be trying to shut these people down!<br /><br />While I already have plans for Hovind (see my email and accompanying video I sent a couple weeks back), I wanted to ask you if you would be open to learning more from me, and also informative videos that I know are accurate from what I've learned from science books/magazines and classes. (And, almost all of which I discovered AFTER I told you I'd be emailing you some videos! I had no idea they were even out there until I started watching Hulu and then YouTube instead of Netflix....)<br />` Learning more about what Hovind and Ham say, I can tell that if you actually believe them -- and many creationists DON'T -- then you really know about as much about evolution as I know about the bible. (So, I'll continue learning about that!)<br /><br />I'm an honest person, so I'm actually working on correcting my mistaken assumptions about things I don't know. I have been for years because it's so hard to do anything in the world if you're operating on false assumptions about reality! If a cliff is there in real life, and I think it's not really there, that won't stop me from falling off it anyway! Okay, that's a silly analogy, but I think you know what I'm saying.<br />` I can guess that, since you're an honest person (I'd think!) that you would want to actually know what scientists "really think" and what evolution "really is" -- and I can give this to you, in smaller bits, not big ones like before!<br />` Also, if you'd like to direct me to some articles or videos or whatever, about something you want to correct ME on, I'll go for that! What do you say?</blockquote><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >AR's response to my message:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">"Let God be true, and every man be a liar." I for one do not personally believe that those who espouse creationism or intelligent design have any ulterior motives (beyond winning souls to Christ - and let's face it, that particular motive is shared by the church at large). While there are plenty of "not-for-profit" organizations out there looking to turn a buck on people's faith (I'm lookin' at you, Pat Robertson), one must bear in mind that the ultimate goal of God's people is in fact to help people to know God - everything else we do ought to be directed toward this end (Acts 20:24).<br /><br />Frankly, I feel you've invested far more time and effort in this particular matter than I can afford. I applaud your efforts, and you've given me plenty to ponder and investigate. Unfortunately, I lack the time to invest in this endeavor, what with everything else going on in my life. I don't mean to negate your own efforts, but it may be a while before I am able to produce a satisfactory answer. And by "a while," I mean an indeterminate amount of time which could range from a few days to several months. I need to do my homework, too - and I'm beginning to think the reason I never got a job in journalism has to do with my inability to abide by deadlines.<br /><br />I suppose the real question at hand here is this: Even if the Genesis account of creation is in error, does this in any way negate the greater truths of Scripture? On the one hand, as previously explored, it does - no Garden means no Tree, no Tree means no Fall, no Fall means no sin, no sin means no need for grace, no need for grace means Jesus died for nothing. In order for the Bible, for Christianity as a whole, to make any sense whatsoever, one must accept not only that Man came into being according to God's design, but moreover, that he abandoned God to pursue his own, and that since then God has been trying to bring man back to Himself - an effort culminated in the Man Jesus.<br /><br />On the other hand, as I'm sure even Lucas would point out, while many of the ideas of Scripture may relate either directly or indirectly to this main idea, the main idea serves only as a primary motivation for holding to these ideas. Love and compassion for one's fellow man, respect for life and property, selflessness and self-sacrifice, faithfulness and loyalty, obedience to authority, diligence in one's work, honesty and integrity in one's dealings, grace and forgiveness - these are all Christian principles, and they find their motive in a love and respect for God, who has made Man in His image; thus by respecting man, do we respect God. However, I have on many occasions, and frequently to my own surprise, seen these same virtues practiced by those who did not share my faith. Perhaps their motives were different from my own, but the results of their actions - that they met the needs of their fellow man - are no less admirable. Many know what is right, and seek to do it for no other reason than it is the right thing to do. I believe the Bible shows us why these things are right - because God says so! Take that away, and any argument as to the "why" of righteousness becomes flimsy, just as easily disproved as it is proved. But even as Jesus Himself said, "Those who are not against us, are for us."<br /><br />I approach this matter from a philosophical angle, because I consider myself more a philosopher than a scientist. As I've mentioned before, I believe scientists must consider carefully the philosophical implications of their theories and findings, and must also understand that they will always interpret their findings according to their own worldview - one's perspective ultimately determines what one really sees (Hovind especially hits this one home). You can separate philosophy from science, but you cannot separate one's interpretation of science from their philosophy. "Facts" will always be seen through the filter of "truth."<br /><br />I will attempt to answer your questions in due time. Do understand, though, I have no intention of changing my own opinion on this matter. I have seen to much to convince me of my own stance in this matter to be unconvinced now. I figure if my God says He made the world a certain way, then I'm in no position to argue with Him - He is God, after all, not exactly someone one would want to have a disagreement with. Nevertheless, I do seek to address your concerns when time allows.<br /><br />As of completing this, I have about 20 minutes to get to work. We'll talk to you later. Thanks again.</blockquote><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 255); font-family:georgia;" >My </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(153, 255, 255); font-family:georgia;" >very patient</span><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 255); font-family:georgia;" > response to him:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">Thanks for your response! My goal here is not to show you that Genesis is in error, only that people like Hovind are telling falsehoods about evolution and everything he can associate with it, in order to make it look bad, whether or not he knows he's doing this or not. If he is, it may indeed partly be to make money, which would explain why he lied to the government about how much money he made.<br />` You said you are surprised to see the same Christian virtues practiced by non-Christians? This statement puzzles me, since these are the same values that most people have, as far as I can tell, and I am never surprised when I see non-Christians practicing them. So, I have to ask; what would you expect to see instead?<br /><br />You say you think right is right is because God says so. Does this mean that if God said that doing something horrible is good, would you do it? Forgive me if this is based on false assumptions again, but doesn't the Bible say that God told Moses that it was righteous for him and his followers to destroy other tribes and to rape the virgins and kill everyone else? Would you do that if you were Moses?<br />` Even things like slavery are condoned in both the Old and New Testament -- this I am also pretty certain of. Does that make slavery right? In the 1800s, that's what a lot of anti-abolitionists said -- God says slavery is right, so that means it is right! It took human beings, including Charles Darwin BTW, to use science and reason to show that racism and slavery are irrational and immoral.<br /><br />Hovind is just misrepresenting science again here -- the whole point of science is to pursue knowledge without a filter of 'truth', no matter what people may think of it. That's what the scientific method is FOR. Different people from all around the world can see the same data and the same facts, and come to some sort of consensus. Personal philosophies can get in the way, however.<br />` Take the Darwin-denying Lysenkoists, who had to agree that it was Lamarck's theory of evolution that was right, not Darwin's, and that DNA didn't exist -- or they would be sent to the gulag! Hitler also banned Darwin's books and, as I've been reading, talked at length about how evolution of any kind was ridiculous and that only God could have created all life on earth, using typical creationist arguments.<br /><br />Misrepresenting and suppressing science in order to support one's ideals is something I'm against, and there are a lot of people out there making ridiculous arguments about how the earth is flat and how the sun is really small and goes around the earth, because the Bible or the Quran says so, and they distort science just as Hovind does in order to support that. <img class="emote_img" src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/images/blank.gif" style="background-position: -80px 0px;" alt=";)" /><br /><br />Anyway, I'm glad I've given you plenty of things to ponder and investigate! What kind of homework do you predict you'll have to do? I can help you with stuff like that, you know, streamline the process.<br />` Actually, there's this university site called 'Understanding Evolution', which contains an 'Evolution 101' that Hovind really could have used. The first page says:<br /><br />"Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance."<br /><br />Hovind, and a lot of other creationists, don't show an inkling that they even understand this and repeat that all changes, from human society to natural phenomena having nothing to do with genes are all just 'evolution', one and the same.<br /><br />That aside, it also contains a section that I think will interest you a whole lot because it covers the history of (the real) evolutionary theory, and I think will really appeal to your philosophical side! I urge you to read some of it now, just to see what I mean!<br /><br /><a href="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_01" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_01</a><br /><br />I've actually stopped to read some of it (again), and it goes by pretty fast, so you'll probably have time to get through a couple of centuries before you have to move onto something else.<br /><br />It actually starts out with one of the points I've made here: Vesalius and his challenge of actually checking to see whether Galen was right about human anatomy or not. What Galen wrote was considered 'truth' in Vesalius' time, but science is not about having the truth, unlike what creationism proponents will say.<br />` On the contrary, we have science because we don't know, and will never quite arrive at, the truth. Its purpose is not to reveal truth, but to fumble around until we can find some theory that can reliably predict what other facts will be uncovered and what else will happen in reality.<br />` That is as close as scientists can ever hope to get to 'the truth'.</blockquote><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 204); font-family:georgia;" >His response to that:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">Okay, let's back off Hovind for a minute. I obviously don't know this cat's backstory, so that means I'll have to do some digging on my own later. Let's get back to the source material here.<br /><br />First of all, the thing I find surprising - not shocking or amazing, just surprising - is that people in this culture can actually be selfless sometimes. Let's face it, this is not a culture that espouses selflessness; I highly doubt a consumerist culture could ever hope to thrive in a society that promoted a selfless mentality. While I realize Christianity is not unique in teaching selflessness (again though, it gives a more concrete reasoning behind the idea), that such things are not entirely lost on humanity gives one a certain degree of hope.<br /><br />Second of all, what am I really saying when God says something is right? Let's break that down, elaborate a little. I'm saying, that the Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of everything that exists in the entirety of not only the universe, but all things that exist beyond the space-time continuum (i.e. eternity), has decreed by His own authority as the infinite, uncreated, Master of all He surveys, that there are points of conduct that He has prescribed to mankind, whom He has made in His own image that they might know Him, and that by adhering to these decrees, one might not only bring due glory to this same God, to whom all is due, but might also benefit himself and be a blessing to his fellow man. Moreover, the converse could be said about that which God has commanded man not to do; that such things are not only an offense to God, who is holy, but they are made even more offensive by the fact that they are harmful to oneself and one's fellow man, who are again made in the image of the living God. Because man is made in God's image, to harm one's fellow man is an affront to God Himself. Some people think spitting on a Bible or cussing in a church would tick God off; not nearly as much as actually doing harm to the masterpiece of His creation - us.<br /><br />Which segues nicely into the whole Moses debate. A lot of people have said a lot of nasty things about Moses, especially in our little forum (remind me to send Mike what I'm about to try to lay down here). To understand what God asked of Moses as He was using him to lead the Israelites out of Egypt and into the promised land, one must first understand God's underlying motive. Simply put, God desired a people not only to wear His stamp of approval, but to represent Him to their fellow man on this earth. He understands the weakness of the human heart, and He knew (and would later be proven right) that the Israelites would be drawn into the idolatrous cultures that had taken over the land He had promised to Abraham in the time since his descendants had gone into Egypt, should those peoples have been allowed to remain. (It should be noted, the "pagan" cultures that God commanded Moses and the Israelites to drive out were NOT nice people - these were peoples whose religions involved human sacrifices, up to and including infant sacrifices; sexual rites that included mass orgies and bestiality; and all manner of other things which God strictly commanded His people to not engage in, not only so they wouldn't be drawn into those cultures, but also because, well, such things were pretty dark to begin with.) God commanded His people to eradicate these other nations so that His chosen people would not become in any way tainted by a culture that had long since abandoned Him. Moreover, God wanted His people to deal peacefully with neighboring nations, representing His justice and mercy to them, while at the same time maintaining sovereignty and not allowing outside influences to corrupt the culture God sought to cultivate in His people. (It should also be noted that, because the Israelites did not follow through and completely wipe out all the nations God had commanded them to, that the remnants of those nations would later return and corrupt the Israelite people - even as God had warned them.) Simply put, there was no way the Israelites could have brokered any sort of deal with these nations that would give them the land God had promised, allow the Israelites to maintain national sovereignty, and prevent them from being completely absorbed into the peoples and cultures surrounding them. The purge of the various pagan peoples from the promised land was the only way to ensure God's chosen people would have any chance of remaining in the land He had promised to Abraham and would not be swallowed up by those same peoples. That said, this was never a desirable outcome - God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, for they too are still human, still made in His image. God took drastic measures to ensure that His ultimate plan for Israel - and indeed, for all mankind - would not be thwarted, but that His people would flourish and eventually bring forth the Messiah, the seed of Eve that would crush the serpent's head, even as He had promised Adam and Eve all the way back in the Garden. (Have we yet established that the Genesis account has to be true in order for Christianity to have any validity whatsoever?) This same Messiah would later elaborate and bring to fruition the things taught by Moses, becoming the completion of the Law and the fulfillment of the Prophets.<br /><br />The Bible actually contains ideas that wouldn't gain any real popularity in Western culture for several centuries after canonization, such as the idea that the Earth is round or that it floats freely in space. Scholars either conveniently ignored these passages or glossed them over for the sake of their reputations in popular culture, which at the time held that the earth was flat and sat on the back of some great beast or giant. Science, it seems, has always been limited by the perspectives and ideas of men. Having said that, Moses was kept from entering the promised land because he himself misrepresented God, and I would expect similar things to befall those who invoke His name to justify ungodly, even dishonest, practices - Hovind being no exception (and again, I'll look into your claims). The thing about God, He's completely honest about everything He is and does; what He says today will not contradict what He has said yesterday, He is the same forever and ever. His commands must be understood in the greater context of Scripture as a whole, and any command that would run counter to the Spirit of that Word should not be seen as having come from God, and thus ought to be ignored. But those who ignore that which He has commanded will be subject to judgement, if they refuse to repent and change their ways.<br /><br />I hope this adequately addresses a few of your questions, and we will try to answer more when time permits.</blockquote><span style="color: rgb(51, 204, 255); font-family:georgia;" >My next response:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">Interesting, and thanks, I think I can understand this a little better. You have a point about this consumerist culture not promoting selflessness -- and so many people make fun of it and rebel against it. They must know better, and there's probably a lot of different reasons why this is, including religious reasons.<br /><br />Why do you think Christianity gives a more concrete reasoning behind selflessness than other ways?<br /><br />I guess I understand what you mean about Moses -- and don't forget to send this to Mike if you think it will help! <img class="emote_img" src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/images/blank.gif" style="background-position: -80px 0px;" alt=";)" /><br />` So, God wanted all these wicked people GONE so the Israelites could get away from people practicing child sacrifice and things. But, that just leaves me with more questions. I thought that God is supposed to be able to do anything, like create the universe!<br />` If that's true, then couldn't God have stopped those people from being the way they were, or at the very least get rid of them himself? Why did those other nations need to exist if God wanted them all dead? Did they exist just to be killed/raped by Israelites?<br /><br />I suppose the bible may describe something that can be construed as a round earth -- on the one hand, the earth is said to hang upon nothing, but in other instances, it is said to rest on foundations, and other very unscientific ideas.<br /><br />For example, according to this article,<br /><br /><a href="http://www.lhup.edu/%7Edsimanek/febible.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm</a><br /><br />the bible also describes the earth as unmoving, and not rotating and orbiting the sun, as you would think the bible would if the bible is true. It also says that there is a vault above the earth containing the sun, moon and stars, and that above this dome is water, which is where rain comes from.<br />` The book of Enoch, which is not included in the bible, Enoch describes going to the ends of the earth and coming to the edge of the dome covering the earth in several points, each time seeing a gate of heaven that is opened and spouting weather phenomena, as well as the store-rooms holding the sun and moon, which come out of different openings depending on the seasons, and that they are guided by the stars.<br />` In actual bible verses, a height is described that one can look down and see the WHOLE world, and in Daniel, a tree is described that could be seen from the farthest reaches of the earth, which is only possible if the farthest reaches do not curve around in a sphere.<br />` And what about the stars singing together, and in Isaiah, when the morning star seeks to put his throne above God and the other stars. In Daniel, Matthew and Revelation, stars can fall from the sky, and are small. Deuteronomy notes that stars were made to be worshipped by other people.<br />` Also in the book of Enoch, the stars that don't rise and set on time are thrown into a fiery abyss, and there are descriptions of stars, having sexual organs as those of horses, being bound hand and foot and thrown into this abyss!<br />` Clearly, this is ridiculous. Astronomers understand that, although gas does tend to spread out in a vacuum as you may know, when the gas is swirling a bit, it instead forms lumps, which accumulate mass and thus gravity (even you and I have gravity!).<br />` Even just a little gravity will pull in more gas, which makes more concentrated gravity, and pulls in more gas toward one point until this process creates a giant sphere of gas (somewhat like our gas planets), which emits enough radiation that it would quickly kill any nearby human.<br />` When it reaches ten times the size of Jupiter, the atoms fuse, creating thermonuclear reactions (i.e. sunlight), which would vaporize any unprotected human, and it's called a star/sun. This is what astronomers know today about star formation, and they can see this happening within staggeringly large gas clouds which dwarf the stars that form in them.<br /><br />If the bible were right about stars, it might describe them as distant and mighty suns, but instead they are described as being small and contained within the sky dome.<br />` This is what I mean by people using the bible as evidence that the earth is flat. These things aren't true, but if the bible's right about the facts of the world, then what purpose are these descriptions?<br />` The historical/theological explanation for this, as I understand it, is that the bible is written by people who believed the earth was flat (and also believed that slavery was the way things should be). Whether or not they were inspired by God, they wrote what they wrote because of their human biases.<br /></blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Later on, AR and I spoke about this. He said the flat-earth arguments from the bible had all been debunked. Ironically, just earlier, AR had asked Lucas something like "Why are you guys getting on me about evolution? Why is that so important?" and Lucas said something like, "Because it's as dumb as Flat Earther arguments!"</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 153); font-family:georgia;" >` Lucas is not so nearly patient as I am.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` AR also told me to check out Kent Hovind's digging up dirt on (translation: crazy conspiracy theory about) the Smithsonian. Later on, I wrote:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">I've been up here trying to figure out what's going on with Hovind's conspiracy theory about the Smithsonian having thousands of murdered Australian aborigines in their basement, which I assume is most of what you were alluding to earlier.<br />` The only information I can find, outside from people repeating Hovind's claims, is people repeating Hovind's claims so as to expose Hovind's 'craziness', so that's hardly helpful.<br />` I'm actually seriously investigating into the matter further at this time, so I'll hopefully be back with something of substance.<br /><br />[Later:]<br /><br />I found Hovind's whole spiel about the Aborigines... yeah, I think I can come up with a good response to this one. Time for karate class, though!<br /><br />As I've said before, Darwin was raised anti-racist and according to this article, which I just found, he may have based his theory of evolution on his anti-racist worldview -- the idea that the races are not different species, but 'brothers':<br /><br /><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5562488.ece" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5562488.ece</a><br /><br /><br />Here are some of Darwin's words on the matter:<br /><a href="http://www.ncat.edu/%7Eunivstud/Charles%20Darwin%20on%20Slavery.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">ht</a><a href="http://www.ncat.edu/%7Eunivstud/Charles%20Darwin%20on%20Slavery.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">tp://www.ncat.edu/~univstud/Charles%20Darwin%20on%20Slavery.pdf</a></blockquote><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >I'll probably write about Hovind's crazy conspiracy theories some other day, but let's just say, I'm not impressed.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Later on, we had another discussion. I don't really remember which one this was, but I refer to it in my next message.</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">You brought up the term 'dumb on purpose' to me today, implying that scientists who accept evolution are guilty of this, according to Kent Hovind's attempts to make them look like willfully ignorant fools.<br />` As I have spent the past two months (when not sick or working) examining an important document of Hovind's, not one but three times, I wanted you to have some small inkling as to the flavor of my response.<br /><br />Not long ago, I found this video (by the same science journalist/editor who did the video on sloppy science journalism) which examines creationist claims that modern objects can quickly become petrified.<br />` Besides being very informative, it is also quite 'entertaining', and I hope you enjoy it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj0s4-v0bPE" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj0s4-v0bPE</a><br /><br />Please take these ten minutes to see why there's a difference between the well-understood phenomena of becoming clogged up with minerals (concretion) and actually becoming replaced by minerals (fossilization), and ask yourself who looks most like they're being dumb on purpose.<br /></blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">AR's real-life response largely consisted of giving me a knowing look and winking very slowly. I guess it was way too harsh for him, and wanted to apologize, but really didn't think that was appropriate, either, because I wasn't sorry.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102); font-family:georgia;" >` In my message I just thought I'd explain this to him as best I could, also referencing some of Potholer's other videos, which I wish he'd see (along with a whole slew of others) but I doubt he ever will:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">I understand that this video upset you for being smug, but I didn't anticipate it would be so hard for you. See, I WATCH CREATIONIST VIDEOS and this is what I see:<br />` "See, this is how stupid scientists are!" they say. "Look, they believe that [insert ridiculous bullshit that scientists actually don't think], and that's ridiculous bullshit! Therefore these scientists are idiots and their theories are bullshit!"<br />` Well, they WOULD be idiots if they DID think that, but the truth is they DON'T, so the argument is null. I'm surprised these creationists don't constantly get sued for libel.<br /><br />Try to picture in your mind someone up on stage slandering Christians. "Christians are evil atheists who eat babies and worship a flying zombie! The bible is totally crazy!"<br />` You damned well know you don't believe that, and would see the people in the audience eating this up and think to yourself, "How can they BELIEVE THAT! If they just read the bible, they would know better!"<br />` Let's say that you try to tell this speaker that they are wrong about Christianity, but in the end they don't listen and keep giving the same message. It seems, no matter what you do, it doesn't make a difference what you say.