Say Anything Blog

Compared to many, many other posts here at SA, yours did not receive all that much attention, very, very modest actually. Silly, unscientific, ignorant evolutionary nonsense doesn’t generate that much interest!

This has absolutely no value in discussing human homosexuality and you now it, it is just that Scientific Truth has absolutely no interest to you, only your political bias like almost all evolutionists has any value to you.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Sparkie: I suggest you learn a new word: anthropomorphism.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Sparkie: I suggest you learn a new word: anthropomorphism.

Are you saying that Liberace is a God and we only think of him as a primate because he has taken human form to grace us with his wonderful tickling of the ivories?

Are you saying that Liberace is a God and we only think of him as a primate because he has taken human form to grace us with his wonderful tickling of the ivories?

It’s your pathetic attempt to compare animal behavior with human behavior, moron.  I see you don’t know what “anthropomorphism” means, either.

an·thro·po·mor·phism Listen to the pronunciation of anthropomorphism
Pronunciation:
\-ˌfi-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1753

: an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics : humanization
— an·thro·po·mor·phist Listen to the pronunciation of anthropomorphist \-fist\ noun

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Sparkie: I apologize for pitching my argument so far above your head; let me ‘splain it to you in terms you might be able to understand: Goofy was an anthropomorphic dog, in that he looked like a dog, but acted like a human, which even included the ability to speak human language. With me so far?  Pluto, on the other hand, was an actual dog, who acted like a dog, walked on four legs, and didn’t speak human language.
You are being anthropomorphic when you attempt to attribute human motives, thoughts and feelings to chimps.  Get it now?

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

r108
SO you deny that humans are primates? Or you deny that primates are animals? Or that some primates are animals? ‘splain it to me.

Also, in regard to this:

I see you don’t know what “anthropomorphism” means, either.

Why don’t you look again at my Liberace jibe. I think you’ll find that I picked up on the meaning just fine. I pretended that you were suggesting that Liberace was a God, with human characteristics (much like you portray Goofy), that I was mistakenly equating with him actually being a human, and not the God that he is. To many moves at once for you?

Sparkie: No, you did not understand what Robert108 is saying at all if your pitiful answer above is all you have to offer.

I explained this in your previous thread: “We share about 50% of our DNA with bananas does that make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down? If a banana stem gets stuck in the far end of another banana does that prove bananas are homosexual?

“Now the genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn’t sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change.”

In other words we ain’t related at all!

You know the real truth, but you belong to the Evolutionary Religion, a wholly faith based and terribly flawed pseudo-scientific system that tries to explain the existence of life via random mutations over time, an impossible amount of time. But, as a good disciple of your evolutionary church, and much like a Jehovah Witness, Darwinian Evolution in hand you are trying to convert others to your faith.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman
I am just providing a counterexample to the unnatural use argument. Liberace, as far as nature is concerned, is no less natural than a Bonobo. That does not mean that he is a bonobo or that bonobos are gay piano men.
Also, you can diss on evolution all you want, but the fossils are in, the dates are in, the history is taking shape. Moreover, as I have pointed out elsewhere, one can get algae to evolve in a matter or weeks in a lab.
Far from having mutations kill populations, sometimes they can prove to be beneficial to them. For example, a portion of the population had an immunity to the 1918 influenza. Events of that sort drive evolution and they have happened in empirically observable situations.

Spark:

bob and Neiman think evolution is a hoax and The Invisible Sky Daddy is real. As a result it is hard to take them seriously.

invisible sky daddy? that sounds like

an·thro·po·mor·phism Listen to the pronunciation of anthropomorphism
Pronunciation:
\-ˌfi-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1753

: an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics : humanization
— an·thro·po·mor·phist Listen to the pronunciation of anthropomorphist \-fist\ noun

Actually, Sparkie, that’s pretty funny.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

SO you deny that humans are primates? Or you deny that primates are animals? Or that some primates are animals? ‘splain it to me.

I have already ‘splained it to you several times, and I don’t think I can dumb it down any farther, so you will just have to continue in your illiterate ignorance.
You tried to make an equivalence between chimp and human behavior, with the false notion that humans are nothing more than “primates”.  This is a primary error of anthropomorphism, of attributing human qualities to a non-human animal.  The human classification of “primate” is for biological purposes, and has no meaning in any other context. Since your homosexual behavior is not biologically-based, your citing of “primate” is irrelevant, and doesn’t even support your own feeble justification for your homosexual behavior.  Give it another try.
It’s fun to watch you twist and spin.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

r108
Those are bonobos in the original clip, not chimps.
They are our closest primate relative.

Since… homosexual behavior is not biologically-based

what? now you are claiming that homosexuals are made in the lab? how is it not ‘biologically-based’? are the countless examples of homosexuality among the various members of the animal (and plant) kingdoms that practice it somehow outside the net of biology? also, are you a biologist? i didn’t know that.

also, in reference to your comments about my homosexual behavior… i am a happily married heterosexual who partakes, happily, in married heterosexual behavior.

Sparkless: The fact is that most of the forms of plants and animals have arisen suddenly in the fossil record. There is no evidence that there have ever been transitional forms between these basic kinds. The truth is the fossil record is composed mostly of huge gaps.

