Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Conservapedia) Hero Young earth creationists valiantly expose an evolutionary biologist for the fraud that he is. No, wait... Evolutionary biologist rips apart young earth creationist who tries to pretend he knows what he is talking about   (conservapedia.com) divider line
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

12440 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 25 Jun 2008 at 8:38 AM (14 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



340 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2008-06-25 2:23:17 AM  
That was actually really quite hilarious
 
2008-06-25 3:02:38 AM  
a true biatchslapping.
hilarious.
 
2008-06-25 3:29:17 AM  
What gets me is his only response on the main page of Conservipedia is this "Lenski's latest response to a request for his data is revealing ... about Lenski's attitude. Take a good look at the attitude our tax dollars are paying for." Immediately attacking the scientist attitude after he was an ill-informed dick from the get go and being on the attack. Basic conservative method uninformed attack, attack, attack and then when the opposition gets angry point out that they are obviously angry and therefore the point they make has no merit. Its like poking a sleeping bear with a stick and then blaming the bear when it slashes their face wide open. "See I told you bears are worthless animals due to the fact they attack humans." -Fox News Fair and Balanced (quote not actually from fox news. and the fact I am reporting it is not is above and beyond anything Fox News would do) BTW I am independent and I am not in favor of either party.
 
2008-06-25 8:26:37 AM  
Andy Schlafly, Bullshiat artist
 
2008-06-25 8:28:19 AM  
Just effing beautiful.

Is that what a Scientist pimp-slap looks like?

/Religionists are so cute when they try to act smart.
 
2008-06-25 8:30:57 AM  
people.virginia.eduView Full Size




Good morning, Bevets....
 
2008-06-25 8:31:41 AM  
There seems to have been a lot of Conservapedia links floating around here lately, which makes me wonder if maybe there's some manipulation going on.
 
2008-06-25 8:33:50 AM  
"Here's the pitch....holy cow, he got all of that one, right over the left field grandstand!"
 
2008-06-25 8:38:31 AM  
theoverbays.netView Full Size
 
2008-06-25 8:45:26 AM  
[image from i303.photobucket.com too old to be available]
 
2008-06-25 8:46:10 AM  
The young earth creationist in question:

i248.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2008-06-25 8:49:23 AM  
This is why I think it is useless to talk to creationists. If things like evidence and logic were important to them they wouldn't be creationist. They have an emotional need to deny reality in order to enjoy the comfort of faith.

I can respect that, the universe is what it is and doesn't care what you believe so it makes sense to make no sense if that makes you happy.

They may be rational in other respects but it is pointless to discuss science with them.
 
2008-06-25 8:51:39 AM  
I've actually met a Young Earth Creationist that got his PhD from Dr. Gould (before his untimely demise) and is mentioned, by name, by Christopher Hitchens as both a competent scientist and an enigma. It's rather interesting actually.
 
2008-06-25 8:52:30 AM  
Back-to-back creationism threads? Bevets is going to get worn out.
 
2008-06-25 8:52:34 AM  
What tickles me is when creationists claim that evolution is not in any way scientific yet Intelligent Design is.

You see that on Freerepublic.com a lot.
 
2008-06-25 8:52:35 AM  
Sorry, that was Richard Dawkins, not Christopher Hitchens. Ugh, it's too early to remember names.
 
2008-06-25 8:54:24 AM  
Hilarious. I think that made my whole day.
 
2008-06-25 8:54:39 AM  
Summon Bevets!
 
2008-06-25 8:56:41 AM  
That was awesome. I can't believe he actually took the time to slap the crap out of that asshole, but there it is.
 
2008-06-25 8:56:52 AM  
i59.photobucket.comView Full Size


Ouch. Hurt to even read that.
 
2008-06-25 8:56:52 AM  
PirateFreedom: They may be rational in other respects but it is pointless to discuss science with them.

As someone who recently (and stupidly, on my part) got into one of these discussions with an otherwise rational and competent co-worker, I concur. You are better off just shrugging off the stupidity. Hopefully, in a few more generations, this crap will go away.
 
2008-06-25 8:57:30 AM  
lexnaturalis: I've actually met a Young Earth Creationist that got his PhD from Dr. Gould (before his untimely demise) and is mentioned, by name, by Christopher Hitchens as both a competent scientist and an enigma. It's rather interesting actually.