<br /><br />This is how I feel when creationists misrepresent science and scientists. [This is not to compare the two otherwise!] I willingly watch and read their material and find it to be horribly offensive, not because they are putting their viewpoint forward, but because they have to lie about science in order to cut it down so that seemingly their own argument is more reasonable.<br />` I guess I didn't think this video was so smug because compared to creationist videos, it really isn't.<br /><br />This is one of the reasons I wanted you to see this video; it EXPOSES how creationists discredit evolution, and the first segment, which you must have seen, is a great example of that.<br /><br />Remember that guy? He says that well, either it was Noah's flood, or aliens brought hammers to earth and dinosaurs evolved hands to use them!<br />` That's a logical fallacy called 'false dichotomy'. He is also (if jokingly) implying that scientists are STUPID ENOUGH to believe some ridiculous story to explain away the 'truth' of the flood.<br /><br />Of course the scientific explanation ISN'T a bunch of dumb bullshit, but no creationism proponent will ever tell you what that explanation really IS!<br /><br />In this case, the REAL scientific explanation, as you'll recall, is that stalagmites form all the time along the path of mineral-rich water, and sometimes they form around human-made artifacts.<br />` Geologists understand this process well, but to say that there's no reasonable explanation for artifacts encased in stone, and that scientists are STUPID not to believe it was caused by Noah's flood and rapid fossilization, BECAUSE they don't have a REAL explanation, and therefore must be AFRAID OF THE TRUTH... well... isn't THAT smug?<br /><br />(Well, it's still better than those people who really DID think that aliens were behind this stuff! LOL!)<br /><br />Sure, Potholer54 may be making fun of the creationists, but notice... he doesn't have to lie once! It's the creationists that lie, like the one who displays and reads this text:<br />"The two new fossils were found in a pit in what was once a cave, their bones preserved by a hardened sediment that buried them in a flood shortly after they died..."<br />` After reading this aloud, he says, "See? It says it hardened shortly after they died! It's rapid fossilization!"<br />` But, as that is not what the text says, right in front of you, he's making it plain to HIS AUDIENCE that he is lying, or at least has a seriously distorted sense of reality.<br /><br />That's called 'exposing' not 'misrepresenting', right?<br /><br />Potholer also makes it clear that concretion ALWAYS happens to objects which are left in water, as archaeologists know. They have to scrape minerals off of artifacts, just as one scrapes off the mineral deposits in one's shower!<br />` Think about it -- they couldn't scrape the minerals OFF if the artifacts were fossilized, because then the artifacts would actually BE the stone! Right? That's why they're NOT fossilized!<br /><br />He gives us some examples like the hat that was left in a flooded mine shaft; the mineralized water soaked into the hat and it became hardened.<br />` And then, at the end of the video, WHO do we see? Why, it's Kent Hovind, proclaiming that this is a "petrified hat", along with other examples!<br /><br />Is Potholer misrepresenting Hovind here? That is what he SAID, isn't it? That's not a LIE, is it?<br /><br />Then, Hovind explains (quite smugly!) that some kid sent him some acorns, which had been left in a bucket of water on his back porch for some months and "turned to stone".<br />` Oh yes, those scientists sure are stupid and obstinate not to accept what you say, Mr. Hovind! Ha ha, yes, they're fools, but creationists KNOW BETTER and can sit there, smug in their knowledge that only they know the truth!<br /><br />Hovind has been told of 'mistakes' like this, time and time again, but he's never acknowledged this in his lectures. He just goes on and on, "I know the truth but those scientists want you to believe that you can't have a petrified hat because it can't possibly be fossilized!" No they don't Kent...<br />` They want you to believe that you can't have a petrified hat because it's NOT PETRIFIED, there's a difference!<br /><br />"Oh, scientists want you to believe that trees were buried upright in strata for millions of years without decaying, or else grew up through solid rock!" No they don't, Kent:<br />` They actually want you to believe that these trees, which were in a marsh, stood dead for a hundred years or so, just like dead trees in marshes today, while various floods came along and gradually buried them, which also happens today. The rocks don't date millions of years between the bottom of the tree and the top, only hundreds, so that makes sense.<br /><br />"Oh those scientists want you to believe that you can't carbon date a dinosaur fossil because it's too old!"<br />` No Kent, they want you to believe that you can't carbon date a dinosaur fossil because it's completely replaced by minerals! There's NO carbon in it, period!<br />` "This guy carbon dated a Tyrannosaurus bone and it dated to 20,000 years!"<br />` That's because it was covered with carbon-based shellac, not because there was any carbon in the bones!<br /><br />He just goes on and on, as though he has all the answers and that scientists are a bunch of dipshits with their heads in the sand or are making this huge cover-up of bad data or something, when there's really nothing strange going on at all!<br /><br />So, who's being smug?<br /><br />If these creationists genuinely just don't care enough, then they have kicked themselves out of rational discourse. What can you do? Scientists and science educators are at a loss to stop these people because they literally don't respond to being corrected.<br /><br />I've actually watched a debate in which the paleontologist anticipates all the creationists' arguments, explains why none of them make sense, and then the creationist (it was Duane Gish) just went on with his arguments, word-for-word, from the script, exactly has he always has done, without even acknowledging that the paleontologist had said ANYTHING!<br />` It was really quite surreal, like watching a monologue! Did Duane even hear anything the guy said? My guess is yes, but he didn't act as though he did. (Some of his fans DID notice, though, and thought it strange that he never responded!)<br /><br />But, I digress. My point is, it's very frustrating what these creationists are doing, making a comedy out of science by lying about what the scientists' arguments are. By doing this, they are actually making a comedy out of THEMSELVES by exposing just how false their OWN arguments are.<br />` It is therefore no surprise to me that some people like to help these comedies along, such as Potholer54. If you can't reason with creationism proponents, at least expose them for lying in a humorous way!<br /><br />One more thing... when I asked you if you'd seen this video, what was your reaction? Do you remember that?<br />` You got this look on your face, like you were... maybe smug? Amused? (Well, I told you you would find it... 'entertaining', didn't I? LOL! I guess it was too painful, huh?) And you kept winking at me in a knowing way. Remember that?<br />` Would you care to tell me what that was all about?<br /><br />[Later:]<br /></blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">P.S. While I was writing that last message, I was thinking about these debates with Kent Hovind on YouTube that show that no matter what you do, you can't get your point across to him.<br /><br />His opponents were describing, for example, how common descent predicts that the common ancestor between plants and animals would be a single-celled organism that is neither plant or animal, and when you compare the DNA of any plants and any animal, it shows that this ancestor lived 500 million years ago during the time of single-celled organisms, before plant and animal fossils are known.<br />` This explains, they said, why animal and plant fossils are always either plant or animal, and so therefore finding some sort of animal/plant hybrid would contradict common descent.<br /><br />They kept having to explain this again and again to Kent, because Kent kept insisting that finding a half-plant half-animal would SHOW common descent! "Where's pine cone man? Where's the dragonfly banana?" he kept asking, and they said, "Kent, a half plant half animal would contradict evolution!"<br />` HE KEPT INSISTING that we should find half plants and half animals, and that their existence would be evidence toward evolution, again and again and again! They kept explaining that no, that would be evidence against evolution.<br />` It was much like a conversation with my dad, or a wall. Kent kept insisting that you SHOULD find pine cone man, and they kept explaining why this is not how common descent works. It went around and around like this for something like 20 minutes, and eventually they gave up. (These are two separate incidences, the same thing happening both times.)<br />` Because they could not get across this concept to Kent, he concluded that because there is no man with a pine cone growing out of his head, then evolution is false -- after they explained SO MANY TIMES WHY the opposite would be true.<br /><br />Kent concluded, then, that he had won the debate. What does that say about Kent? I can't believe at this point that Kent is so thick he doesn't understand what they're saying.<br />` He acts as though he is, but I think it is basically his main debate tactic -- keep misrepresenting evolution until they give up trying to correct you, and you've won! Again, that's basically lying because it's disingenuous.<br /><br />Anyway, I just had to get that off my chest before getting off to the gym, and I hope you understand a little more about why I think of Kent Hovind in the same way that I think of those nice folks on FOX News.</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">I also later described to him how Hovind came off in the debates I'd seen, completely failing to acknowledge that anyone was trying to correct his assumptions -- he didn't even say "no, that's not true", he just kept repeating himself over and over as though he was by himself.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 153, 102); font-family:georgia;" >` If he'd just acknowledged the other person's argument, he would have been forced to change his position. A debate is supposed to involve responding to your opponent, not blocking them out.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 153, 102); font-family:georgia;" >` Before I explained this to him, however, he had this to say to me:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">Look, I appreciate the time and effort you've put into this, and do regret being unable to put an equal effort forth myself in this endeavor. The bottom line here, I'm not in a position to answer your arguments, either to confirm or refute them. I've directed you to my sources, and if you have found them to be in error, than that is truly unfortunate for the both of us. I suppose I need to find better sources, but again, I just don't have time right now.<br /><br />It has become apparent that further discussion on this topic would only cause discord in our relationship; I am as convinced of my side of the argument as you are of yours, and neither of us shall be swayed anytime soon. To each their own; I don't hold people's beliefs against them. If I did, that would be most hypocritical of me, especially when I hold fast to the freedoms of this country which allow me to follow my faith as I see fit. Who am I to deny that same freedom of anyone?<br /><br />You really want to know why I believe God made the universe in six days? Because God told me He made the universe in six days. I have His word on the matter. Therefore, if you believe differently, your argument is ultimately not with me or any other man, but with Him. If you don't believe He exists, again, you're welcome to that belief. But I would appreciate it if you and those of similar opinion did not think less of us for either believing in God or trying our best to live our lives according to His word. We are seeking in our own way to make the world a better place, even as you are seeking to do so in your own way. While there are certainly those on both sides of this particular fence who would impede both our efforts, I am of the belief that we ought to put our disagreements behind us, and focus instead on the things we can agree upon. There is nothing wrong with working for a better world, and while our definitions of "a better world" may differ, I believe those among us who are working to such ends agree that they start and end with helping improve the quality of life for our fellow man.<br /><br />One of the main reasons I pointed you to "Expelled" to begin with was not so much to demonstrate arguments against evolution, but also to show how Darwinistic ideas had been used in the past to justify the evil deeds of evil men. Yes, I realize men with similar evil motives have in times past used Scripture to try to justify their deeds, and that much of this continues even today (thank you, Westboro Baptists, may you burn in the same fires of judgement you condemn everyone else to). I believe one of our chief goals, no matter what side of the idealogical fence we occupy, ought to be calling people on the carpet for misusing and misrepresenting ideas that are meant for the betterment of the human condition. If that means people like Ham and Hovind need to be corrected, then so be it. If that means people like Dawkins and those Zeitgeist clowns require correction, then I hope they're humble enough to receive it. I myself will strive to regard people based not on the content of their creed, but of their character. I would expect similar courtesy from my fellow man.<br /></blockquote><span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >Then:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">I apologize if the tone of my previous comments has been harsh. I'm writing this while barely conscious, in a state of utter exhaustion and exasperation. I do wish to again express my deep appreciation for all your hard work; indeed, you've given me much to investigate and ponder, and when I might find the time to do so, I shall. But I believe it would be best to let this matter rest for now. You've made your point, but I myself am not inclined to agree with it at this time. Upon completion of my own findings, I may get back to you, whereupon we might continue this discussion after we've both had an opportunity to regain our energy and patience.<br /></blockquote><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >I wrote back to him:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">I don't think any less of you for believing in God, any more than I think less of myself for ever believing that spirits were telling me the truth of the universe, which I no longer believe.<br />` This has nothing to do with ideology. Evolution has not even been used to justify the evil deeds of anyone, as far as I know. Hitler was assuredly a creationist, as I've been reading about in his own words and had Darwin's books burned because he didn't want anyone to learn about evolution, which he thought was silly.<br />` In Communist Russia, they denied Darwinistic evolution and denied that DNA had been discovered. In one of my books, I think it was 'Discarded Science', this Lysenkoist doctor comes to America where they show him DNA (i.e. deoxyribonucleic acid), and he says, "Acid is liquid, but this stuff is powder! Therefore it can't be DNA! Therefore it's a hoax!" Anything to deny Darwin, or otherwise he'd be thrown in the gulag!<br /><br />What does Dawkins have to do with Zeitgeist? Really, I think it's insulting to think they have anything to do with one another, especially a supposed ideology, not least because Dawkins of course thinks all that stuff is BS!<br />` Before you said anything about him, I didn't know much about Dawkins but now I know that he is indeed an anti-theist, and he's actually really nice about it! He really respects Christians and Jesus, and has been misquoted by creationism proponents to look more like The AntiChrist!<br />` I was actually reading this little article on him the other day:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-myth-of-dawkins-as-an-intolerant-atheist-crusader-is-just-that-myth-2669926.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-myth-of-dawkins-as-an-intolerant-atheist-crusader-is-just-that-myth-2669926.html</a><br /><br />Says, in part:<br /><br />"The popular meme of Dawkins The Bigot is the creation of the Christian Creationist Right, who loathe him for the power of his advocacy of the idea that Darwinian natural selection is the sole creator of our living world.<br /><br />I spent the two weeks before meeting him immersed in his works, before which I was a great sceptic of Darwinism. I am now largely -- but not entirely -- persuaded of its essential correctness. ..."<br /><br />Then he goes on to explain some really interesting things he's learned and ends with:<br /><br />"Dawkins is simply not the austere and proselytising dogmatist of myth. Such people expect and almost seek confrontation, whereas he merely wishes to make his case.<br /><br />Moreover, he is quite clearly baffled by the extraordinary vituperation to which has been subjected, usually by the nameless thugs and religious skinheads who stalk the lightless slum-corners of that strange and troubled city, the internet. Take my advice. Forget the meme. Buy the books."<br /><br />That way, you'll know what Dawkins REALLY thinks! I have one of his books, and have been meaning to finish it.<br />` I've also been watching many videos with Dawkins teaching people about science and other videos where he discusses religion with religious people and atheists and for the most part he seems like such a nice person, why would anyone think he's not?<br />` If you just see him for yourself, he really doesn't put people down. He's only been misquoted, as I've also seen, to make him seem that way, and well, I think THAT is horrible and dishonest. Why isn't Dawkins suing these people for libel, I don't know, LOL!<br /><br />Well, anyway, I guess that's enough of this subject, as you say. ...</blockquote><span style="color: rgb(204, 204, 255); font-family:georgia;" >After churning for three weeks with more thoughts on this subject, I turned my mind inwards to look for a deeper reason as to why this is pissing me off more than I would expect. I suddenly realized that there is more to explain here:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">...I had something on my mind. I wanted to thank you for spurring my research into creationism, which is mostly what I wanted in the first place because there's just so much of it that, well, I needed a place to start, and currently I'm up to my armpits in it.<br /><br />I also wanted to apologize for being not a good science educator and, well, getting rather heated over it. [I'm actually referring to the previous posts. Do they really seem that heated, for the most part?] I think I've figured out why.<br />` I react to being insulted, as I'm sure you do. Watching Kent Hovind reminds me of how my dad used to humiliate me in front of other people, and I still have that reaction.<br />` For example, when I was four, my grandpa gave me piggy-back rides, but then I grew and was too big for that, and I never thought about doing it again.<br />` Then when I was 13 (and 120 pounds) and was going to introduce a friend to my grandpa, who could barely walk, my dad said, "Don't be climbing on your grandpa's shoulders! He can't carry your weight!" I assured him that I was not that stupid that I would ever think of doing such a thing, but he kept insisting that I would.<br />` To think that he was trying to tell my friend that I was that stupid and blind to other people's needs really horrified me. It's like that with you. It's like these creationists are telling you that I would believe these crazy things that I wouldn't, and the thought of this is very hard to take.<br /><br />So yes, I take it more personal than maybe I should be. That does not mean that I'm not being rational at the same time, but still I feel insulted.<br />` For example, I know from my studies and college and things that each sedimentary layer in the geological strata begins with heavier particles like gravel at the bottom and has lighter particles like silt and clay on top. This is because heavier particles sink to the bottom, as you know.<br />` Each individual layer is like this, with gravel, sand, fine particles, and gravel again with the bottom of the next layer, and sand, dirt, fine particles, and the next layer starts with gravel, etc. like a nut and yogurt parfait. This can only happen naturally if these layers are laid down at different times, otherwise ALL the gravel would be at the bottom instead of interspersed at the bottom of each layer!<br />` Also, some of these entire strata themselves are far heavier and denser than the ones below them, as they are not in any particular order of density. The only way this could naturally happen is if the denser [strata] were laid down after the less dense one below them solidified first.<br />` Even more, there are coral reefs and desert sandstone and coal deposits on top of one another, each with its own unique fossils of flora and fauna. This can be explained by the changing of the landscape, and by the raising and sinking of land.<br />` As I learned in Oceanography class, the geological column floats on top of heavier rock, and if you take weight off of it, as with erosion, it just floats higher. Also, the land pushes itself up, as with the Himalayan mountains rising 5 millimeters per year because India is being subducted underneath of Asia. Surveys over the past couple of hundred years show that the continents are moving, and this explains other features of which layers have what in them. Etc, etc, etc.<br /><br />My point is, when I see Kent Hovind or someone mixing up a bunch of flood sediment and it settling into different densities, he proclaims these are like separate strata just like the geological record in nature. But they are not. There's gravel at the bottom and silt at the top, just like ONE layer in ONE stratum in the geological record as it exists in nature.<br />` Am I biased to say that what I see is one layer and not many? Of course not, because you can look at layers and see that each one starts with bigger particles and is topped with smaller particles. That's how it is in nature.<br />` Creationists who do this stunt say, "Hey, I just disproved that the geological strata were laid down at different times! It's that simple!" thus, implying that the scientists who say otherwise are even simpler! Really, this is meant as a mockery of science.<br /><br />Is it because of some evil conspiracy that I'm not convinced that they have disproven it? Am I blinded by atheist ideology? Are all the geologists and paleontologists in the world so dumb that they don't notice it's so easy to disprove?<br />` Or is it just that I know better? I know the facts that contradict this, so when they say, "Hey, these are separate layers!" My BS detector goes off.<br />` I used to buy into this 'scientists are stubborn anti-spiritual bigots' when I was into all that New Age crap. They said the exact same things as creationists do, but you don't believe New Ager's claims, do you? That people can move objects with their minds and such?<br />` Mainstream scientists are not ignoring this 'reality', but rather, have found the [pseudoscientists'] 'experiments' to be highly flawed and sometimes even faked. Then, the New Agers refuse to publish their 'research' in scientific journals, claiming that scientists wouldn't accept it because of their anti-spiritual ideology and persecution of New Agers.<br />` They claimed that because psychic phenomena have an effect on the world and can be controlled and utilized, that they aren't supernatural, but rather natural. They claimed the only reason why scientists object is because of their anti-psychic ideology.<br />` So on and so forth, just like creationists, as well as cold fusion 'researchers' and people who claim that the oil industry is suppressing the 'science' of energy sources that break the second law of thermodynamics (Mike the mechanic believed this--not surprising!).<br />` Once I learned how science works, I realized that these fringe people weren't being treated unfairly, or persecuted, that industry [or ideology] does not rule science. I also learned that minorities who show their ideas are right do so by the scientific process, not by backing out of the scientific community and declaring to the world that scientists are basically like Nazis.<br /><br />It is this finger-pointing and the claims that mainstream science is blinded by ideology which is a substitute for real research. I have given you many examples of why arguments meant to destroy the scientific history of earth actually don't address it, but rather distort it, attacking a straw man instead.<br />` ALL creationist and ID arguments are like this, not just some. And evidence that there's a conspiracy is similarly fake. Just like with New Agers [i.e. parapsychologists and such] taking quotes out of context and making up things about scientists, creationists do the same thing.<br />` Recently, I've investigated a quote about a biologist whose last name is Keith (too lazy to look it up at the moment) saying something to the effect of 'the only reason biologists believe evolution is to support their atheistic ideology'. This quote is all over creationist websites, including Hovind's. Most weren't sourced, but some were, saying it was written for the 1959 edition of Origin of Species.<br />` I found that it was not in that, or any edition of the book. Even more, Keith had died in 1955, so unless he was a zombie, I don't see how this is possible. I could find no source at all for the quote except for creationist websites. I suspect that it was made up by someone, such as Henry Morris, and attributed to Keith, JUST to smear the credibility of biologists.<br />` Other inflammatory quotes, such as by Stephen Jay Gould and Darwin himself, are quote mined, and I've already given you some examples of how such quotes can be edited to mean the opposite of what they are supposed to mean.<br />` This HAS TO BE INTENTIONAL, because you can't read the original quotes and not realize what they mean before you decide that you should display parts of them in such a way to mean something quite different.<br /><br />As a person who studies biology (not as much as I should, I admit) I am used to these insults, but it still hurts my feelings, not because they attack science but because they aren't true. Young Earth Creationist websites remind me of when my dad would just talk about me in front of other people FOR HOURS, totally misrepresenting me and I was punished for trying to correct him.<br />` So yes, maybe I'm reactionary because of my trauma. I'm sorry. It just wakes up the abused part of my mind. I'm sorry if I've insulted you as well. Educating people about the coolness of science as well as how people can be deceived (and how crazy the media is) is part of my identity, just as your Christian practices are part of your identity.<br />` I know it must hurt your feelings somewhat when someone accuses you or Christians in general of believing something you don't believe, because they don't have a picture of who you are, or because they're making fun.<br />` That's why I like to ask you questions, although I'm still learning how to do this well due to so-so social skills. I recognize that I don't know what you, or other individuals really think, so I try not to brand people as believing things they don't believe. In other words, I think I'm getting the hang of not judging people. I hope. I actually care about what other people think, but my communication skills aren't up to par to be an interviewer of sorts, to say the least.<br /><br />Someday maybe I will, and maybe I'll have a critical thinking podcast in which I interview people and can be sensitive without also being a pushover. LOL! You can be a guest, too!<br />` Speaking of which, someone expressed [a podcaster's possible] interest in interviewing me at Skeptics in the Pub the other day, for having the brainwashed background that I've had! I KNEW it would count for something!<br />` Also, Evan Bernstein, co-host of Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, is going to call me soon, at 9 o'clock tonight over Skype and I'm going to help him set up a blog so he can be a science blogger like me! [Yeah, if I can keep putting up posts, right?]