PZ Myers posted Entry 1394 on August 25, 2005 02:37 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1391

Mark Fiore's latest animation skewers ID.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #44834

Posted by bill on August 25, 2005 4:04 PM (e)

So, that’s how the answers got in the back of the book. I always wondered about that…

Comment #44864

Posted by T. Russ on August 25, 2005 7:20 PM (e)

Textbook definition of a Straw-Man Argument. Wow. Very Impressed.

Comment #44880

Posted by Russell on August 25, 2005 9:34 PM (e)

Textbook definition of a Straw-Man Argument.

Actually, that wasn’t an argument. That was a cartoon. Now, what makes that a good cartoon, IMHO, is that there’s a lot of truth in it.

A “strawman argument”, on the other hand, is a sneaky way of “sidestepping” the argument.

OH! That reminds me! You seem to have dropped the ball over at antievolotion.org. What’s up with that? Are you admitting that, in fact, your whole “ID criticism amounts to nothing more than verbal abuse and sidestepping; those yahoos at Panda’s Thumb can’t touch Dembski” spiel was so much playground bravado? Are you just looking for the appropriate “coprophagic-grin” emoticon to apologize and wrap it up?

Comment #44881

Posted by Dave Puskala on August 25, 2005 9:38 PM (e)

Excellent PZ. Captured what IDC is all about. I passed it one to my friends in Grantsburg, WI that were subjected to the DI’s “Icons of Evolution” video at a school board meeting last year. I think that they will enjoy this.

Comment #44892

Posted by steve on August 25, 2005 10:55 PM (e)

Anyone who hasn’t read Wikipedia’s article on Dembski should do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dembski

It’s remarkably current, featuring something which happened just last week.

Comment #44899

Posted by Corbs on August 26, 2005 12:14 AM (e)

Does anyone else see a striking resemblance between the man in the white coat and Dembski?

Comment #44902

Posted by darwinfinch on August 26, 2005 12:50 AM (e)

People like T. Russ exemplify why creationists are seen as deviously obvious, smugly stupid bores by everyone, including themselves, when outside their “Grand Order of Water Buffaloes Lodge.”

Now, back to trying to understand what I can about the wonder that is, and will forever be, the current state of the ToE.

Comment #44905

Posted by ts (not Tim) on August 26, 2005 1:24 AM (e)

Textbook definition of a Straw-Man Argument. Wow. Very Impressed.

Actually, it’s ridicule based on hyperbole and analogy – along with some direct quotes. But even the best argument doesn’t impress you, because you’re an ignorant and intellectually dishonest troll – not to mention a proven liar who owes me $100.

Comment #44930

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 26, 2005 6:46 AM (e)

Textbook definition of a Straw-Man Argument. Wow. Very Impressed.

No scientific theory of ID beyond “POOF!!! God – er, I mean An Unknwn Intelligent Designer – diddit!!!!”

Wow. Very impressed.

Comment #44938

Posted by kay on August 26, 2005 7:52 AM (e)

I had a thought about “too complex to be random”. Has an ID advocate ever taken an hour or two out of their busy schedule to look at snowflakes through a microscope?

Comment #44945

Posted by ts (not Tim) on August 26, 2005 8:20 AM (e)

Snowflakes come straight from heaven; they are God’s dandruff.

Comment #44958

Posted by Hoopman (JB The Middleman) on August 26, 2005 10:16 AM (e)

I’m no scientist, but I think I can offer an experiment that can be done to finally debunk the “irreducibly complex” argument (not that it hasn’t already been, but this experiment would be too much fun NOT to do anyway). I believe everyone would agree that the human brain is the most complex part of a human. My hypotheis would be that if you took 399 scientists from the Discovery institute and removed their brains, that they would wake up screaming “NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS”!!, abolishing any possible “irreducibly complex” argument.

Comment #45012

Posted by monolithfoo on August 26, 2005 4:23 PM (e)

wow, that guys other cartoons are filled with a lot of ‘Reality based’ bull. ID is a dirty trick perpetrated by lax creationists, but that cartoonist is a moonbat. I am left wondering what kind of cartoon would have been produced if President Bush had said that Evolution is a fact…

Comment #45024

Posted by darwinfinch on August 26, 2005 6:04 PM (e)

“monolithfoo” sez: “wow, that guys other cartoons are filled with a lot of ‘Reality based’ bull. ID is a dirty trick perpetrated by lax creationists, but that cartoonist is a moonbat. I am left wondering what kind of cartoon would have been produced if President Bush had said that Evolution is a fact…”

Now, this sounds like a late-in troll, due to the lack of proper capitalization and punctuation as much as the apparent attempt (“Reality based” [sic]) at some sort of, um, joke? at the end, and if it’s parody, it needs a lot of work!
If “sincere” (in that odd way trolls, and indeed 99% of creationists are sincere), may I lob back the observation that I am very sure you are no doubt “left” wondering by everything that a normal human being revels in actively wondering about, and in trying to understand.

It is alarming that the best efforts of trolls at “humoure” are often very, very difficult to distinguish from parodies of said humor. For me, the giveaways are that true parodies usually show a certain flair with language, which NO troll ever does, while true trolls always reveal a petty, bitter, feces-throwing temper, however subtle their intentions.
All Creationist writing, perhaps especially the IDots, are the very embodiment of spiritual and/or intellectual yahoos.

Comment #45036

Posted by monolithfoo on August 26, 2005 7:20 PM (e)

I take that as a deep insult darwinfinch. I am in NO WAY a creationist, IDist, or troll. I viewed that cartoon with high amusement, but his other stuff is depressingly crazy moonbat tripe. I call em like I seem them.

Comment #45045

Posted by steve on August 26, 2005 8:00 PM (e)

Perhaps he just got confused. I sure as hell get confused. Sometimes I’m unable to remember if so and so is a creationist, and therefore, that there’s no point arguing with him. The only reliable rule I notice around here is, people who use their real names are more considerate than people who don’t, but that’s not my own novel insight, that sociological observation predates the internet.

Comment #45049

Posted by Maquis de Sade on August 26, 2005 8:42 PM (e)

The only reliable rule I notice around here is, people who use their real names are more considerate than people who don’t, but that’s not my own novel insight, that sociological observation predates the internet.

Bollocks!

Comment #45053

Posted by Ugly Dave on August 26, 2005 11:42 PM (e)

It may be off topic or covered elsewhere but why don’t we cut to the chase and tell ‘em it like it is:

“There is ain’t no intelligent designer ‘cos there ain’t no god”.

Incidentally as a schoolboy in London in about 1960 delivering milk for pocket money, a customer gave me closely printed leaflet which discussed “all the wonderful things in nature” and how they must have been created by a “Great Designer”. I lost the sheet years ago but the ID idea has been around for years and I am surprised at how many are perplexed at what they see as a new concept. It was crap in 1960 and it is still is today.

Comment #45054

Posted by steve on August 27, 2005 12:04 AM (e)

Comment #45049

Posted by Maquis de Sade on August 26, 2005 08:42 PM (e) (s)

The only reliable rule I notice around here is, people who use their real names are more considerate than people who don’t, but that’s not my own novel insight, that sociological observation predates the internet.

Bollocks!

Quod Erat Demonstradum.

Comment #45702

Posted by Henry J on August 30, 2005 10:54 AM (e)

Half science, twice religion, and five times the spam?