A competent science in what field?
 
2008-06-25 8:58:36 AM  
Ace Frehley's Ghost: A competent science in what field?

Paleontology.
 
2008-06-25 8:58:48 AM  
Pocket Ninja: There seems to have been a lot of Conservapedia links floating around here lately, which makes me wonder if maybe there's some manipulation going on.

Actually, if you read the talk page, you'll see the vast majority of posters on Conservepedia are, in fact, telling Andy Schlafly that he's a complete dick. It's kind of heart-warming.

Here's the same story hosted over at the Panda's Thumb, if you'd rather give them clicks. Link (new window)
 
2008-06-25 8:59:56 AM  
lexnaturalis: Ace Frehley's Ghost: A competent science in what field?

Paleontology.


How the hell does that work. "According to radioactive dating the sample is 150 million years old, and that's what I'll publish in my peer reviewed paper even though I know it's only 6,000 years old."
 
2008-06-25 9:03:32 AM  
t3knomanser: How the hell does that work. "According to radioactive dating the sample is 150 million years old, and that's what I'll publish in my peer reviewed paper even though I know it's only 6,000 years old."

I've only read limited amounts of his work so I don't know how he addresses that. Here's an interesting read by Richard Dawkins on the man (Dr. Kurt Wise is his name).

He is simultaneously called the most qualified young Earth creationist and the most baffling.
 
2008-06-25 9:08:21 AM  
That was beautiful.
 
2008-06-25 9:09:21 AM  
phoeniks26: That was beautiful.

Indeed. That made my day.
 
2008-06-25 9:10:12 AM  
you're not Lenski material!

/evolutiowned
 
2008-06-25 9:10:26 AM  
Marcus Aurelius: That was awesome. I can't believe he actually took the time to slap the crap out of that asshole, but there it is.

I concur, and I wonder how many people will actually learn something from the effort he put in. I found it very impressive and informative. I also think that the study was incredibly fascinating.
 
2008-06-25 9:10:43 AM  
I knew one of these types in college - I would rather bang my head into a brick wall for a hour then even approach a topic that might lead to a "young earth creation" discussion with him.

It was like his brain was some sort of black hole of rational thought from which no reason could escape.

People like him give everyone else with the slightest bit of religion in their lives a real bad name.
 
2008-06-25 9:11:27 AM  
I won't believe in evolution till it smacks me in the face.

-reads article-
*smack*

Damn... They sure did get me.
 
2008-06-25 9:13:02 AM  
Can I get a cliff notes version? It's too early to think.
 
2008-06-25 9:14:32 AM  
Monkeypillow: Can I get a cliff notes version? It's too early to think.

Creationist: "Dhurrurr data duhurrur."
Scientist: "The data's in the paper."
Creationist: "Dhurrurr data duhurrur. Bacteria."
Scientist: *biatchslap*
 
2008-06-25 9:16:31 AM  
t3knomanser: Monkeypillow: Can I get a cliff notes version? It's too early to think.

Creationist: "Dhurrurr data duhurrur."
Scientist: "The data's in the paper."
Creationist: "Dhurrurr data duhurrur. Bacteria."
Scientist: *biatchslap*


Thanks.

/Is kinda sorta religious
//Loves the sciences
 
2008-06-25 9:19:48 AM  
Monkeypillow: Can I get a cliff notes version? It's too early to think.

- Microbiologist runs a 20 year study in which E.Coli appears to evolve to metabolize citrate as a nutrient.

- Publishes paper relating same.

- Douchnozel young earth creationist can't accept the possibility demands to see all data relavent to paper, having not actually read said paper.

- Scientist politely responds that just about everthing pertinent is in the paper.

- Douchenozel snarkily demands more information - most others even on the "conservative" site tell him he's being a douchenozel.

- Scientist biatchslaps junior with a quick lesson on how science works, a few useful conventions of the english language and offers actual living bacteria to competent reseachers to cooberate his findings.

- end of line
 
2008-06-25 9:21:04 AM  
To Conservapedia's credit, on the TalkPage there were a few people trying to talk Andy Schlafly out of making an ass out of himself. This comment was particularly well done:


I was wondering how anyone possibly could conclude from this exchange that Lenski was hiding something. I came to the conclusion that some people must not understand how scientific scrutiny works. I wrote a guide.