<br />` I'm finally moving into the skeptic community at quite a clip and it's improving my social skills! Now that I have a support group, maybe I won't be so reactionary and feel depressed that creationists are lying about science to people who don't understand it as well as they should ([considering that] I do).<br /><br />[A]s this is my career, it's my job to know about science more than most people, although I'm still rusty. That's because there's a looooooooooot I've forgotten! That's because there's a loooooooooot to know. And to learn about creationism alongside evolution, that makes it a loooooooooot more! Thanks for reminding me of this!<br /></blockquote><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 153); font-family:georgia;" >The next time I saw him, he had a somewhat dejected or preoccupied look about him, but neither of us mentioned anything about this. A little later, I sent him this message:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">My conversation with Evan was quite uplifting. He thinks I'm really cool and we have a similar sense of humor, and we'll probably talk again very soon.<br /><br />It really helps me feel understood when I talk to such people. I could tell them all this and they would understand what I mean.<br /><br />It's the same if I were to tell you about how, when I was 17 and I was talking to this guy dressed as a Klingon (named Motag), and I was giggling and winking at my dad to show him I didn't think this guy WAS a Klingon. No 17 year-old should have to do this, but I did!<br />` Then later, we were walking into my dad's brother's house and he turned to his brother and said, "I'm not sure, but I THINK she realized he wasn't a real Klingon."<br />` I felt such shame [and outrage] that I stopped walking. I wanted to cry. How DARE he make me look like an idiot when I had tried so hard not to look like one?<br /><br />Or what about the time someone told me to get something that could be used as a blindfold. I said I'd get a pair of shorts, and by the time I was tying them around my head, my dad was coming up the stairs with a tea towel.<br />` He said, "Oh, when I heard the word 'shorts', I thought you were going to come out with a ratty old stained-up pair of your underwear tied around your head and I wanted to spare you the embarrassment."<br />` I almost cried when he said that. Since when would I equate 'shorts' with underwear? And why would I be so STUPID as to wear [such a thing] across my face? He was just trying to humiliate me.<br /><br />You understand this very well. You know it's not right to tell lies and embarrass other people. That's, well, not what Jesus would do. And Jesus would not distort science so that it looks stupid and then say, "Look how stupid it is! Hey, Troy, Spoony believes this stupid shit! She's brainwashed!"<br />` But I don't, so how can I be brainwashed? They're not going to tell you what *I* believe. There's a huge world of historical science out there, which you clearly don't remember and/or didn't learn much of when you were a kid, but they're not going to tell you anything about it. They're just going to pick thousands of little distortions that kind-of-almost sound right, [close enough to what you may remember], and present that as though it somehow resembles what they're arguing against.<br />` So-called psychics and other 'fringe' folks also do the same thing, so it's not just creationists!<br /><br />As part of one of MANY groups that understands what's going on here, I'm surrounded by people who understands the outrage one another is feeling at stuff like this, and can actually try to do something about it.<br />` When this happens, in the case of anti-vaccine people, they demonize their opponents as baby-killers, even though THEY are responsible for the deaths of babies from disease outbreaks! The host of SGU, Dr. Steven Novella, was once depicted on a prominent anti-vax blog as EATING A BABY for Thanksgiving, and much uglier things, too!<br />` Reporters and suspected unbelievers also get kicked out of anti-vax conventions because they are seen as evil people who are deliberately spreading misinformation in order to hurt [the believers'] children.<br /><br />In the creationists' case, they demonize their opponents as atheism-proponents. The National Center for Science Education is one such target because it mainly focuses on evolution education and not much else. That must mean its ulterior motive is to force atheism on kids, right?<br />` Not at all: Have you ever heard of a movement to distort chemistry, or physics? Those fields are just as 'atheistic' as evolution, geology, genetics, etc. Such movements exist, but they are not in the public sphere as creationism is.<br />` The point of the NCSE is merely to defend science from the religious right when they try to mess with evolution education, as well as global warming education, and education about how science works.<br />` (I mean, come on! You can't have kids being taught that one geologic layer is many, that kind of thing. It's ridiculous!)<br />` The religious right also claims that stem cell research is being taught in grade school, and they want it banned, except it's NOT being taught, so that's just a smear campaign. The NCSE also has to deal with this mess.<br /><br />The ID folks also tried to get the definition of science changed, as it is taught in schools, so that its methodology can include more than just natural explanations.<br />` That actually isn't possible to do, as you cannot empirically study something that is outside of nature, hence that is not the scientific method, hence this cannot be taught to children AS the scientific method.<br /><br />Don't believe the Discovery Institute is a Republican Think Tank? Challenge your view by looking at this! (It's well-sourced.)<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_institute" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_institute</a><br /><br />I actually sent you an email of this long, long ago, as well as blogging by these two girls who went to pay Casey Luskin a visit at the DI, which is an annex on the side of a 24 Hour Fitness building.<br />` They actually succeeded, but only after they had to LIE in order to get in the door, because the DI does not welcome anyone who doesn't agree with them.<br />` They said they saw a bust of Ronald Reagan and all kinds of creationist and scary FOX News-esque books and said that Casey said some... well... laughable [political] things, I don't recall exactly anymore, but it was in the email.<br /><br />I also said in the email that I would like to do the same investigation for myself this summer. Maybe I will, with my skeptic friends, and maybe even tell these other girls who did this about it.<br />` I'm sure I can find some people who are more than willing! You're also welcome to come along to see it for yourself!<br /><br />[Figuring I still had plenty of points to present, I sent him another message.]<br /><br />Also, wanted to clarify... that of course hurt feelings aren't my only motivation for my opposition to creationism -- I just wanted you, personally, to know where I'm coming from and why I get upset at these people sometimes. I'm not upset at you, just them, because they lied TO you.<br />` I also want you to know that if you have been misrepresented, or if I have misrepresented you, you can tell me. I DO understand, and am interested in knowing.<br /><br />My main concern is preventing the public from being misinformed, because that's what this is really about.<br /><br />It really does hurt, though. It's almost like racist propaganda against scientists, evolution and atheists. To say these are religions or ideology is a typical trick of the [Religious] Right -- they even say that there's a 'homosexual agenda' to convert children, as though it's an ideology and not a largely-genetic condition one is born with!<br />` Of course this 'evil gay conspiracy' thing is ridiculous and based on ideology and not science or facts at all! It also really hurts gay people's feelings for obvious reasons -- it's a lot like racism!<br />` It's also extremely damaging in that it causes parents to disown their children -- I know someone who can't tell his mom because of that. Such is the hatred that some gay kids kill themselves.<br />` Once there was this gay guy who had a couple of shops on Colby, and I asked why the police were there earlier and why he had bloody bandages on his head. He said his co-worker's son went into his shop with a baseball bat and his homophobe friends for some gay-bashing. This is the damage that propaganda does, or at least exacerbates!<br />` Even some heterosexual people have been attacked and killed by homophobes because they APPEARED to be gay. I think that spreading awareness is the best way to fight this sort of thing, just as it did for women's rights and the rights of other minorities.<br /><br />The anti-atheist hate speech on FOX News, and even some local news shows (which enrages me) is very similar to anti-atheist hate speech of creationism proponents (and are often one and the same). SO many people hate atheists, and that's why we're "in the closet", like in that article I put on your Wall.<br />` I often hear about people, even kids, being beaten up because they are atheists. At least one person I know of, Larry Hooper, was murdered because he had a crazy roommate who unfortunately took the anti-atheist propaganda a little too seriously. According to one article:<br /><br />"Shelton sounded calm and prideful when he told the dispatcher he had just shot "the devil himself" with a revolver and a shotgun because "he (Hooper) didn't believe in God." Shelton told the dispatcher he was "still armed and ready to shoot again in case he moves. I want to make sure he's gone." When the dispatcher asked how many times he shot the victim Shelton replied, "hopefully enough."<br /><br />...When the police arrived they were confronted with the grizzly scene of Hooper sitting upright on the couch with his head blown away and his brain lying on his hand."<br /><br />True, we are all born atheists, but atheist-hatred isn't like racism or homophobia in that way. It's unfair because atheists (and most were formerly theists) cannot bring themselves to believe in a theistic God. Why? Because "they know too much" in some way or another and just can't convince themselves any more than you or I could convince ourselves of other things we don't believe in, like Vishnu or that truth comes out of Glen Beck's mouth.<br />` It's not really the atheist's fault, it just happens spontaneously, for the most part, with these people following their own questions. And what does that get them? Crazy hate speech, like, "These evil atheists hate God and are helping the devil to push our children away from God." Replace 'God' with 'Zeus' and 'the devil' with 'Hades' and, well, that's basically what I hear. I can't make myself believe in gods, much less hate them!<br />` It is similarly the case with "you don't believe in God because you don't want someone telling you what to do, and because you're too proud to admit there's something bigger than you that knows what's right, etc."<br />` You have to assume that God exists to begin with to think that atheism has anything to do with hating God, priding one's self over God, or wanting to not believe in God so they can sin. ONLY A THEIST can have this perspective, and atheist CANNOT.<br /><br />Let me spell this flawed logic out to you:<br /><br />1: God exists.<br />2: Atheists don't believe in God.<br />Conclusion: These atheists are rebelling against God.<br /><br />Here's what atheists REALLY think:<br /><br />1: A theistic God probably/maybe doesn't exist.<br />2: I might as well be on my own.<br />Conclusion: I'd better take care of my own life and the people in it because who else will?<br /><br />Do you see the difference? And yes, some kids are sometimes disowned or beaten by their parents because they can't make themselves believe in God, or even pretend to.<br /><br />This offensive and destructive propaganda is why I make a point to try to correct whatever misconceptions you may have -- at the same time, I know I must make wrong judgments about other people, so I try to ask questions so that I'm not wrong about them, either. It's very tough to sort out, but I'm pushing my way through!<br /><br />I'm sure you've heard plenty of hate-speech against yourself, and you can share that with me if you like. It's really okay! I want to know!<br />` In any case, I didn't tell you all this before because being offended doesn't make an argument -- facts do.<br />` And, speaking of which, my link in the last message was the wrong one -- the one I sent in my email many moons ago was this one:<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Science_and_Culture" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Science_and_Culture</a></blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">Since them, I've sent him more stuff, but it delves into subjects more personal than this. It all seems very surreal, as I don't even know whether he can understand how destructive this propaganda is.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 255); font-family:georgia;" >` Talk about introspection of a struggling mad science writer! I'm going deep into my own psychology, and I must be mad to struggle to get at least a few of my points across to this guy.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` In doing this exercise, I understand this whole thing better than before. In reading this, my readers also may as well, hopefully better than AR probably ever will!</span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-40185500626942955672011-07-14T20:45:00.000-07:002011-07-14T21:30:44.152-07:00This monstrosity is what's taking me so long<span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 0); font-family:georgia;" >My aspirations of becoming an influential 'mad science writer' have been renewed to the point of having a friendly debate with my arch-rival (AR) in world domination, one whose lab is practically adjacent to mine, and who shall remain nameless for reasons which should become obvious.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` He is a young-earth creationist (YEC), which necessitates that he rejects most of modern science, from atomic theory and astronomy to genetics and geology. However, he doesn't think he rejects all this science because he has been told that modern science instead supports creationism.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Being eager to shake off the rust from my lack of writing, and finding that creation 'science' is one of my favorite pseudosciences to dispel, I have asked him to provide me with what he thinks are the most compelling arguments for creationism, and so far, I have easily picked apart all of them in enormous detail, although most of it is not electronically stored as of yet.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 153); font-family:georgia;" >` Now that 'AR' has a computer himself, I figured that I can now combine my blogging and my dispelling all in one go. So far, we've gone from Intelligent Design all the way down to Kent Hovind, whom I have debunked in the past simply by taking passages of what he's stated as fact and showing how they are massively contradicted by facts.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` This time shall be no different. Since AR holds Kent Hovind in such high esteem, evidently believing him to be worthy of Hovind's title 'Dr. Dino', I shall now show that Hovind is no more a Ph.D. than Peter Popoff is a healer, or Harold Camping is a prophet. While easy to demonstrate, with the enormous pile of evidence from Hovind's "unfinished doctoral dissertation" or "rough draft" (depending on who you talk to), it takes a long time and an awful lot of writing to get to every last damning detail.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">I'm still working on it, though, and it's so big that it's going to have to be posted in chunks. In the meantime, however, I thought I'd engage him online. Here's what I have so far:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">On his Facebook, he posted:</span><br /><span class="messageBody" style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />"</span>I was not aware that pettiness and scientific sophistication went hand in hand.</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">"</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">And underneath, this </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/evolving-tactics" rel="nofollow">really immature article written by Ken Ham</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">. I started typing a response, and kept accidentally posting randomly before I went back and corrected my mistakes, and kept posting corrections, and it really got out of hand. So, he commented that apparently I'm the one being petty, so I did what I should have done in the first place and edited it in WordPad, apologized for that, and posted it:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;"><br />Who is being petty here? Let's look:<br />Ham wants his audience to think that he's being persecuted by 'evolutionist' scientists, claiming such things as only a few transitional fossils have been found and later refuted. Yet, all fossils are transitional between what we call one species and another, and there are countless transitional fossils between practically any group you'd care to see. For example:<br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html<br /><br />Ham claims that 'evolutionists' don't want to debate creationists and so they start making false accusations such as 'creationists are anti-technology'. In fact, a staple of anti-pseudoscience arguments is that; since the same method leads to both science and technology, then it's ironic that believers of pseudoscience don't see this conflict!<br />Methinks this comes from quote-mining, which is exactly what he does when he presents the Richard Dawkins quote; it's wildly taken out of context, as it was meant as a joke!<br />And as for the PZ Myers quote, this is where it comes from:<br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/in_which_i_have_hurt_ken_hams.php<br /><br />If you do some research on this, you'll see that Myers doesn't take Ken Ham seriously because of Ham's constant intellectual dishonesty (like quote-mining), so he's not bothering to be serious himself.<br />` This isn't about creationism or spirituality, as Ham claims, it's about the fact that Ham really couldn't care less about what scientists really think and have discovered, despite the fact that they correct him time and time again. His response is not to answer them, but to say to the public, 'I don't hear anything from the evolutionists!' as if that makes it so.<br />` Since he really doesn't care about what they have to say, some of the few scientists who even bother to dignify him with attention will make fun of him and his ignorance/apathy.<br /><br />It's easy to prove that Ken Ham doesn't know what he's talking about -- he makes arguments against evolution that follow the same sort of straw man reasoning as, say, my example with the 'scientists are stupid because they believe whales came from fish, not land mammals, isn't that crazy and stupid?'. Well, of course they don't! Ham just uses an inflammatory caricature of evolution in order to make his audience think that it's a stupid idea.<br />` This intellectual dishonesty is the real reason why many 'evolutionists' refuse to debate creationists; their arguments have all been refuted and they haven't come up with any new ones in many decades. Also, if you give people with bad arguments a public platform, then it gives the impression that the two sides are equal and worthy of debate.<br />` It's like this: What if I went up to you and started saying that Jesus advocated eating children and that Christians were responsible for the destruction of society, as has been done in ancient times? You'd say, "That's not true! We don't really think that because of a) b) and c)!" And what if I ignored that and started spouting to the public that you DID believe that anyway? Eventually, you would have to shut me out for not having an open mind because YOU know what you believe, and what the bible REALLY says.<br />` This is exactly what Ken Ham does with evolution and science in general. Biologists are not that dumb, he's just making false accusations, which I can (and will) demonstrate (elsewhere, as you'll see)! These misrepresentations he spreads are insulting and only spread prejudice and ignorance of what 'evolutionists' really think, so I hope that you are open-minded enough to accept that he is not arguing against real science!<br /><br />Many bloggers make fun of FOX News for blatantly misrepresenting people who don't agree with their views. Ken Ham is pulling exactly the same tricks, so it does not surprise me in the least that PZ Myers would make fun of him in a not-even-serious way. If someone is not going to be honest, or consider what one's opposition has to say, then screw them! They've removed themselves from intellectual debate and are fair game for people to make fun of them for (apparently) lying about other people with the intent of making them look bad! ...<br /></blockquote><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 204, 255); font-family:georgia;" >I have no idea if he's read my comment, but I'm going to guess he hasn't. Then, I sent him a message showing him an example of what I mean:</span><br /><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">I've been saying that Ham and Hovind are famous for misrepresenting what evolution is (and what we'd expect to find if it's true, and what has actually been found), apparently for the purpose of making the worldwide scientific community look stupid/oppressive and stubborn.<br />` Today I saw this video for the first time, and it's a perfect example of what I've been taking about. I know I've described other examples of ring species before, but in under four minutes this video not only describes their significance, but shows how their mere existence specifically refutes one of Kent Hovind's arguments.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Pb6Z6NVmLt8" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="349" width="425"></iframe></a><br /><br />Coincidentally (or not?), the video I emailed you days ago refuting some of Kent Hovind's arguments against carbon dating was by the same YouTube user.<br />` Anyway, I'm interested in knowing what you think of this so far.</blockquote><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 255); font-family:georgia;" >I asked him if he's gotten my message about the birds, and he said, "Birds?" I said, "Yeah, with the video?" and he said, "I got your message but... uhhhh... uhhhhh... uhhhh..." I couldn't bear to watch this so I said, "Just wondering!"</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` After this, I saw him checking his emails on his laptop. I wonder if he got the email I sent him, which by the way, was this:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-family: georgia;">I wanted to tell you how I'm tearing down Hovind's arguments just as I tore down the entire documentary Expelled, and then some. Mind you, I'm just tearing down the arguments of a mere man, and not at all your religion!<br /><br />I have mentioned before that Kent just says whatever he pleases about reality, just as long as it supports his conclusion. Well, I have gotten my hands on his doctoral dissertation, which he has admitted to being his, and has claimed that he is not yet finished with it, explaining why it lists 16 chapters when it only has four!). That's interesting, because if you are not finished with your doctoral dissertation, then you aren't a doctor!<br /><br />As a writer, you will appreciate the fact that his writing ability is about the same as that of an elementary school student, and I would give him an 'F' for that alone. However, it is much worse: If you also care about facts, it is packed with untrue statements about religions of various types, science, and history, and he doesn't even cite his sources in the entire document!<br /><br />To give a rather insignificant example, he claimed that Voltaire (which he sometimes spelled 'Voltair') was the one responsible for the ten-day calendar week during the French Revolution. This is impossible, however, because Voltaire had died in 1778, and the French Revolution didn't even begin until 1789, with the calendar having been formulated years later! So, you cannot deny that not only is it false, but it cannot possibly be true unless Voltaire was undead!<br /><br />I cited this example because it is a plain historical fact, having nothing to do with science nor religion (so you wouldn't think I was being biased), and is so simple and basic that you can easily verify it yourself with the magic of Google.<br /><br />How could anyone have gotten a Ph.D. with a paper packed with many such factual distortions in every paragraph? Because he went to an unaccredited diploma mill, which I also demonstrate fairly well. Sure, he was a 'science teacher' at a private school, but you don't need any credentials at all for that job; it's no surprise that a school that wanted to teach 'creation science' would hire this guy!<br /><br />As for my project, I start with Hovind's dissertation (most of which consists of arguments I'm sure you're familiar with) and basically go line by line to prove the whole thing wrong with facts, exactly as I have done in my example above, plus I cite them all for your convenience so that you can check them and make sure that they're really true! So, double-no wonder it is taking me so long!<br /><br />I, of course, am far from being the first person to extract and expose the utter misrepresentations that Hovind is so (in)famous for: Since I've been spending many evenings finding all sorts of videos on YouTube, I've found several which neatly refute many Hovind's 'arguments'.<br /><br />Since you're so fond of YouTube, I ask you to watch one of them. (C'mon, just one!) It's rather detailed for its shortness, about some of the things Kent Hovind 'just says' about carbon dating being 'wrong' (i.e. his examples with mollusc shells, seals, and dinosaur bones), and the reasons why these are merely misrepresentations and half-truths. (It should remind you of my writings on how Steve Austin misrepresented the Mt. St. Helens samples as dating to millions of years old, except that it's much shorter and more entertaining!)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APEpwkXatbY" target="_blank"><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/APEpwkXatbY" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="349" width="425"></iframe></a><br /><br />Please do watch it, carefully, and tell me what you think of this video, its refutations, and the way that Hovind is portrayed. I'm sure you'll agree that these are not ad hominem arguments, which creationists like Hovind have always claimed are the only kinds of arguments that 'evolutionists' have. Rather, they are actually based on facts, which you can even check yourself!<br />` If you would like to defend Hovind here, mind that you don't make the same kind of mistake as BigJerre!</blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">So, there you are.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-family:georgia;" >Update:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family:georgia;" >Since I wrote that last part, 'AR' has since seen the bird video, but I don't think he's seen my email to him, or any of the others before that! Or maybe he's just not saying anything because he's never actually had a response to any of the things I've shown him, other than highly flawed rhetoric about ideology.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Right at the point where I seemed to be really getting across to him that Kent Hovind blocks out people instead of debates them, he told me that we need to stop this whole thing to avoid creating discord between us. I suppose we should, if it makes it any easier for me to take over the world. After all, you need to have a proper understanding of science in order to do so, and he doesn't have one. I do. Why should I try to help him, even though I know it's pointless?</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 153); font-family:georgia;" >` Because it generates material for me to put on the web, that's why! That's really what this whole thing has been about, since December! (Yes, that's what I've been spending my time doing, but not going public yet!) So, I'm still going to be working on the Hovind dissertation anyway, which is coming in four installments, and I hope he takes a look just out of curiosity because it is a metric shit-tonne of work!</span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-51479945421143968602011-06-10T10:39:00.000-07:002011-06-10T13:09:42.097-07:00This is why I aspire to educate the world!<span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 51);font-family:georgia;" >Here are just three people who have done much to motivate me in my quest to educate the world! Here's a woman who apparently doesn't know the difference between the moon, and... well, just watch!</span><br /><br /><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/613hHzdp6lk" allowfullscreen="" width="560" frameborder="0" height="349"></iframe><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Ignorance is just one path to fallacious reasoning, but it's an entertaining one sometimes! Here's a woman who apparently doesn't know what embalming fluid is:</span><br /><br /><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MeFTr4-jCfA" allowfullscreen="" width="425" frameborder="0" height="349"></iframe><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Yes, out of all places! And just so you don't think I'm picking on American women, here's a Saudi Arabian man, although at least he went on to win a lot more money:</span><br /><br /><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/chZAajLr_-U" allowfullscreen="" width="425" frameborder="0" height="349"></iframe><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 255, 51);font-family:georgia;" >Look out, world! I'm coming to rescue you from rampant ignorance so that terribly embarrassing tragedies like these come less frequently!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Just as soon as I make a name for myself...</span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-35673743043440530272011-05-25T20:43:00.000-07:002011-05-25T22:45:07.292-07:00Don't Forget to Bring a Towel!<span style="font-family:georgia;">Today is Towel Day, honoring the author of the </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> "five book trilogy", Douglas Adams!</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 204, 255);font-family:georgia;" >` I was working today, and when I got home I was too tired even for karate, and sort of well, fell into a state of zombie-like determination on a little project I have in store for being future posts on this blog. I didn't even clean up the mess that always accumulates while I'm not at home to clean up after everyone!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` I was about to finish up before bed with a Series of YouTube Videos About Various Fantastically Amazing Things That Even I Can't Describe (the sorts of ones I want to make someday), when I thought to look up a YouTube video on Towel Day. THEY EXIST!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Word of advice; put your towel across the eyes of your opponent rather than yourself.</span><br /><br /><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1jNpyEhJldo" allowfullscreen="" width="560" frameborder="0" height="349"></iframe><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Here's some goofball talking about it like a complete moron (my favorite!) :D although we don't get to see a man get killed with a snapped towel. I feel cheated!</span><br /><br /><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/p4rTg-LhsX8" allowfullscreen="" width="560" frameborder="0" height="349"></iframe><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">OMGWTF?!?!?!? No, really, I'm not going to try to be coherent here. Just... watch... or better yet... don't....</span><br /><br /><br /><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8jIGDqYAEfY" allowfullscreen="" width="425" frameborder="0" height="349"></iframe><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Sadly, I've gone on to see other videos about Towel Day, and they're EVEN MORE MESSED-UP THAN THAT!!!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">These are videos that kind of turn your mind off -- I'm stopping this immediately and going on to find videos that turn my mind ON! At least until it too finally tires out....<br /></span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-80539562674388885552011-04-05T00:43:00.001-07:002011-04-05T01:06:05.737-07:00The Tedium...<span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 51);font-family:georgia;" >Previously, I've written the titles, authors and descriptions of various books on little index cards, for my own evil purposes of keeping track... </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 204, 51);font-family:georgia;" >evilly!</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 51);font-family:georgia;" > (Not surprisingly, this began during the Time Of No Computer, or TONC, as it is known among my tortured creations.)</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 153);font-family:georgia;" >I have so many cards that, before I add any more to my collection, I've decided to write them all down in my computer so that I can just consult the list to make sure I don't already have the card, rather than go through the trouble of flipping through this huge stack!</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 255);font-family:georgia;" >This is but one of the many massive undertakings I have been doing in order to further my evil science writing purposes, but why am I telling you about this one? Because -- you can see the results!</span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Abducted (How People Come to Believe...) -* Susan Clancy</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Absinthe & Flamethrowers -- William Gurstelle</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Age of Wonder -- Richard Holmes</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Aladdin's Lamp -- John Freely</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Almost Everyone's Guide to Science *- John Gribbin</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Amber -- Andrew Ross</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Among the Great Apes -- Paul Raffaele</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Antimatter -- Frank Close</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Archimedes to Hawking -- Clifford Pickover</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Are Universes Thicker Than Blackberries? *- Martin Gardner</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Autonomous Robots -- George A Bekey</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Before the Big Bang -- Brian Clegg</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Beneath the Metropolis -- Alex Marshall</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Beyond Human -- Benford & Malartre</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Beyond UFOS -- Jeffrey Bennett</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Big Fish -- Richard Ellis</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Bigger Bang *- James E Lidsey</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Big Ideas -- Ira Flatow (narrator)</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Bizarre and Incredible World of Plants -- Stuppy, Kesseler & Harley</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Black Hole War -- Leonard Susskind</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Book of Nothing *-John D Barrow</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Book of Vice -- Peter Sagal</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Borderlands of Science *- Michael Shermer</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Born Digital -- Palfrey & Gasser</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Botany of Desire -- Michael Pollan</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Boxen -- C S Lewis</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Brain That Changes Itself -- Norman Doridge</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Brains That Work a little bit differently *- Bragdon & Gamon</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Breaking the Spell -- Daniel C Dennett</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">But is it Science? -- Pennock & Ruse</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Buyology -- Martin Lindstrom</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Canon -- Natalie Angier</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Carbon Age -- Eric Roston</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Catching Fire -- Richard Wrangham</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Cat's Paws and Catapults *- Steven Vogel</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Cave Canem -- Lorna Robinson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Censoring Science -- Mark Bowen</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Charles Darwin's On The Origin of Species -- Illustrated by Fuller & Keller</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Chases and Escapes -- Paul J Nahin</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Children of Prometheus *- Christopher Wills</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Circumference -- Nicholas Nicastro</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Coming Convergence -- Stanley Schmidt</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Complete Ice Age -- Brian M Fagan</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Complexity -- Melanie Mitchell</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Condemned Knowledge -- ?not found</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Consciousness (an Introduction) *- Susan Blackmore</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Consciousness (a user's guide) *- Adam Zeman</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Corrupted Science *- John Grant</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Cosmic Jackpot -- Paul Davies</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Counter-Creationism Handbook -- Mark Isaak</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Counterknowledge -- Damian Thompson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Crashing Through -- Robert Kurson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Crime of Reason -- Robert B Laughlin</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Cro-Magnon -- Brian Fagan</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Crowded Universe -- Alan Boss</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Cruisin' the Fossil Freeway -- Johnson & Troll</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Cyclopedia Anatomicae -- Gyorgy Feher</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Darwinian Detectives -- Norman A Johnson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Darwinian Dynamics *- Richard E Michod</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Day We Found The Universe -- Marcia Bartusiak</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Death By Black Holes -- Neil DeGrasse Tyson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Death From The Skies! -- Phil Plait</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Deep Brain Stimulation -- Jamie Talan</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">De La Metrie's Ghost -- Chris Nunn</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Denialism -* Michael Specter</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Department of Mad Scientists -- Michael Belfiore</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Devious Book for Cats -- Ginsberg & Sherman</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Did Time Begin? Will Time End? -- Paul Frampton</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Digital Soul *- Thomas M Georges</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Discarded Science *- John Grant</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Distory -- Robert Schnakenberg</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Dragons of Eden *- Carl Sagan</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Drawing the Line * Steven M Wise</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Dread -- Philip Alcabes</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Drunkard's Walk -* Leonard Mlodinow</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Earth Moves -- Dan Hofstadter</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Eating the Sun -- Oliver Morton</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Edge of Physics -- Anil Ananthaswamy</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Ecology *- Eugene P Odum</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Ego Tunnel -- Thomas Metzinger</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Einstein's Mistakes -- Hans Ohanian</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Einstein's Telescope -- Evalyn Gates</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Einstein's Universe *- A. Zee</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Elephant's Secret Sense -- Caitlin O'Connel</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Elegant Universe *- Brian Greene</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Embracing the Wide Sky -- Daniel Tammet</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Emotion Machine -- Marvin Minsky</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Emporer of Scent *- Chandler Burr</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Endless Forms Most Beautiful *- Sean Carroll</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Ethical Brain -- Michael Gazzaniga</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Eureka Man -- Alan Hirshfeld</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Ever Since Darwin *- Stephen Jay Gould</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Every Living Thing -- Rob Dunn</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Evidence of Evolution -- Mary Ellen Hannibal</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Evolution *- Carl Zimmer</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Evolutionary Medicine -- Trevathan & McKenna</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Evolution for Everyone -- David Sloan Wilson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Evolution vs Creationism -- Eugenie Scott</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Exercises for the Whole Brain *- Bragdon & Fellows</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Exploring Consciousness *- Rita Carter</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Faith Instinct -- Nicholas Wade</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Faith of Scientists -- Nancy K Frankenberry</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Faux Real -- Robert Kanigel</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Feeding the Fire -- Mark E Eberhart</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Feeling of What Happens *- Antonio Damasio</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Finding Our Tongues -- Dean Falk</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) First Word *- Christine Keneally</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Fixing My Gaze -- Susan R Barry</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Flat Earth -- Christine Garwood</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Forbidden Knowledge -- Roger Shattuck</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Formation of the Solar System -- Michael Woolfson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Fossil Legends of the First Americans -* Adrienne Mayor</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">From Eternity to Here -- Sean Carroll</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">From Genesis to Genetics *- John A Moore</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Fundamental Constants -- Harald Fritzsch</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Future of the Brain *- Steven Rose</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) The Geek's Guide to Word Domination -- Garth Sundem</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Genesis -- Robert M Hazen</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Genius Engine -- Kathleen Stein</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Genius of China -- Robert Temple</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Geologica -- Robert R Coenroads</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Giant Molecules -- Walter Gratzer</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Glut -- Alex Wright</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Godel, Escher, Bach *-Douglas R Hofstadter</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Good Germs, Bad Germs -- Jessica Snyder Sachs</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Great Betrayal *- Horace Freeland Judson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Greatest Science Stories Never Told -- Rick Beyer</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Greatest Show on Earth *- Richard Dawkins</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Hazards of Space Travel -- Neil F Comins</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Head Cases -- Michael Paul Mason</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Heaven's Touch -- James B Kaler</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes *- Stephen Jay Gould</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Heroes, Rogues and Lovers *- Dabbs & Dabbs</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Hidden Brain -- Shankar Vedantam</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Hidden Evidence (2nd ed.) -- David Owen</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) History of Astronomy -- Couper & Henbest</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Hollywood Science -- Sidney Perkowitz</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Hope For Animals And Their World -- Jane Goodall</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">How Brains Make Up Their Minds *- Walter J Freeman</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">How Does One Cut a Triangle (2nd ed) -- Alexander Soifer</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">How It Ends -- Chris Impey</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">How Language Works *- David Crystal</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">How Math Can Save Your Life -- James D Stein</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">How Mathematicians Think -- William Byers</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">How Mathematics Happened -- Peter S Rudman</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">How Physics Confronts Reality -- Roger Newton</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">How the Mind Works *- Steven Pinker</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">How to Build a Mind *- Igor Aleksander</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">How to Defeat Your Own Clone -- Kurpinski & Johnson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">How to Live on Mars -- Robert Zubrin</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">How to Solve It -- G Polya</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">How We Decide -- Jonah Lehrer</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">How We Live and Why We Die -- Lewis Wolpert</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Human -- Michael S Gazzaniga</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Human Biology (6th ed.) -- Daniel Chiras</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Human Brain Book -- Parker, Aldridge, Carter</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Human Career -- Richard G Klein</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Human Origins -- De Salle & Tattersall</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Hungry Scientist Handbook -- Buckley & Binns</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">I Am A Strange Loop -- Douglas Hofstadter</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Ig Nobel Prizes -- Marc Abrahams</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Imagined Worlds *- Freeman Dyson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Impossible? -- Julian Havil</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(An) Incomplete Education (revised) -- Jones & Wilson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Infinite Gift -- Charles Yang</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">In the Beat of a Heart *- John Whitfield</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">In Search of Deep Time *- Henry Gee</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Inside the Animal Mind * George Page</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics *- Robert T Pennock</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Intelligent Thought *- John Brockman</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Inverted Bowl -- George H A Cole</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Invisible Kingdom -- Idan Ben-Barak</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Irreligion -- John Allen Paulos</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">It Looked Good on Paper -- Bill Fawcett</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">It Takes a Genome -- Greg Gibson</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Joy of Physics -- Arthur Wiggins</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Kaleidoscope Sky -- Tim Herd</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Kingdom of Infinite Space -- Raymond Tallis</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Kluge -- Gary Marcus</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Knowing the Nature of Physical Law -- Michael Munowitz</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Language Instinct *- Steven Pinker</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Legacy of the Mastodon -- Keith Thomson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Lewis Carroll in Numberland -- Robin Wilson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Liars, Lovers and Heroes *- Quartz & Sejnowski</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Liasons of Life *- Tom Wakeford</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Lies, Damned Lies and Science -- Sherry Seethaler</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Life Ascending -- Nick Lane</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Lightness of Being -- Frank Wilczek</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Little Book of Pandemics -- Peter Moore</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Lives of the Planets -- Richard Corfield</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Living Cosmos -- Chris Impey</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Logicomix -- Papadimitriou, Papaditos, Donna, Doxiadis</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Loneliness -- William Patrick</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Long For This World -- Jonathan Weiner</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Long Thaw -- David Archer</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Lost Christianities -- Bart Ehrman</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Lucifer Effect *- Philip Zimbardo</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Magnetic Universe -- J B Zirker</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Making of the Fittest *- Sean B Carroll</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Making of Intelligence *- Ken Richardson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Mannhatta -- Eric W Sanderson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Many Skies *- Arthur Upgren</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Mathematics and Common Sense -- Philip J Davis</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Mendel in the Kitchen -- Fedroff & Brown</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Mental Floss -- Magazine, books and games!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Milestones of Civilization -- Blandford & Davidson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Mind and the Brain *- Schwartz & Begley</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Mindless Eating -- Brian Wansink</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Mind of the Market -- Michael Shermer</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Mind's Past *- Michael Gazzaniga</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Mind Wide Open *- Steven Johnson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Mirroring People -- Marco Iacoboni</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Misquoting Jesus -- Bart Ehrman</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Misunderstood Gene *- Michael Morange</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Monty Hall Problem -- Jason Rosenhouse</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Moon -- Michael Carlowicz</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">More Than Genes -- Dan Agin</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Mother Tongue *- Bill Bryson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Multiplicity Yours -- Hwa A Lim</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Museum of Hoaxes *- Alex Boese</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Musicophilia -- Oliver Sacks</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">My Stroke of Insight -- Jill Bolte Taylor</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Mythematics -- Michael Huber</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Nanosciences -- Joachim & Plevert</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(A) Natural History of Seeing -* Simon Ings</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Nature Loves to Hide *- Shimon Malin</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Nature of Space and Time -- Hawking & Penrose</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Nature of Technology -- W Brian Arthur</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Nature's Blueprint *- Dan Hooper</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Negative Math -- Alberto A Martinez</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Neuro Revolution -- Zack Lynch</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Neuroscience of Fair Play -- Donald W Pfaff</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Never Shower in a Thunderstorm -- Anahad O'Connor</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) New Atheism -- Victor Stenger</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) New Encyclopedia of Unbelief -- Tom Flynn</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">New Theories of Everything -- John D Barrow</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) New Time Travelers -- David Toomey</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) New Worlds -- Casdi & Encrenaz</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Nine Numbers of the Cosmos *- Michael Rowan-Robinson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Noble Lie -- Gary Greenberg</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">No Plot? No Problem! -* Chris Baty</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Number Freaking -- Gary Rimmer</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(100) One Hundred Most Important Science Ideas -- Henderson, Crilly & Baker</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">One Hundred Essential Things You Didn't Know You Didn't Know -- John D Barrow</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Only A Theory -- Kenneth Miller</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">On Writing -- Stephen King</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Origamics -- Kazuo Haga</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Origin of Species *- Charles Darwin (eds. 1 and 6)</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Other Brain -- R Douglas Fields</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Out of Thin Air -- Peter Ward</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Oxford Dictionary of World Histories -- Glynnis Chantrell</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Pain *- Patrick Wall</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Panda's Thumb *- Stephen Jay Gould</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Particle or Wave -- Charis Anastopoulos</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Pea and the Sun -- Leonard Wapner</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Pedant's Revolt -- Andrea Barham</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">People And The Sky -- Anthony Aveni</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Perfect Swarm -- Len