Scientific scrutiny works like this:

Scientist A publishes results.
Scientist B: A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they?
A: x, y, and z are such and such.
B: Using x, y, and z, my result doesn't agree with yours at all. Are you sure you did the procedures that you claimed?
A: ...
B: You fraud!

Scientific scrutiny does not work like this:

A publishes results.
B: I have Generic Skepticism toward your article. Under code viii of the Publication Criteria, I demand that you give me all of your data!
A: ... ok...? It seems that everything you would need is already in the article. Did you have something specific in mind?
B: A has refused to attach all data he has ever used for the experiment. He is withholding information and thus hiding something.

-- Carafe 01:42, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
 
2008-06-25 9:21:10 AM  
lexnaturalis:

That picture made me laugh out loud. Poor Horse.
 
2008-06-25 9:23:49 AM  
home.kc.rr.comView Full Size
 
2008-06-25 9:24:37 AM  
Oh wow. I can't belive I read the entire thing. That was highly entertaining though.
 
hej
2008-06-25 9:25:16 AM  
That was packed with awsomeness. My favorite quotes...

"And lest you accuse me further of fraud, I do not literally mean that we have unicorns in the lab. Rather, I am making a literary allusion."

and

"...if an incompetent or fraudulent hack (note that I make no reference to any person, as this is strictly a hypothetical scenario, one that I doubt would occur) were to make false or misleading claims about our strains, then I'm confident that some highly qualified scientists would join the fray, examine the strains, and sort out who was right and who was wrong. That's the way science works."

Here's to you, Professor Lenski!
 
2008-06-25 9:25:48 AM  
Rationalwiki has had a field week from all this Conservapedia trash.
 
2008-06-25 9:27:49 AM  
I hate the fact that the term conservative has been hijacked by idiots like this guy.

It is a real disconnect, being conservative isn't a bad thing.

I mean, if you have a conservative nature, it doesn't mean you run around thumping bibles and beating up gays. It means you're quiet and think about what you are doing before you do it. It doesn't mean you won't do it, it just means you think first.

I've always tended to think of myself as a conservative type of person. A real live and let live, but don't expect me to pay type of conservative.

WTF happened? When did conservative and fundamentalist become synonymous?

I really think we need to take back these terms.

/I also hate the misuse of the term liberal.
 
2008-06-25 9:28:27 AM  
img114.imageshack.usView Full Size


/discussing science with a creationist is like masturbating with a cheese grater.
 
2008-06-25 9:28:34 AM  
Brutal.
 
2008-06-25 9:30:27 AM  
Can't wait for the "well, that response just goes to show you totally missed my point" response.

LOL
 
2008-06-25 9:30:38 AM  
Look up these articles on Conservapedia, you'll either want to laugh or punch your screen in

Liberals and friendship
Professor values
Hollywood Values (Where they say that Sharon Tate a "hippie" actress was a victim of them).

A bunch of stupid motherfrakkers
 
2008-06-25 9:31:50 AM  
fractal wrongness

The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.

Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of logic, and outright lies, that requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the Mandelbrot set in finite time.

If you ever get embroiled in a discussion with a fractally wrong person on the Internet--in mailing lists, newsgroups, or website forums--your best bet is to say your piece once and ignore any replies, thus saving yourself time.
 
2008-06-25 9:31:54 AM  
i absolutely love it when a self-made ignorant ass tries to school a scientist and gets totally obliterated. and of course the dumb ass turns it around pointing out the "attitude" of the scientist when the creationist idiot was being the pushy one first.

Science will always be slowed to a crawl because of religion. if religion (in all its forms) was outlawed and science was able to work with out limitations, we would have BEEN to Mars already, we would already have clones which we could harvest for organs, and who knows what else we could have achieved if we didn't have to answer to "morality".
 
2008-06-25 9:35:14 AM  
Gravyguts: if religion (in all its forms) was outlawed

I'm a fairly aggressive atheist. But do you really think it's the place of the government to outlaw modes of thought? Don't think that's a slippery slope or anything? It's one thing to convince the religious to abandon their faith through reason; it's something else entirely to mandate that they must agree with you by force- and laws are nothing but force applied to the people.
 
Displayed 50 of 340 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.