Fisher</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Physical Geography -- McKnight & Hess</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Physics of the Impossible -- Michio Kaku</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Plausibility of Life *- Kirschner & Gerhart</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Pleasure Instinct -- Gene Wallenstein</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Poisons -- Peter Macinnis</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Political Mind -- George Lakoff</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Politics of Jesus -- Obery Hendricks Jr</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Portable Atheist -- Christopher Hitchens</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(A) Portrait of the Brain -- Adam Zemen</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Power Makers -- Maury Klein</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Power of Critical Thinking -- Lewis Vaughn</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Predictably Irrational -- Dan Ariely</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Prehistoric Life -- editors of Dorling Kindersley</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Primate Family Tree -- Ian Redmond</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Prime Mover *- Steven Vogel</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Principles of Toxicology -- Stine & Brown</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Probably Not -- Lawrence N Dworsky</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Programming the Universe -- Seth Lloyd</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Q Is For Quantum *- John Gribbin</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction ** Wynn & Wiggins</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Quantum Zoo -- Marcus Chown</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Reading in the Brain -- Stanislas Dehaene</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Reinventing Gravity *- John W Moffat</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Reinventing the Sacred -- Stuart A Kauffman</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Relics of Eden -- Daniel J Fairbanks</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Remarkable Creatures -- Sean B Carroll</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Republican War on Science -* Chris Mooney</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Richness of Life -- Gould & Rose</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Riddled With Life -- Marlene Zuk</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Rock, Paper, Scissors -- Len Fisher</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Robots Unlimited -- David Levy</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Runaway Universe *- Donald Goldsmith</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Science and Nonbelief -- Taner Edis</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Science at the Edge -- John Brockman</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Science of Fear -- Daniel Gardner</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Science of Liberty -- Timothy Ferris</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Science Friction *- Michael Shermer</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Science of Aliens *- Clifford Pickover</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Science of Good & Evil *- Michael Shermer</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Scientists and Scoundrels -- Robert Silverberg</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Score -- Faye Flam</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Secret Pulse of Time -- Stefan Klein</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">See What I'm Saying -- Lawrence D Rosenblum</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Sensory Exotica *- Howard C Hughes</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Seventy Great Mysteries of the Natural World -- Michael Benton</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Sexing the Brain *- Lesley Rodgers</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Sex, Sleep, Eat, Drink, Dream -- Jennifer Ackerman</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Sexy Orchids Make Lousy Lovers -- Marty Crump</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Six Degrees -- Mark Lynas</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Skeptics and True Believers *- Chet Raymo</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Skeptic's Guide to the Paranormal *- Lynne Kelly</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Slam-dunks and No-Brainers -- Leslie Susan</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Smartest Animals on the Planet -- Sally Boysen</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Snake Oil Science -- R Barker Bausell</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Sneakiest Uses For Everyday Things -- Cy Tymony</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Spycraft -- Wallace, Melton, Schlessinger</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Stem Cell Research -- Joseph Panno</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Still Life -- Melissa Milgrom</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Strange Matters *- Tom Siegfried</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Strickberger's Evolution -- Hall & Hallgrimsson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(A) Stubbornly Persistent Illusion -- Stephen Hawking</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Stuff of Life -- Zander & Cannon</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Stuff of Thought -- Steven Pinker</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Stumbling on Happiness *- Daniel Gilbert</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Sudden Origins *- Jeffrey Schwartz</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Sun in a Bottle -- Charles Seife</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Supernatural Selection -* Matt J Rossano</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Superorganism -- Holldobler & EO Wilson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Superstition -- Robert L Park</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Surfing Through Hypserspace *- Clifford A Pickover</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Tales From the Underground *- David Wolfe</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Talk to the Hand -- Lynne Truss</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(A) Tear at the Edge of Creation -- Marcelo Glesier</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Ten Most Beautiful Experiments -- George Johnson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The 10,000) Ten Thousand Year Explosion -- Cochran & Harpending</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Terra -- Michael Novacek</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">That Book of Perfectly Useless Information (This/The Other Book) -- Mitchell Symons</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Thermodynamic Universe -- BG Sidharth</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Think Smart -- Richard Restak</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Third Domain -- Tim Friend</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(13) Thirteen Things That Don't Make Sense -- Michael Brooks</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">This Book Warps Space And Time -- Norman Sperling</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">This Will Change Everything -- John Brockman</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Three Steps to the Universe *- Garfinkle & Garfinkle</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Three-Pound Enigma -- Shannon Moffett</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Thumbs, Toes and Tears -- Chip Walter</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Time (A Traveler's Guide) *- Clifford A Pickover</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Time, Space, Stars & Man -- Michael M Woolfson</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Time Paradox -- Zimbardo & Boyd</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Time Travel in Einstein's Universe *- J Richard Gott</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Tinkering With Eden *- Kim Todd</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Total Recall -- Bell & Gemmell</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Treating the Brain -- Walter G Bradley</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Triple Helix *- Richard Lewontin</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Triumph of Evolution *- Niles Eldredge</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) True Believer -- Eric Hoffer</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Undergrowth of Science *- Walter Gratzer</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Undiscovered Mind *- John Horgan</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Unfolding of Language *- Guy Deutcher</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Unintelligent Design *- Mark Perakh</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Universe Before The Big Bang -- Maurizio Gasperini</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Up From Dragons *- Skoyles & Dorion Sagan</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Upgrade Me -- Brian Clegg</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Uncertainty -- David Lindley</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Universe -- Carlos I Calle</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Unscientific America -- Kirshenbaum, Mooney</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(A) User's Guide to the Universe -- Goldberg & Blomquist</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Varieties of Scientific Experience -- Carl Sagan</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Voices From The Moon -- Andrew Chaikin</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Voodoo Science *- Robert Park</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Wandering Stars -- George HA Cole</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Way We Think *- Fauconnier & Turner</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Weather -- Randy Cerveny</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Weed 'em and Reap -- Roger Welsch</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic *- Martin Gardner</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Welcome to Your Brain -- Aamodt & Wang</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">What Are You Optimistic About? -- John Brockman</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">What Does a Martian Look Like? *- Cohen & Stewart</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">What Does it Mean to Be Human? -- Potts & Sloan</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">What if the Earth Had Two Moons? -- Neil Comins</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">What Makes You Tick? *- Thomas B Gerner</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">What's Next -- Buckingham & Ward</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">When Science Goes Wrong -- Simon Le Vay</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">When You Were a Tadpole And I Was A Fish -- Martin Gardner</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) Whole Story *- Toby Murcott</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Whose Bible is it? -- Jaroslav Pelikan</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Why Choose This Book? -- Read Montague</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Why Darwin Matters *- Michael Shermer</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Why Does E=mc2? -- Cox & Forshaw</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Why Elephants Have Big Ears *- Chris Lavers</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Why Evolution is True -- Jerry Coyne</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Why Most Things Fail -- Paul Ormerod</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Why People Believe Weird Things *- Michael Shermer</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Why Science? -- James Trefil</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Why We Feel *- Victor S Johnston</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Why We Make Mistakes -- Joseph T Hallinan</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Wicked Plants -- Stewart</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Wild Minds * Marc D Hauser</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Wisdom -- Stephen S Hall</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Word Myths *-David Wilton</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Words and Rules *- Steven Pinker</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) World in Six Songs -- Daniel Levitin</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(A) World Without Ice -- Henry N Pollack</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) World Without Us -- Alan Weisman</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(The) X in Sex *- David Bainbridge</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Y (The Descent of Men) *- Steven Jones</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">You Are Here -- Christopher Potter</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">You Are Not a Gadget -- Jaron Lanier</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Your Brain on Food -- Gary L Wenk</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Your Flying Car Awaits -- Paul Milo</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Your Inner Fish -- Neil Shubin</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">You Say To-ma-to -- RW Jackson</span><br /><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153);font-family:georgia;" >Yes, all these books, from questionable to top-notch quality, I have written a card for each one over a very long period of time -- then, I typed up the titles in just under four hours!<br />` Alas, there are many more cards to write, and many more to read... but for now, it's time for bed. I have a long day ahead of me, which will probably consist of more tedium.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 204, 255);font-family:georgia;" >What I would do for just one minion!</span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-2785068546187735002011-03-22T18:17:00.001-07:002011-03-22T18:24:55.026-07:00About Being A Mad Science Writer...<span style="font-family: georgia; color: rgb(51, 204, 255);">So, last quarter, I found out that I wasn't accepted into UW Bothell, a couple weeks later I found that I didn't get my transfer degree anyway, and then at the end of the quarter, I found that I once again failed my English 102 class, and now I'm all out of Financial Aid!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">I guess my only chance to move forward in a timely fashion is to start freelancing.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">Now that I have a lot of free time on my hands, I've gotten all the way through the emails in my inbox, and have deleted all but 274 of them (down from some 2,000 yesterday).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">Well, I have to leave in a few minutes for an audition, so I must go.</span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-82618446873670523202011-03-05T14:10:00.001-08:002011-03-05T14:36:21.770-08:00Amazing Discovery -- butter that fits our butter dish!<span style="color: rgb(51, 204, 0);font-family:georgia;" >Our butter dish is low and long, and most sticks of butter are shorter than the butter dish, as well as tall enough to press against the underside of the lid, like this:</span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center; font-family: georgia;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/26580665@N08/5483999732/" title="jfeb 195 Butter that DOESN'T fit the butter dish by seequinerun, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5218/5483999732_4a5c143d78.jpg" alt="jfeb 195 Butter that DOESN'T fit the butter dish" width="500" height="375" /></a><br /></div><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">I have heard legend that there are sticks of butter that will fit -- such as the ones I grew up with in Ohio -- but that they are fairly rare on the west coast.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 255);font-family:georgia;" >` I've tried to tell people this, but they didn't believe me... until now -- or should I say, this past January, when I bought this stick of butter! As you can see, there is space above the top of the lid, and it does indeed fill out the length better!</span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center; font-family: georgia;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/26580665@N08/5483909618/" title="jfeb 059 Butter that fits the butter dish! by seequinerun, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5056/5483909618_f9eec80a38.jpg" alt="jfeb 059 Butter that fits the butter dish!" width="500" height="375" /></a><br /></div><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 204, 255);font-family:georgia;" >So, THEY DO EXIST! CASE CLOSED! I was so excited that I put a sign on the butter dish so that everyone in the house would notice this extraordinary find! They found it to be somewhat amusing.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Please, contain your enthusiasm.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Anyway, I've got a paper to continue writing. See ya later!</span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-55174296055405725612011-02-18T15:13:00.000-08:002011-02-18T15:30:42.209-08:00The Amazing Exploding Sea Vagina -- MYSTERY SOLVED!<span style="font-family: georgia;">I thought I'd already posted this last week, but since I have not, there's been more dead space than intended, and also, this is new to you!</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 0); font-family: georgia;">` This video was brought to my attention by my former roommate Mike, only a couple of weeks before he and Joel moved out. (We have a new roommate moving in today already!) He asked me if I thought it was real. It is fairly obvious to me that two different types of special effects are used, as neither type even registered to me as being the same 'creature'.</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">` First, CG is apparently responsible for the several 'creatures' as they rush over the rock and out of view. Then, a realistic puppet is used for the one that isn't escaping but rather sitting quite still. When the young men flip it over, it has no apparent way of moving so quickly, but rather, some sort of vagina-like opening, which they then pour soda into until it squirts, then explodes.</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">` I said it looked like some sort of professional grade special effects, probably with some sort of overt sexual message, but I had no clue what the purpose of it would be. Watch for yourself:</span><br /><br /><iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_oPxa3C3iu0" width="480" frameborder="0" height="390"></iframe><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">Oh yes, there were many comments along the lines of "she squirts!" and so forth. Some people thought that these things were real, citing the fact that new species are being discovered all the time, and that the squirting/exploding looks so real that it can't be CG.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 255, 51); font-family: georgia;">` Those things are beside the point -- the one that squirts/explodes is a puppet, and you can see the way they edited the close-ups that they're probably hiding people's hands or perhaps other mechanisms controlling the puppet.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">I wasn't sure what else to make of it, and the only person I could think of to ask was....</span><br /><br /><iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/s8xeBzMLPKM" width="640" frameborder="0" height="390"></iframe><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">That's his latest video -- he says he has another on the way. Can't wait! I posted my question on his Facebook page, and here's what happened:</span><ul class="commentList"><li class="uiUfiComment comment_2730435 ufiItem ufiItem"><div class="UIImageBlock clearfix uiUfiActorBlock"><a class="actorPic UIImageBlock_Image UIImageBlock_SMALL_Image" href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1291681509" tabindex="-1"><img class="uiProfilePhoto uiProfilePhotoMedium img" src="http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/hs1319.snc4/161103_1291681509_115632_q.jpg" alt="" /></a><div class="UIImageBlock_Ext"><div class="uiSelector commentHideSelector stat_elem uiSelectorRight" name="hide_option[2730435]" autosubmit="1"><input class="submitButton" value="Submit" type="submit"></div></div><div class="commentContent UIImageBlock_Content UIImageBlock_SMALL_Content"><a class="actorName" href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1291681509" hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/user.php?id=1291681509">Nicholas Gunther Schaefer</a> <span jsid="text">I believe that this may have been an attempt to find a loophole in the Japanese law requiring genitalia to be pixelated in porn.</span><div class="commentActions fsm fwn fcg"><abbr title="Saturday, January 29, 2011 at 7:51pm" date="Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:51:58 -0800">January 29 at 7:51pm</abbr> ·</div></div></div></li><li class="uiUfiComment comment_2736905 ufiItem ufiItem"><div class="UIImageBlock clearfix uiUfiActorBlock"><a class="actorPic UIImageBlock_Image UIImageBlock_SMALL_Image" href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=692039200" tabindex="-1"><img class="uiProfilePhoto uiProfilePhotoMedium img" src="http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/hs458.snc4/50099_692039200_7596396_q.jpg" alt="" /></a><div class="commentContent UIImageBlock_Content UIImageBlock_SMALL_Content"><a class="actorName" href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=692039200" hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/user.php?id=692039200">Spoony Quine</a> <span jsid="text">I've never heard of Japanese porn being pixellated, from uh, colorful descriptions I've heard, yes, that's it, but you know, that's a good point: They might be doing this to see how much they can get away with! I mean, come on, it even squirts realistically! Lolol!</span><div class="commentActions fsm fwn fcg"><abbr title="Sunday, January 30, 2011 at 5:45pm" date="Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:45:53 -0800">January 30 at 5:45pm</abbr> · </div></div></div></li><li class="uiUfiComment comment_2752808 ufiItem ufiItem"><div class="UIImageBlock clearfix uiUfiActorBlock"><a class="actorPic UIImageBlock_Image UIImageBlock_SMALL_Image" href="http://www.facebook.com/CaptainDisillusion" tabindex="-1"><img class="uiProfilePhoto uiProfilePhotoMedium img" src="http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/hs721.ash1/162060_62126926624_4820524_q.jpg" alt="" /></a><div class="UIImageBlock_Ext"><div class="uiSelector commentHideSelector stat_elem uiSelectorRight" name="hide_option[2752808]" autosubmit="1"><input class="submitButton" value="Submit" type="submit"></div></div><div class="commentContent UIImageBlock_Content UIImageBlock_SMALL_Content"><a class="actorName" href="http://www.facebook.com/CaptainDisillusion" hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/page.php?id=62126926624">Captain Disillusion</a> <span jsid="text">Uh, nice guesses :P. But looks like this is one of a series of short films by famous Japanese horror producer Taka Ichise (The Ring, The Grudge). It's called "Mystery Meatballs" and you can watch the full version (and the other films) here: <a href="http://www.urahorror.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.urahorror.com/</a></span></div></div></li></ul><span style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255); font-family: georgia;">THANKS CAPTAIN D!!! He's the greatest, isn't he, folks? (</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(51, 102, 255); font-family: georgia;">Mystery Meatballs</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255); font-family: georgia;"> is up on the right-hand stack of TVs on that web page.) I gotta hug that guy, seriously. He's the best. He goes to TAM every year, I think, so maybe I'll meet him when I finally go there!</span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-49602066605275893142011-01-26T18:32:00.000-08:002011-01-27T18:43:05.215-08:00Onto the University of Washington, Bothell!<span style="font-family:georgia;">Though I've committed to keeping up with blogging, I swore I would not make another blog post until my personal statement for UW Bothell was completed.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153);font-family:georgia;" >` It's taken so long, partly because most of the time I hadn't had the money to apply and so focused more on school work and library books. Now that the pressure is off, I am back to blogging, and showering, more regularly.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Since I still haven't finished the post I had been working on, I'll show you what I've finally come up with instead.</span><br /><br /><blockquote style="font-family: times new roman;">My passion for science has always been an immense source of motivation, as it is a triumph of human understanding, yet it is widely misunderstood. With my skills in the visual and musical arts, video editing, acting and writing, I am determined to find a career in engaging the general public in scientific understanding.<br />` I’ve long been honing my skills through blogging, which has generally gotten positive feedback from professionals, and I am now working on a website for the public understanding, and use of, science and critical thinking.<br />` There is more to this than fostering a sense of curiosity and wonder: Understanding the critical basis of how science works, and why, can teach people how to ask questions for themselves and to solve puzzles in their own lives.<br />` With such talent and determination, one might assume that I was raised by loving parents who nurtured my mind from the beginning, but the truth is that I've been fighting every step of the way. If I hadn’t been as curious as I am, or learned the art of critical thinking, I shudder to think of the consequences.<br />` Starting out, I had been severely abused and isolated, with scarcely any formal education or notion of the outside world. My worldview had been based on my father’s delusions that I was trying to kill him, and the fact that I was unaware of this was proof that I wasn’t conscious of reality. Instead, my thoughts and experiences were mere illusions, and I was crazy to even think that severe injuries caused me any pain at all.<br />` The only thing I had to live for was learning about the latest scientific discoveries, from genetics to exoplanets, because they gave me hope that something could be considered real by someone. I didn’t really understand how scientific evidence worked, since bringing my dad an object he insisted wasn’t real only made him look away and fly into a rage.<br />` I didn’t give up hope: For five years, I wrote down my experiences, as accurately as I could, so that perhaps some scientist could be the judge of whether or not I was a real person. When I was eighteen, however, my dad stole every scrap of this evidence on his way out of my life.<br />` I was just able to cope with this by telling myself that I would discover something so amazing that my life would become worthwhile. To my surprise, I did. It was a book on epistemology and critical thinking, in which I learned that there actually is a real world where evidence matters, and that proper reasoning is the opposite of my dad’s version. Shakily, I accepted this alien concept, and gradually came to realize that most of my worldview was not based on real evidence or logic -- so, what was?<br />` My quest for coherent understanding fell flat when I ran into trauma far worse than my dad, and for many years the only professional advice I could get was, “give up, you’re hopeless.” I could use my critical abilities to become aware of what was going on in my head, and figure out how to improve myself, but others kept telling me to stop, insisting that it was impossible.<br />` I had to set out on my own, and almost immediately I met my now-fiance, who encouraged me to attend Everett Community College -- my first real school! Despite serious setbacks from adverse living conditions, my mental capacities began to skyrocket, and my grades weren‘t bad, either.<br />` Now that I‘m about to earn my transfer degree, I’ve become convinced of my realness. Indeed, the skills for solving problems and expanding my world have had such a tremendous impact on my life that I’ve dedicated the rest of it to teaching their importance to others, and I look forward to continuing toward my goal at the University of Washington.</blockquote><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Well, it's original. I wonder what they'll make of that?</span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-8740514378559296932011-01-04T20:06:00.000-08:002011-01-04T20:23:31.545-08:00Soooo tired from all the blogging... but not here yet!<span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 51); font-family: georgia;">You wouldn't know by looking here at this blog, but I'm actually keeping up with my blogging! I've already written all about my ape fiasco as Dr. Orang U. Tan:</span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center; font-family: georgia;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/26580665@N08/5282005905/" title="dec 113 Today I get to be Dr. Orang U. Tan by seequinerun, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5124/5282005905_8106cbca49.jpg" alt="dec 113 Today I get to be Dr. Orang U. Tan" width="375" height="500" /></a><br /></div><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">However, it's on my Wackmobiles blog. You should really check it out -- </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://seequine.blogspot.com/2011/01/hearos-commercial-5000-contest-entry.html">there's actual video and everything</a><span style="font-family: georgia;">!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">Ah, well, at least this monkey mayhem is not as strange as the </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://nociceptor.blogspot.com/2006/12/whats-been-happening-with-me.html">last time, years ago -- oh, but most of the pictures gone, argh!</a><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">Not to mention, I've also been keeping up with the </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://seequinesart.blogspot.com/">art blog</a><span style="font-family: georgia;">.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">So, between my life's story and the art blog, the sheer time needed for working on blog posts has been decreasing steadily, since I've been doing just a little at a time, each day. Tomorrow, I'll add a little of this blog to the mix, and so on, until I have everything going at once.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 255, 153); font-family: georgia;">Doing this is a little bit tricky now that I have homework, but I'm confident that I can do this. Be prepared to read about sewage worms in the near future.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">You heard me -- </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: georgia;">sewage</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> worms! Mua ha ha ha haaaa!</span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-68638198294834050802010-12-28T19:06:00.001-08:002010-12-28T20:36:30.698-08:00I can do it! I've been blogging all over the place!<span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 0); font-family: georgia;">As I've established in my last post, without losers constantly messing with my head every day, I can blog just fine, thank you very much! I can't believe I kept coming back to this blog over the years that I couldn't, saying;</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">` "I'm sorry, but I guess I just suck at blogging for some reason, also, my roommates are driving me crazy and not letting me rest, but I have to take responsibility anyway, so it's really just my fault that I don't know how to deal with it, blah, blah, blah!"</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 255); font-family: georgia;">` Well, it wasn't me, it really was them -- that kind of constant antagonization really is unacceptable and no one should have to deal with it!</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">` As I'd known at the time, the constant stress and noise and lack of sleep really does shut down one's intellect; I just thought that I'd had more control over my situation than I did, and I constantly disappointed myself in everything because of it!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">No more!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">I knew I could do it! I've been working on all my blogs, and the Corrigendopedia website, too, both on posts already done and posts soon-to-be!</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 51); font-family: georgia;">I've decided that my theme here will be along the lines of 'something old, something new, something borrowed and something new-to-you' (because 'previously unpublished' doesn't rhyme).</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;"> ` The only thing I'm still trying to figure out is; how shall I go about it? Should I go in the order of the rhyme, have certain days for certain types of posts, or what?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">In any case, I thought I'd continue by looking at the very first posts on here. Since I've already looked at my very-first one, let's move on:</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">` On my very-second post -- </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://nociceptor.blogspot.com/2006/01/cramped-in-here-isnt-it.html">Cramped in here, isn't it?</a><span style="font-family: georgia;"> -- it is about my need to accept reality and pull myself together, which was to be further helped by developing an antidenial drug using homeless people as my hapless subjects!</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 204, 255); font-family: georgia;">` Although I never had been successful making this drug, I've had at least one near-success in the five intervening years. In the meantime, I've been working on mapping reality, on a personal, everyday level, that is, and it's been going well enough as it is!</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">` Also, in the comments section, Cassie said got the card I sent her, a monstrous and bloody Dr. Nociceptor Christmas card, enclosed in two opposing envelopes (with a flap sealing each side), upon which I drew stitches and called a 'Frankenvelope'. (I wished I'd found a way to get a picture of it before sending it....)</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">` Memories!!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">The next post, '</span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://nociceptor.blogspot.com/2006/01/this-blog-is-being-monitored.html">This blog is being monitored</a><span style="font-family: georgia;">' -- by a hit counter! And my hiding-space was being monitored -- by raccoons!</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">` Ah, I remember that wonderful-but-gloomy time! Although I was using 'borrowed' electricity, I was beginning to find some privacy for once, and really starting to enjoy it!</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">` I went on to find some more, without 'borrowing' much (or being stalked by Procyonids), but then lost it to varying degrees for years and almost went completely insane and suicidal because of it.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 0); font-family: georgia;">` I guess privacy is what I really need, because I feel great when I have that here in the lab! It's not complete -- in fact, someone else's crazy electro-chemical experiment is taking up 1/4 the room, and there is a noise factor sometimes -- but I've done well by moving all my equipment to one side of the room, wearing earplugs, and remembering that right now, I'm all by myself.</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">` Evil genius cannot be fostered without total seclusion, and I almost have that. As long as no one finds out....</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">The post after that, '</span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://nociceptor.blogspot.com/2006/01/i-have-traveled-far-and-wide-to-be.html">I have traveled far and wide to be here</a><span style="font-family: georgia;">' is about how I overcame the horrible abuses in my past, including the constant vicious insults of 'Daddy Dearest' and his determination to prevent me from getting an education or learning about science.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family: georgia;">` Since then, I've traveled so much farther and wider, at least mentally, that the experiences I'd had then are only a small fraction of what I've experienced now. However, I kept finding myself living in unsafe situations, and once the walls started to close in, I began to take the abuse in stride once more, unable to think about my living situation, nor about having a lab!</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">` It's so wonderful to have a semblance of normalcy! I'm staring to feel my old self again -- in the good way of striking out on my own, not the bad way in which I'd felt emotionally!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">Right now, however, my donstairsiker is watching a movie with his homies, and my earplugs are starting to really hurt, so I think I'll go now. I think my roomies have left me some more dishes to do out in the kitchen.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102); font-family: georgia;">` FLASH OF INTROSPECTION: Hey, wait a minute! Maybe I should rethink this 'normalcy' eh? Yes, I want a clean kitchen, and yes, I want to be able to take my earplugs out, but now I'm starting to wonder; is there some other way?</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">` Well, better think about it while washing the dishes -- that really helps me think!</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 204, 255); font-family: georgia;">Don't despair, unwitting subjects, but I do have a 'new-to-you' post waiting in the wings... I'm just saving that for the new year!</span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-34403309236982471482010-12-19T15:20:00.000-08:002010-12-20T00:05:27.278-08:00I've come this far... and here comes more!<span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 0);font-family:georgia;" >Let's go back to the beginning, as in, the beginning of this blog, nearly four years ago. What were my stated goals?</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span></span><blockquote style="font-family:georgia;"><span>~ Procure a suitable laboratory.<br /><br />~ Rebuild MAL 9000 and install him in the new lab.<br /><br />~ Earn my Ph.D -- before someone discovers my twisted and malevolent schemes!<br /><br />~ Start a blog. (Well, at least I have <span style="font-style: italic;">that</span> one taken care of.)</span></blockquote><span style="font-family:georgia;">In the intervening years I have, to my great surprise and relief, done all of those things, except for my Ph.D. Of course, I didn't really expect to get it in one year, but of course I did start college within that year, which is the first step, thanks to superhero/rock star/now-fiance Lou Ryan.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 255, 51);font-family:georgia;" >` Before that, I'd never really gone to college -- besides a couple art classes where I didn't learn anything -- and had had no other education to speak of up until I started college at EVCC.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">That was rough because, not only did I not know how to study and be in public, but I was constantly prevented from learning because I'd lost my lab and had some very frightening and stressful living situations in which I had to constantly be on-guard, and could go for months at a time with no breaks for basic human needs such as quiet and privacy.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Homework was something that I was constantly being prevented from doing, and completing it became an impossible, but crucial goal to my success.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 255);font-family:georgia;" >` At the worst of it, I became suicidal from having to go back to 'survival, no-brains, no-personality, fight-or-flight mode' all the time, and being picked on for this by people who took advantage of this and used me as a taxi service among other things.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` It was a huge interruption in my exponentially-fast learning of life skills -- which I had been prevented from before because of being abused and tortured and then treated like an invalid by people like Phil -- and the fact that I didn't have these skills already was also a source of ridicule.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">So, it's understandable that I wasn't able to get many schemes underway after I began having psychotic loser roommates and living in seriously ghetto conditions -- in fact, I wound up hating myself and feeling incompetent because I was constantly being traumatized and abused, which was something I'd grown up with and was trying to break out of the habit of being a victim of.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 204, 255);font-family:georgia;" >` Finally, that's worked, it's just taken that long to get away from such people and situations.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">How my life has changed, and changed, and changed again!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">And speaking of my first post, I've just gone back to it -- </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://nociceptor.blogspot.com/2006/01/greetings-unwilling-subjects.html">January 1, 2006</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">, and I've found that... MY READER'S COMMENTS ARE BACK!!!!</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 153);font-family:georgia;" >` It was some time ago, when I was going through the task of re-archiving my blogs (because I had failed the first time) and found that almost every single post up to certain points (apparently the points which I'd installed those comment spam guards) had removed all the previously-made comments from them!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` But now, having just gone back to the first post again, I've found that ALL MY COMMENTS ARE BACK!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Oh, the memories! All my bloggy friends at the time, and others, including crazy people, and all their witty comments and whatnot -- just the comments were like half my blog posts, and sometimes, were even better! I feel so relieved!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Well... it's time to re-archive my blog posts on my new MAL, and </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >with</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> the comments, now, which will probably take forever but it's worth doing in case my blogs 'disappear' online, which happens to some people occasionally, like poor Aaron, whose blog was gone with no explanation!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Anyway, so what are my plans, once more?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Well; I've changed my opinions in light of new facts so many times that it is hard to see across to those days when I wrote those posts. Too many things have happened.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">So, I think it's time I paid those days a visit!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Not only do I have some new posts started, but I've learned so many things that I realize I've made many factual errors in this blog -- and others -- that I think that as I go back to archive this blog, I should also re-write the same posts, for the good of anyone who looks at them, and for material to put on </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://sites.google.com/site/corrigendopedia/">The Corrigendopedia website</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">, which I am now writing for once more.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">I've been planning for this for a long time, but it's been hard to get back to serious blogging because of school and other busy activities and working at getting my sh** together so that I can do more than just that.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` I've said many times in the past that I would be back at blogging, but just when I thought I'd had my life under control, I'd find out that I was wrong and would get blamed for that, even though it was more bad luck and getting beaten down constantly that was the problem, and I still blamed myself, especially when Lou Ryan didn't see the problem and encouraged this.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">That doesn't happen too often now, although something of this kind did happen last night:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">One of the things I've been working on is going to bed early so that I can get up before ten in the morning, but it is so cold at night without firewood to heat the house that I'm so tense from shivering under my blankets that I can't get to sleep.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 204);font-family:georgia;" >` So, yesterday I got up at 6:30 in the morning to shoot a really elaborate TV commercial and didn't get home until evening, and then went to the gym, and I was so happy to be exhausted for once because finally, I would be able to get to sleep early, no matter how cold it was.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Lucas had also put the fan heater downstairs by the fireplace so as to blow hot air towards the stairs and throughout the house in the same way as he would put the mini-fan by the fireplace when we did have a fire going. It worked almost as well, but was much more expensive.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` For some reason, it seemed as though I was very cold and couldn't warm up. I shivered and sat on my feet and wondered why Vada and the kitten, Rusty -- whom I have because Violet died -- wasn't there to help keep me warm.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 255);font-family:georgia;" >` Instead of investigating, I fell back into my habit of just blaming myself for my problems. If I couldn't fall asleep, it was my fault, I thought. It couldn't actually be that much colder than it was the previous night, because the fan heater had worked then.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Besides, I was too exhausted to get up and investigate -- I'd seen the heater on before going to bed, and I knew that none of the roommates would turn it off because it was heating the house, so it must be working. If I felt cold, it must be all in my head, right?</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` That's just destructive thinking, and I admit I fall back into that habit as soon as I'm really tired or otherwise mentally taxed and am experiencing some trouble or other. Which I was.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">If I'd just spent two minutes actually using my problem-solving skills, I would have found differently:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">I didn't get to sleep until the wee hours, and as usual woke up the next morning at ten, feeling discouraged that I had not been able to utilize my morning to do everything I needed to do in the morning and then have the entire rest of the day in front of me.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153);font-family:georgia;" >` Even worse, a friend here at the house, Anthony Soto, was in the living room and called me something like 'Gotten-Up-Late Hair' because I hadn't been able to comb my hair into shape from all the tossing and turning, and I explained to him that I had gotten up late because I hadn't been able to sleep from the cold last night.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` But then, Lucas -- I mean, Lou Ryan -- came onto the scene and told me what had happened last night, just after I had fallen asleep:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">He had been asleep in bed, and despite wearing his sweats, with his hood up, even, he was so cold that he woke up and got out of bed and discovered that the entire house was freezing! He went downstairs and found that the heater-fan was gone!</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 204, 255);font-family:georgia;" >` A few seconds later, he found it in the den, with the door closed, and he said it was about ninety degrees in there. He swore a bunch and turned on the light, to find Anthony -- and a girl! -- in the bed in the den!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` <s>He had stole our heat! So, I was right to think that our roommates hadn't done anything with the heater.</s> What we didn't know was that Anthony was spending the night -- I'm not sure why -- and this is why it's always important to use your critical thinking skills, even when your critical thinking centers want to rest -- </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >especially</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> then!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Not only was it my anti-victim mentality, but <s>Anthony</s> who had caused me to ultimately wake up in the morning late, and then the same guy teased me for it!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">CORRECTION: It wasn't Anthony, it was JOEL! As a roommate, Joel ought to have known better! I guess he just doesn't think that much, but he's eager to learn.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">It is bizarre, but once-in-a-lifetime flukes have pretty consistently interfered with my life over these four years, many times in critical periods where I had absolutely needed to exercise some control and gain some self-confidence:</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 0);font-family:georgia;" >` This includes everything from de-brainwashing and de-traumatize myself (no thanks to the 'mental health' non-psychologist idiots) and being in a state of vulnerability state because I was opening myself to the possibility of learning something scary but necessary for my continued development, all the way to more common difficulties such as changing my bad habits through discipline.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` I'd be in some critical period or moment when something bizarre that I couldn't have seen coming that was unpleasant, painful, or just plain discouraging, would happen.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">This is just one example -- however, since this doesn't happen every day anymore, I believe that it is so little that, while it is upsetting, I can take this level of discouragement and continue on trying to take control of my life without having to be too afraid to try again for some time.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">And thus, I believe that I am in a better position to be more consistent with my blogging and other activities.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 255, 255);font-family:georgia;" >` Although outside, unpredictable factors out of my control will always interrupt me, as long as they are not virtually constant (as they literally once had been, with the constant mind-deafening noise of the Su Chiang house of condemned doom, for example, when I had to literally leave the house and trudge down the street in the snow or rain, in order to find those abilities I thought I'd been developing, such as focusing, planning, thinking about things, remembering who I am, etc. but was not able to use those abilities or continue developing much more at all), I really think I can deal with these problems now.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Only looking at it now do I realize how delicate I've been, and how wrong it was for others to laugh at me when I told them what my needs were -- privacy and quiet -- in order to, not just make progress, but to stop backsliding into habit and unthinking, mindless oblivion of hanging on and hoping that I'd be able to come up for a breath of having my mind to myself, and at the same time being hurt by the way-too-high expectations of myself that I, and especially others, held.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">But now, I've gone through many more childhood developmental stages, which I had been prevented from going through before, we've gotten rid of abusive ass****s living in our house and in our lives, plus I have been able to put myself together and set my life up so that discipline is no longer equated with a mental (or even physical) gauntlet of certain intense pain and disruption.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Therefore, I should be able to run a simple blog -- or even a set of four. And why four blogs?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 102);font-family:georgia;" >When I started my first blog, I had been writing so many blog posts each day that I would often have two or three in one day. When I finally decided to be true to myself and blog with my true identity, here, I was able to shunt some of those extra blog posts over so that the other blog wasn't as clogged with writing.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Then, once I was able to get my art online, consistently, I started an art blog so that the posts I had specialized for my artwork could all be in one place. Then, it just sorta got out of control.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">My mission now is to get all that stuff back under control. I'll write/fix my websites, get my blogs going, figure out what to do with all the unpublished drafts and so on.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` It's going to take a lot of work, but now that my life is so much better and improving, I don't doubt that I can figure out how to do it, even when I have homework to do.</span></span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-17024274468575381192010-12-07T12:49:00.000-08:002010-12-28T20:40:10.043-08:00The Spanish Spongebobs: ¡Traducir los Bob Esponjas es muy divertido!<span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 102);font-family:georgia;" >Believe it or not, this 'stupid video post' actually does have something to do with what I'm learning in college. I'm almost done with fall quarter, and am about to have the time to share my more serious articles, and even other schoolwork.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` But, for now, I thought, just to update this blog if nothing else, something of a less serious nature.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">You see, October 19, 2010 was the best day ever of my life, because I had just gone through a childhood developmental stage attained by most people at 2 1/2 years old, thus acquiring some more efficient brain-processing skills. Unfortunately, my life quickly went downhill for other reasons despite this (i.e. I got the flu, my favorite cat died, etc).</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` On the best day ever, however, I remembered having seen on YouTube the title, 'Spongebob Squarepants -- The Best Day Ever', so I found the 'sing-along' version on YouTube, which featured such strange sights as Spongebob with an oversized butt flying through the water, leaving behind a rainbow trail.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">'Dare I speculate?' I thought, having never actually seen the show.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">However, in the sidebar, I noticed another title, 'Bob Esponja -- El Mejor de Los Dias'! This Bob Esponja sounded eerily similar to Spongebob, but it was in Spanish-Spanish, that is, the kind of Spanish spoken in Spain. (The most noticeable feature is the pronunciation of 'c' and 'z' as a 'th' sound.)</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 255);font-family:georgia;" >` This one wasn't a sing-along video, it only had still pictures, and also the song was different because it only consisted of the first verse and then had a bunch of dialogue.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` I thought it might be fun to try to translate the dialogue, but it would help if I could see what was going on. It would also help if I had the Spanish lyrics, but when I looked them up online, they did not match the ones I'd heard!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">And then, I found out why:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">I was going around YouTube, looking for a version that shows the original video and came across a completely different translation of exactly the same song, in a different key, as sung by a much different-sounding Bob Esponja -- this one with a Latin American accent!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">I later looked this up on Wikipedia -- sure enough, there are both a Spanish and a Latin American version of Bob Esponja! I don't know why that is, but it is.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153);font-family:georgia;" >The first thing that popped into my head was, 'Great! Now I can listen to both and compare the two and from that, figure out what they're saying!' You know, kind of like the idea behind deciphering the Rosetta stone, but with Bob Esponjas.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Amazingly, I managed, with the power of listening intently, to figure out that he was talking to his pet snail, who I knew was like a cat, about the new generation of Crab-burgers, fishing for jellyfish with Patricio (whom at least I knew must be the sea star, Patrick), having a karate session with 'Arenita', whom I figured must be the squirrel in the diving suit, and then going to the clarinet recital of 'Calamardo' whom I figured must be a squid.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">That's seriously all I knew. I felt lost in this pursuit, however, so I decided to go around YouTube, watching videos, and was able to confirm that much of this made sense. As for the show, I didn't know quite what to make of it.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 255, 255);font-family:georgia;" >` And then, I saw the chocolate-selling scene with the dried-up old lady! "You just can't wait for me to die, can you?" It was wrong on so many levels...</span><br /><br /><object style="font-family: georgia;" width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Keznd2QK0F0?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Keznd2QK0F0?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Hooray for lying! This, of course, convinced me to start viewing the show on Netflix, which we had just subscribed to at the time. Importantly, I decided to use my newfound mental skills to analyze it as TV shows are meant to be analyzed!</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 153);font-family:georgia;" >I liked the way the characters play off one another, especially the way that Spongebob and Patrick so greatly annoy the sarcastic Squidward (Calamardo) the bald, middle-aged, self-absorbed, curmudgeonly octopus (i.e. not actually a squid) who fancies himself to be an artistic genius trapped in a dead-end job, and who secretly wants to join in their silly games because they're so happy, despite being innocent and lacking in intelligence, while he's not.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` I also quickly figured out that the stupidity seen in the show is not the punchline -- it's the way they make </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >fun</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> of the stupidity. The inappropriate wholesomeness reminded me of the very twisted </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/strangers_with_candy/index.jhtml"><span style="font-style: italic;">Strangers With Candy</span> series</a><span style="font-family:georgia;"> (about a graying former prostitute back in high school), whereas the parts with fast-paced flashbacks reminded me of </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.fox.com/familyguy/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Family Guy</span></a><span style="font-family:georgia;">, and then the weird tangential stuff was reminiscent of </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://pythonline.com/youtube_archive/always-look-bright-side-life"><span style="font-style: italic;">Monty Python</span></a><span style="font-family:georgia;">.</span> Other parts were... well... more special. In a short bus sort of way.<br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">My mental health will never be the same.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Anyway, the show did help me translate what was going on in the songs. And do you want to know what I came up with? Well, I think I did fairly well, considering I'm only in Spanish Level 2 and haven't even formally learned the future tense. Of course, my instructor also helped me, but still, I got most of it by myself, even parts she couldn't understand!</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 204);font-family:georgia;" >So, I'll present the Spanish-from-Spain translation first, along with the Latin American Spanish version, so you can actually listen, if you dare:</span><br /><br /><object style="font-family: georgia;" width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WGd_cR_8LJk?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WGd_cR_8LJk?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >Ya ha salido el sol sólo para mí</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">The sun has come up just for me</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >?? Qué día va a ser tengo que salir</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">What a day it's going to be, I have to go out</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >Saltar al fin de felicidad</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">To jump, at last, for joy</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >Es lo que tu descubrirás</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">It is what you will discover,</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >!Todos es especialo! (!Este ya!)</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Everything is special (This already!)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >¡Ey, Gary!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Hi, Gary!</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >?Mrao?</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Mrao?</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >Te preguntarás por que es el mejor dia a mi vida?</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">You would ask why it's the best day of my life?</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >Porque, Gary, voy a ?? este maravilloso día trayendo al mundo a toda</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Because, Gary, I'm going to ?begin this marvelous day bringing to the whole world</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >una nueva generación de deliciosas ?burgers Cangreburgers!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">a new generation of delicious ?burgers Krabby Patties</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >Seguida ?? una vigorizante sesión de karate con Arenita al mediodía,</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">It continues ?with an invigorating session of karate with Sandy at noon,</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >Y una tarde de caza de medusas con Patrício donde estrena mi</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">And an afternoon of catching? jellyfish with Patrick where he'll first use my</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >poseción más prefiere y nueva ¡El caze medusa profesionál de lujo!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">most preferred and new posession; the profesional deluxe jellyfish hunter!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >Y por el gran final, ¡todos mis amigos más intimos</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">And for the grand finale, all my best friends</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >nos reuniremos para el recital la clarinete de Calimardo!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(we) will come together for Squidward's clarinet recital!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >¡Estoy tan emocionado que creo que voy a explotarrrr!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">I'm so excited that I think that I'm going to explode!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >¡Todos es especialooo! (¡Este ya!)</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Everything is special-o! (This already!)</span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">I don't know what 'especialo' means, but whatever -- if any Spanish-speaker would like to comment on my translations, it'd be great.<br />` Oh yes, that's right -- translations-plural!: If that wasn't enough for you, here's the Latin American version, which is slower and easier to understand, and thus a huge help in translating the Spanish-Spanish version:</span><br /><br /><object style="font-family: georgia;" width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LanSEFxRKug?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LanSEFxRKug?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >El sol ha salido y me ha sonreído</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">The sun has come up and has smiled at me</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >Que sería buen día me ha prometido</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">What a good day it will be, promised to me!</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >Salté de la cama con mucha alegría</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Jumped out of bed with much happiness</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >Sintiéndome cómo nunca y</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">I'm feeling like never before, and</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >¡El mejor día es! (Best day ever!)</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">It's the best day! (Best day ever!)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >!Hola, Gary!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Hello, Gary!</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >?Mrao?</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Mrao?</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >?Preguntas por que es mejor dia?</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">You ask why it's the best day?</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >Porque Gary, comenzaré este maravilloso día dando vida a</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Because, Gary, this marvelous day will begin giving life to</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >una nueva generación </span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >de deliciosas Cangreburgers!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">a new generation of delicious Krabby Patties!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >Seguida por una vigorosa sessión de karate con Arenita</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">It continues for a vigorous session of karate with Sandy</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >Y una tarde pescando medusas con Patricio donde revelaré</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">And an afternoon jellyfishing with Patrick where I'll reveal</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >mi más ?presciente preciosada posesión; el atrapa-medusas de lujo profesional</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">My most ?prescient precious posession; the deluxe professional jellyfish trap!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >Y para el gran final, iré con mis mejores amigos</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">And for the grand finale, I'll go with my best friends</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >a presenciniar recital de clarineta de Calamardo</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">to be present at Squidward's clarinet recital!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >Estoy tan emocionado yo creo que voy a explotaaar!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">I'm so excited I think I'm going to explode!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >El mejor dia eeeessss! (Best day ever!)</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">It's the best day ever!</span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">And right when I was putting my paper together, I happened to go on YouTube (yes, for research purposes!) and I actually found the English version of this song, with the same dialogue -- it's actually just the beginning of an episode.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 204, 255);font-family:georgia;" >` Unfortunately, it was taken down the day after, but while it lasted, I wrote down what's in the original video:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >Mister Sun came up and he smiled at me!</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 0);font-family:georgia;" >(The sun actually comes through his window with a -- ARRRGH! -- hideously cute smile!)</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >Said, It's gonna be a good one, just wait and see!</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 0);font-family:georgia;" >(Awkward pause where Spongebob and the sun stare at each other, then then Spongebob's bed GOES UP IN FLAMES, and Spongebob escapes the creepy underwater sun's fire just in time, and goes running around on the outside of his pineapple house.)</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >Jumped out of bed, and I ran outside, feeling so extra-ecstatified!</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >It's the best day ever! (Best day ever!)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(Spongebob find his pet snail on the roof and says,) </span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >"Hey, Gary!"</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(Gary says,) </span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >"Mrao?"</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">(We can see what Spongebob is thinking via the magic of thought balloons.) </span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >"Why is it the best day ever, you ask? Because, Gary, I get to start this wonderful day bringing life to a whole new generation of delicious Krabby Patties! Followed by a vigorous midday session of karate with Sandy! And an afternoon jellyfishing with Patrick, where I'll unveil my newest, most prized posession, the Deluxe Jellyslayer Composite Pro!"</span> (Spongebob demonstrates its capturing powers on Gary.)<span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >"And, for the grand finale, every one of my closest friends joining together for Squidward's clarinet recital! I am so excited I think I'm going to explode!"</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> (Gary backs away for safety purposes.)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Spongebob explodes and keeps singing, </span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >"It's the best day everrr!"</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> while dorking it up along his way to work, and he is in such a good mood that he fails to notice that his workplace is covered in yellow tape that says 'Condemned' and giggles like a moron when he puts his hand on the doorknob.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` The video ends before we see his reaction -- well, I wanna see the rest! Better order some more Spongebob!</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153);font-family:georgia;" >While the good-quality English language version of that video is down, I at least found a bad quality Latin American Spanish version of it... at least you can see what I was talking about.</span><br /><br /><object style="font-family: georgia;" width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/irVubxXiy48?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/irVubxXiy48?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Anyway, translating this all was indeed one of my Spanish projects this quarter. I hope it was... uh... special enough for you.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 255);">And if you think this was a horrible idea for a post, just remember that part of the reason I like Spongebob is because I went to Retard School and I have a tendency to love laughing at retards.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 255);">In any case, I have my Spanish class to blame!</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 204, 255);">Yeah, I'm blaming it on my education!</span><br /><br />Hey... wait a second!<br /></span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">I just remembered, I left out one of my favorite characters. He's into world domination, like me -- it's Plankton, the one-eyed copepod! He also has an A.I., his computer wife, Karen, and a secret lab at the Chum Bucket, a restaurant nobody goes to because the food is that bad!<br />` Unfortunately, most of the Spongebob clips on YouTube are really not worth watching, so this was the best I could do:</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;"><br />Here's what happens when Plankton tries to be buddies with Spongebob -- of course, he's actually after Mr. Krabs' secret Krabby Patty recipe... but what they don't know is that Mr. Krabs is watching!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 102, 102);font-family:georgia;" >F is for Fire that burns down the whole town,</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 102, 255);font-family:georgia;" >U is for Uranium bombs,</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 255, 102);font-family:georgia;" >N is for No survivors...</span><br /><br /><object style="font-family: georgia;" width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/O-fSnTvvpdo?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/O-fSnTvvpdo?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Spongebob is such a moron, it hurts, and it hurts so much that I have that tingly sensation... no, it shouldn't stop!<br /><br />Uhhhh....<br /><br />This reminds me, I'll need to be getting back into gear for world domination soon. Be expecting that.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 255);font-family:georgia;" >And, as a reward for making it all the way down to the bottom, I also found a video that reminds me of the Good Ol' (not really) Ghetto Days. Here's three short episodes of what Spongebob Squarepants would be like if all the characters came from the crackhouse I used to live at!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >Are you ready, stoners? Ooooohhhhh... (cough! cough!) hold on, 'kay? Oooooohhhh, who lives in a bong in a dormitory?<br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 204, 0);">SpongeBong HempPants</span><br />Disgusting and green and sticky is he....</span><br /><br /><object style="font-family: georgia;" width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uxKhptjbe3A?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uxKhptjbe3A?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Yes, for real!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">I'm so sorry if this post is lame. Which it isn't. But if it were lame, I would apologize.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Ahhhh, I'm feeling more like myself now!</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 0);font-family:georgia;" >Well, I must be on my way. Finally, I'll have a real post next. But which one? There are so many to choose from by now....</span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-4140514412240983762010-09-05T19:24:00.000-07:002010-09-05T19:35:47.899-07:00Where have all the mechanical henchmen gone?<span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 0); font-family: georgia;">I started this blog because I had given myself the freedom to self-determination in life, and that was exciting. I was finally starting to take on the world for the purpose of taking over the world, no amount of abuse, torture, lack of education, lack of socialization, or indifference of other people would stand in my way.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">After four years of being made to feel unsafe, unwelcome and unwanted in my own dwelling, and facing considerable opposition to my ability to think, learn, complete tasks, plan, organize and sleep, I have learned the importance of sticking with mechanical henchmen as opposed to unpredictable human roommates.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 255, 51); font-family: georgia;">` I have also learned that I am more willing to continue to be the victim to the point of constant suicide contemplation than I am willing to stand up for myself (and possibly give myself away).</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">` This greatly disappoints me, and it's clear that I don't have what it takes to be a mad scientist, so I've relegated myself to 'mad science writer', hence the title change of this blog.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">Granted, I have always had Superhero-Rockstar Lou Ryan there for me, to help me through tough times, but I remind myself that the only reason I suffered so much was because I couldn't make myself move away and stop helping him make rent each month on his production company.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 255); font-family: georgia;">` Everyone else on the production team started getting addicted to drugs and replacing their money with destructive behavior and left. To fill in the empty rooms, we moved in others who eventually wrought their own havoc.</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">` However, not having had time to learn how to be anything more than a victim of household adversity, I continued being a victim. My ability to function, much less enjoy myself or be creative, was eventually sapped right out of me.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">And no minions there to help me!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">Now is the time for change. I may have had to sell all my henchmen and lab equipment in order to catch up on debts, but I now have new privacy, a desk, a functioning computer, and enough peace and quiet to be able to hear myself think, read comprehensively, and even sleep at night.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 204, 255); font-family: georgia;">` Those daily struggles I used to face on top of attending college with no prior school experience took my brain down to the level of only surviving to the next day -- planning was a pipe dream.</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">` There was very little guarantee that any of my plans would not be halted, for example, by someone who needed a ride or a babysitter for that moment, and most of all by those who detested me for not being gracious for the short and unpredictable breaks they gave me to do things like sleep or homework, though they didn't give me time to think or act deliberately beyond survival habits.</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">` Planning just wasn't a realistic option. My daily planner had to be re-written every half-hour, and the only thing I was capable of completing was sweeping the floor, doing laundry, or showering -- routine tasks that I could do without thinking.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">When you live with constant menaces, you don't notice or react to them as much. Thankfully, I have a new perspective now that the </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://seequine.blogspot.com/2010/08/would-be-cat-killer-roommate-gets.html">would-be-cat-killer roommate</a><span style="font-family: georgia;"> has practically been hauled off by the cops, and I expect to not have any more roommates in the foreseeable future.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">That is why now is the time for change.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">It's too bad that these years of self-discovery have led to living situations which resulted in my loss of internet habits, thus resulting in the lack of reasons for other people to visit my blogs, or for me to visit theirs.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">I'm not surprised no one's said they're sick of Captain Disillusion yet, even though my last post all about him was amazingly uncreative and unthoughtful.</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">` I did discover that the actor's name is Allen something-or-other a couple of weeks ago... I'll get you, Allen! Mua ha ha ha haaaa!</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 204); font-family: georgia;">However, </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 204, 204); font-family: georgia;">since before</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 204); font-family: georgia;"> my last post, I've been planning to correct and update my old posts, publish some of the countless posts that have been sitting in the draft pile, as well as throw in some new and original material.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">Now that my tenth crazy roommate is gone, and my mom is back home from visiting, I feel the urge to re-develop my blogging habits -- better and more sustainable ones, at that!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">I must go now, children. It appears that Lucas -- I mean, Superhero Lou Ryan -- has just said to me, "Are you ready for the greatest dinner ever?"</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">Don't mind if I do!</span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-17025243123182095452010-06-25T21:10:00.000-07:002010-09-05T19:37:41.529-07:00Captain Disillusion - much more YouTubeFamous than Lou Ryan!<span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 51);font-family:georgia;" >Lou Ryan may have been the first superhero I've been impressed with, and the only one I've ever been engaged to, but he's not the first whose YouTube appearances I've applauded.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Late last year, before our terrible troubles with crazy roommates, cops, and all that, I discovered the chrome-skinned internet crusader Captain Disillusion, an expert in digital special effects who has effectively debunked many fake YouTube videos.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` I began writing about him here, but forgot all about my post when things got too scary -- so let me start again: The first video he takes a look at is a penguin bitch-slapping another penguin into the ice. I instantly noticed the way the penguin's slapping wing looked that it was fake, but apparently not everyone caught this.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153);font-family:georgia;" >` In the words of CD, "The footage is posted dozens of times over on YouTube... and yet I have never, not once, seen a single comment propose that the video might be an artifical special effect, and that worries me...."</span><br /><br /><object style="font-family: georgia;" width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fqApb5YT-GM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fqApb5YT-GM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">I hope he sets that girl straight with Santa Claus and all that! Now, that was a nice, pleasant little non-challenging episode, and I see that he did this one first because debunking it offends nobody, and watching it gives one a feel for his style.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Very clever.</span><br />` Of course, the value of 'debunking' is actually showing people how they can be fooled. I've tried to do that here, but not in nearly such a cool way as an awesome video.<br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 255);font-family:georgia;" >` And as for his second episode, he begins, "Tonight, I'd like to talk to you about how creepy you all are...." Yes, apparently we humans have an affinity for making somewhat clever fake ghost videos -- this one is the reflection of the Japanese girl who looks in the mirror and turns away... but her reflection doesn't!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` CD says, "Kids, I know that there are times when not believing something you see feels really, really wrong. But don't worry, that's just your brain adjusting to the nice cold bubble bath of healthy disillusion. It's better than staying in the hot, muggy gazebo of gullibility. Just relax, let the bubbles do their work."</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Mmmmm, bubbles! That, I like!</span><br /><br /><object style="font-family: georgia;" width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3te1wBjbYe0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3te1wBjbYe0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">We will see our old friend Mr. Motion Tracking in future videos as well. I guess that was a simple one to figure out. But this next one... the next one is just too easy! So easy that Captain Disillusion is </span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:georgia;" >angry!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` "Alright, come on, I'm not really angry, come back. I'm more disappointed. Disappointed in you. That's right. Aw, don't cry. Sometimes, it doesn't seem to take any effort for someone to make you believe a hoax is real. No special effects, no testimony, no shaky cameras, just... context."</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Wow. This </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >is</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> incredibly dumb, but several YouTube commenters are freaked out as hell. It's just a dog looking out a window with some electric blinds that 'move by themselves'. Run for your life! And the YouTube poster wasn't even serious about it being supernatural, either!</span><br /><br /><object style="font-family: georgia;" width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/b4YJ-lslxYE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/b4YJ-lslxYE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Why did he 'debunk' a video that needs no debunking? This is CD's way of introducing his viewers to the concept of being expected to believe a video is paranormal because of </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >context</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">, not because of the actual </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >content!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">His next 'debunk' is quite the opposite -- a very convincing-looking video of an alien spacecraft! What surprised me the most about this one is that the creator of this video, Barzolff814, let it be known in the news media about how the entire video was computer-generated using View 6 Infinite, which comes with the palm tree clones seen in the video.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 153);font-family:georgia;" >` It didn't matter, though -- some people were still convinced it was real and it really freaked them out.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` So then, Barzolff created another fake video that is meant to show the first one is fake -- some people who still believed the first video was real were tremendously offended by it, not realizing that the second video was fake!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` And then, of course, CD just had to do his own version....</span><br /><br /><object style="font-family: georgia;" width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lLRbTtd8IKM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lLRbTtd8IKM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">This next video is quite different than the last two -- there's nothing supposedly paranormal about it, it's just two guys and a pair of sunglasses. One appears to throw sunglasses and the other seemingly catches them on his face, in all sorts of creative ways. But, how do they do it?</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` After all, "Special effects are, above all, a source of entertainment, and when they're used for entertainment purposes, I love 'em. Enjoying cinematic puzzles and then trying to figure out how they were created is good for the brain."</span><br /><br /><object style="font-family: georgia;" width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rVGi7mgLSbM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rVGi7mgLSbM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">It isn't until the 'Fire Angel' episode that we meet Captain Disillusion's semi-sidekick, Mr. Flare. And boy is he pissed off!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` "I'm simple and easy to get along with," says Mr. Flare, "but you know what? That doesn't mean I'm worthless and don't deserve recognition and respect!"</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Captain Disillusion tries to stop the refraction's rage; "And you really like to travel, right?"</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` "I sure do! I've been all over the world and present at some of the most important events in history." We are shown photos of this same optical effect: "The 2006 night launch of the space shuttle discovery, the launch of any space thing, really, The Police reunion tour, the re-enactment of the world trade center reenactment of the Iwo Jima raising of the flag by the Lafatette High School cheerleading squad. Hell, I've met most of these kids watching, although you wouldn't know it from the way they act!"</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` "All right now, Mist..."</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` "I'm not finished! They don't want to give me my due credit! They'd rather believe I'm some paranormal orb or ghost or angel! Well, angel my big refracted a..."</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` He's right; this 'Fire Angel' example really is silly, and I'd be pissed off, too if I were a lens flare!</span><br /><br /><object style="font-family: georgia;" width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Yh80XIhRsSY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Yh80XIhRsSY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">You might remember a blog post I did a couple years ago about the 'Cuervo Chupacabra' news segments. The first one was so hyped-up that the news reporter didn't give much credence to the wildlife expert who identified it as a mangy canine. The second news segment was a solid ten minutes of sensationalism until they finally revealed the genetic analysis... coyote DNA!</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 204, 255);font-family:georgia;" >` When news reporters find a mundane event and then hype the mystery instead of actually getting to the bottom of it, or even reporting the most obvious explanation, it's called 'fluff', and local news programs have a lot of these segments because they compete with one another as well as with entertainment shows.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Captain Disillusion did a fine example of such exposure of what is obviously a bug crawling around on a security camera, in the following way: "Using the latest video editing technology, I've altered the famous segment about the gas station ghost caught on security camera into the way it should have been produced had the journalist actually done her job."</span><br /><br /><object style="font-family: georgia;" width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xyR_WHEmO_4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xyR_WHEmO_4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">This is the funniest one yet! Can Captain D outdo himself? I'm afraid he does. There are all kinds of crazy things in episodes, though I was most interested in the first widescreen HD episode, where where he went to The Amazing Meeting 6.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 255);font-family:georgia;" >` The key speaker was physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and all his skeptical colleagues were there, including the hilarious co-hosts of my favorite podcast <a href="http://www.theskepticsguide.org/">The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe</a>, and the eccentric masters of illusion <a href="http://www.pennandteller.com/">Penn and Teller</a>.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Captain D also exposes how a TV show in Germany plagiarized his footage of the sunglasses-catching analysis. Mr. Flare says; "I sure hope nobody floods them with angry emails!"</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` After TAM, CD moves onto a home movie with low FLV compression, and shows how such low quality can do some strange things the producers offered prize money for duplicating. That was so incredibly simple-- and I've seen the same things on other low-quality videos! "Can I have the $25,000 now?"</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` And then, of course... HOW DID HE DO THAT? He's Captain Disillusion, Penn and Teller in the same shot!</span><br /><br /><object style="font-family: georgia;" width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wu77YbjTa38&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wu77YbjTa38&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">And his next episode co-stars famous skeptic and illusionist The Amazing Randi, for which The Amazing Meeting is named. Randi comes to the rescue after CD blows a gasket! (Actually, not really, it's just the script.)</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` I think it's supposed to be kinda like </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Contact</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">, although I don't remember that movie. In any case, I'm duly impressed by how Amazingly high Randi's pants are!</span><br /><br /><object style="font-family: georgia;" width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1cuQXHqDciE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1cuQXHqDciE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">It's Vegas! But... wait.. it turns out that Randi's video debunk of the 'pantry ghost girl' wasn't quite right, either! That's right, all that production, and it still wasn't quite on the mark.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 204);font-family:georgia;" >` Well, Mr. Flare wasn't "one to glow idly by while someone might be wrong on the internet!... So now, here to present the real answers, the guy who screwed it up in the first place...."</span><br /><br /><object style="font-family: georgia;" width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/m_aJHoLFUPE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/m_aJHoLFUPE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">The last time I had checked out Captain Disillusion's website -- that would be for the first draft of this post -- this video had been the final one on the cue. Months had gone by, and I figured CD had planned something special.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 255);font-family:georgia;" >` I was not disappointed -- finally, seven months after Pantry Ghost Girl, they finally finished producing the videos for TAM7, and there are </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 204, 255);font-family:georgia;" >five</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 255);font-family:georgia;" > of them!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` Conveniently, they are all linked together by a... well, a </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >link</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">, shown near the end of the video, which gives you the opportunity to watch the next one. Watch out, though, it takes you to YouTube, so you'll have to backtrack if you want to get back to my blog.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">At last, we get more into what TAMs are all about, and it's a parody of </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.mst3k.com/">Mystery Science Theater 3000</a><span style="font-family:georgia;"> to boot! I dig CD's silver skin! Oh yeah, and the shape-shifting shirt is pretty cool, too.</span><br /><br /><object style="font-family: georgia;" width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PrIxNxUr8po&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PrIxNxUr8po&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">And yes, Michael Shermer really does sound like a muppet, I've seen him in person, as I've posted somewhere before on this blog.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">In the second video, a dowser FAILS! And even worse, for CD anyway, Rebecca Watson, sexiest voice of Skeptic's Guide, gets married! NOOOOOOO!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Number three reveals what happens when scientific-minded people attempt performance art. "...The tsunami-like onslaught of noise! And the horrible, horrible silence." And, then, a Skepchick party! I dig the digitally-added drug paraphernalia, like the bong in Steven Novella's hand -- that's just too funny!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">In number four, they discuss skepticism and ethics in stage magic. Teller and the others are seen discussing the ethics of Darren Brown's offering fake explanations for his illusions.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">So finally, in number five, we get to Brown's fake explanation of using a group of volunteers to guess lottery numbers. But if we could really do that, a lot of people would!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` So how did Brown really predict the lottery numbers? He didn't. Apparently, CD has found that this trick involves the 'magic' of a motion control system!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` And then... Captain D's parody of the Carl Sagan remix </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc&feature=player_embedded">Glorious Dawn</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">! Love it!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Just last week, the most recent episode of Captain Disillusion was posted, in both 2D and 3D. He explores the 'Fantasy Files.' They appear to be football players doing amazing stunts to get you to put them on your Fantasy Football team -- but in fact, they are advertisements, and the ones Captain Disillusion looks at have really neat special effects!</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 204);font-family:georgia;" >` I also noticed that this one is called an 'Explanation' and not a 'Debunk'. It's true that a skeptic's job is to explore, not debunk, but in the world of fake YouTube videos it's the only thing one </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 204, 204);font-family:georgia;" >can</span> wind up doing, because they're... well, bunk!<br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` So, let's check out the bunk... and a few crazy special effects frills, such as 70's green-screen technology!</span><br /><br /><object style="font-family: georgia;" width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w5XtDi3Kiwc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w5XtDi3Kiwc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Wait... is he implying that he has an illegitimate daughter? I ought to recruit her....</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">In the meantime, I've got to go. I have a lot of work to do, including creating more original content for this website -- I know what I should have done in the first place, and clean up my own 'exploring' act.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">I'll be back with my plan once you have had enough of CD. And if you haven't had enough of him here, you can go to </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://www.youtube.com/user/CaptainDisillusion">CD's YouTube channel</a><span style="font-family:georgia;"> for more videos, and perhaps by the time you are reading this post, there will be even newer ones!</span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-83840241401252063812010-06-15T19:00:00.000-07:002010-06-15T19:49:45.242-07:00Superhero Lou Ryan outdone by bickering senior citizens and a little boy!<span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 0);font-family:georgia;" >I haven't been around much because I've been getting my butt kicked, let's just say, but Lou Ryan has been much better off than I, despite the bickering senior citizens and little boy having bested him!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">First off, if you haven't already seen it five million times, I want you to get a good look at this award-winning five-minute film that Lou Ryan (a.k.a. Lucas Ryan Ernst) stars in and shows just what a superhero can do, tearing around Seattle, doing stunts, and even showing a little of his </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">Sex A-peel</i><span style="font-family:georgia;">, and it was all made in only two days!</span><br /><br /><object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iHN0yS6PFhQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iHN0yS6PFhQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">With all the special effects and things, it's almost hard to believe it was 'thrown together' in two days, hence the name, 48-hour Film Festival -- </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Sex A-peel</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> won six awards, including second-best film!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">But, out of 120 films, who won best picture? That award went to 'Bickering Senior Citizens Make A Movie', which is actually called </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Behind the Scenes of Twisted Love</span><span style="font-family:georgia;">. Why did it win? For more than just 'best acting' -- it's fraggin' hilarious!</span><br /><br /><object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LPBPWyRci9k&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LPBPWyRci9k&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">And thus, Lou Ryan has been beaten by bickering senior citizens! They only won five awards, though....</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">And what of the little boy? Well, that comes next. See, Lucas was in this commercial entered in a contest to win $10,000. It went viral all over YouTube, and he was known as The Dancing Janitor because of his karate-mopping. No, really.</span><br /><br /><object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w1Zy-T7Av4Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w1Zy-T7Av4Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Though it was one of three finalists,, something about the production value really didn't sit well with the judges, and so actually, Lou Ryan got his butt kicked by this kid:</span><br /><br /><object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pgGt-27auKE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pgGt-27auKE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Hence, the title of this post.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 255);font-family:georgia;" >But if you're wondering what he's up to now... well, it's the whole reason he has a beard much of the time.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` You see, he plays the star of a new TV show we're hoping gets picked up. It's called 'Hump City', though I hope my suggestion of calling it 'Debauchery Unlimited' is acted upon.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Indeed, Lou Ryan plays J.R., a guy known for his initials, and for being a huge slob who gets these cockamamie ideas about time traveling in order to sue Svedka Vodka for false advertising ('Voted best vodka of 2033!') using 'normal guy' Bob's car as a time machine! And that's only the pilot episode....</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Unfortunately for Bob, he's been fired for not having near the acting caliber as Lou Ryan or the others, and so they're re-shooting it at our house with a new Bob! Whoo-hoo!</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` And, if you haven't already seen this about two million times, check out the trailer for... 'Web Comedy Project', I guess they're calling it now, by Pinprick Films.</span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center; font-family: georgia;"><object width="400" height="265"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=11546730&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1"><embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=11546730&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="265"></embed></object></div><p style="text-align: center; font-family: georgia;"><a href="http://vimeo.com/11546730">Upcoming Pinprick Films Web Comedy Project</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/pinprickfilms">Pinprick Films</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a>.</p><span style="font-family:georgia;">And by the way, the next episode involves J.R. using a pregnancy test as a target so he doesn't pee all over the bathroom, and the result is positive... and so is the next... and the next! Soon, he has a bag of positive pregnancy tests... and not a gynecologist who will seriously consider what this must mean... he's pregnant!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Or something.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Something</span><span style="font-family:georgia;"> indeed! And it gets real interesting when his abdomen swells up! Mua ha ha ha ha!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">It's the closest I could get to mad science at this time. Even though I already have a mad science post started, I just don't have the heart at this point in time. I'm still reeling from my setbacks to becoming a mad scientist.</span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-52025237803949613622010-05-01T00:39:00.000-07:002010-05-01T00:56:46.493-07:00"Oye Cerebro, ¿qué vamos a hacer esta noche?"<span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 51);font-family:georgia;" >"Lo mismo que hacemos todas las noches, Pinky. ¡Tratar de conquistar el mundo!"</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">As you may know, I've been taking Spanish classes for the past several weeks, which slightly alters my plans for the future.</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">` You see, instead of just taking over the world, I'm now planning to take over the world, specifically in Spanish! Just like my new-old cartoon semi-heroes....</span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><br /><br /><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kMDSFq6Ay_g&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kMDSFq6Ay_g&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102);font-family:georgia;" >Sing along, everyone!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Son Pinky y Cerebro</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Pinky y Cerebro</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Uno es un genio</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">El otro no es tan cuerdo</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">De laboratorio son</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Con genes insertados</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Son Pinky</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Son Pinky y Cerebro, bro, bro, bro, bro, bro, bro, bro!</span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Antes del amanecer</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Desarrollarán su plan</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Y cuando salga el sol</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">El mundo conquistarán</span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Son Pinky y Cerebro</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Pinky y Cerebro</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Su motivación</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Es fácil de explicar</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Para probar su valor</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">El mundo conquistarán</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Son Pinky</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Son Pinky y Cerebro, bro, bro, bro, bro, bro, bro, NARF!</span><br /></div><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">If you were dissatisfied with this post, please see </span><a style="font-family: georgia;" href="http://seequine.blogspot.com/2010/04/lucas-is-tv-star-one-reason-i-havent.html">this much more satisfying one</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">, which features my superhero fiance, Lou Ryan himself, as a substance-abusing hooligan who thinks he's pregnant.</span><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://ps.vimeo.com.s3.amazonaws.com/494/494431_300.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 300px; height: 300px;" src="http://ps.vimeo.com.s3.amazonaws.com/494/494431_300.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Isn't he cuuuute?</span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 255, 153);">P.S. How am I doing for my madness quotient today? Too much?</span><br /></span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-83658983209960804482010-04-10T11:39:00.000-07:002010-04-10T11:49:05.221-07:00Setbacks have long since been nullified<span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 51); font-family: georgia;">So, I got into three of the four classes I had originally enrolled in, and that is quite enough! I would write more, but I am literally plotting for world domination on The Board of Doom.</span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">` One fifth of the board is all Spanish homework! I am doing very well in the class, and I got 100% on the first quiz!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">Why take a foreign language? Not only is it required to get into any university, but languages are like entire worlds and multiply the number of connections one can make between concepts.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 255); font-family: georgia;">I'm figuring this will boost my intelligence since people who only know one language are not as smart, on average, as everyone else.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">This has long troubled me, as I knew I wasn't living up to my potential. I hope to learn many more languages as well!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">Well, I have a lot on my board right now, so I should go. Hasta pronto!</span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20394557.post-42530734087065570572010-03-18T00:35:00.000-07:002010-03-18T00:57:16.136-07:00Minor setbacks for world domination...<span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 51); font-family: georgia;">Well, I miscalculated my college credit availability and all four of my classes for Spring Quarter have been dropped.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 255, 153); font-family: georgia;">I know.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">So, I'm filing an appeal to perhaps get more funding for future quarters, and as for Spring quarter, I may be able to scrape up enough money for one class and get on the wait list (which I was not on before!) because I know I am guaranteed to get in even if I don't make it off the wait list.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 255, 255); font-family: georgia;">In other news, I think I may be getting straight A's this quarter again, though I am not sure yet. Especially since I still have to do my math final tomorrow morning, but that should be a piece of cake.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 255); font-family: georgia;">Another disappointment -- I've gone back to the earlier posts on this blog and one other and have found that THE COMMENTS FOR HUNDREDS OF POSTS ARE GONE!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">In posts that had formerly been teeming with comments, they have been erased, and it seems to me that this happened because I activated the Captcha screening devices so that robots could not leave spam.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">Did I back up the posts on my hard drives? Yes. Did I think to back up the comments afterward? Of course not. Instead, I waited until now to do so and found the earlier ones, back to 2007, are missing.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">I really must work on my lack of foresight.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 204, 153); font-family: georgia;">What a lively and humorous bunch those people were, back when I was part of the blogging community. I've been rather down and out of it since I've been so focused on school, not really able to keep up with all of their blogs, and so the comments have diminished.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">Here's hoping I get more efficient with my time and stop bungling everything up. I mean, if I'm going to take over the world, I had better not make these kinds of stupid mistakes.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">Thus, I continue to struggle in my endeavors, now without the benefit of mechanical henchmen to make my life easier. I suppose it is all for the better. I must learn to manage myself before I can manage such a tremendous undertaking as world domination.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 204, 255); font-family: georgia;">I'll be back after the post-finals celebrations are over this weekend.</span>Spoony Quinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10730057249256927206noreply@blogger.com2