As to the subject of algae in the laboratory, I would have to see the study to comment intelligently. I can say that it is one thing the to artificially create conditions in the laboratory to produce certain results and quite another to prove they can and have occurred naturally, via evolution.

Jack:

bob and Neiman think evolution is a hoax and The Invisible Sky Daddy is real. As a result it is hard to take them seriously.

No one said evolution within a species is a hoax, but it is quite a different kettle of slimy fish to prove that evolution between kinds is a fact. Please do two things to convince me: (1) Show me how, no matter the time involved, that complex design can occur from random mutations, wherein is always loss of information and complexity? (2) What evidence do you have of fully formed transitional forms from one kind into another, like a half-chimpanzee and half-man, where are those fossils?

As I said many times, evolution cannot be subjected to observation and reproducible experiments, as by the admission of evolutionary scientists, the time required cannot be subjected to such measurement. Therefore, it is a faith based pseudo-scientific discipline, a man made religion. Of course, Divine Creation occurred once and thus cannot be observed happening today, which makes it a faith based religion as well. Lastly, were you open minded to every possibility and studied ID or Divine Creation along with evolution, you would be faced with the undeniable fact that the Divine Creation model does not just fit the observable evidence better than evolution, it predicts the data.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Those are bonobos in the original clip, not chimps.
They are our closest primate relative.

1) Who cares what you call them? A turd throwing monkey by any other name is still a turd throwing monkee.

2) They are surely. without any shadow of doubt, YOUR closest living relatives; they are not however even remotely related to me and most other human beings.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Animals urinate and defecate anywhere the mood strikes them; many species eat their young, given the opportunity; and primates frequently masturbate in public: none of which seems sufficient to justify the argument that humans should do likewise.

Actually, most biologists will affirm that so-called homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom is rare and/or random, and often responded to violently.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator

also, in reference to your comments about my homosexual behavior… i am a happily married heterosexual who partakes, happily, in married
heterosexual behavior.

It’s just that you seem very focused on justifying and apologizing for homo behavior…

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Those are bonobos in the original clip, not chimps.

Bonobos are a species of chimpanzee.

what? now you are claiming that homosexuals are made in the lab?

What part of “adaptive behavior” didn’t you understand?

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Bonobos are a species of chimpanzee.

wrong. same genus, different species. what were you saying about biology, oh master of the motherfucker?

The Bonobo (IPA: /bənoʊˈboʊ/, Pan paniscus), until recently usually called the Pygmy Chimpanzee (and less often the Dwarf or Gracile Chimpanzee), is one of the two species making up the chimpanzee genus, Pan. The other species in genus Pan is Pan troglodytes, or the Common Chimpanzee. Although the name “chimpanzee” is sometimes used to refer to both species together, it is usually understood as referring to the Common Chimpanzee. The Bonobo is endangered, and is found in the wild only in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The scientific name for the Bonobo is Pan paniscus. Initial genetic studies have characterised their DNA as more than 98% identical to that of Homo sapiens.  In the seminal Nature paper reporting on initial genome comparisons, researchers identified thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and a number of chromosomal rearrangements which constituted the genetic differences between chimps and humans.

“It’s what every Darwinist loves to profess. Turn on the television, read the magazines, and you will be bombarded with “scientific information” regarding the similarities between apes (i.e. monkeys, baboons, etc.) and human beings. Many scientists have, in fact, devoted decades of their lives to studying the behavior of these animals, all with the idea that, yes, these are indeed grandma and grandpa. The notable stories of Jane Goodall and Dianne Fossey living with chimps and gorillas fascinate the public, sparking our minds to believe that the thoughts, behaviors, and communications of these animals are not all that far from our own. Genetic developments in the scientific community have helped reinforce these ideas, or so it seems. What is, however, the truth of the matter? Are we really so similar to our furry friends?

An exceptional quote to begin with, revealing that specific, pinpointed similarities between two separate species can mean very little. Baboons, according to research, share 90% of their DNA with human beings. Does this, therefore, make them 90% human? The answer, in light of this quote, is absolutely not. Dr. Barney Maddox, a leading genetic genome researcher, also noted concerning man/monkey genetic differences:

“Now the genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn’t sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change.”

And as a writer for the Smithsonian concedes: ”just a few percentage points can translate into vast, unbridgeable gaps between species.”

Simply stated, if we were to take this idea of similarities to determine which animal is most like us, we would come up with dire results. Take, for instance, our number of chromosomes (46). Two of our closest ancestors would be the tobacco plant (48) and the bat (44). Furthermore, because the chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex bits of matter in the known universe, it would seem logical to assume that organisms with the least number of chromosomes are the end result of millions of years of evolution experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms. Therefore, this would reveal that we started from penicillium with only 2 chromosomes, and slowly evolved into fruit flies, and after many more millions of years we became tomatoes, and so on, until we reached the human stage of 46 chromosomes. Millions of years from now, if we’re fortunate, we may become the ultimate life form, a fern, with a total of 480 chromosomes.

Or, again, we could examine the human eye. Anatomically, it is most similar to that of an octopus’. Of course, the theory that the human eye evolved was directly commented by Charles Darwin himself when he said, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Another argument in relation to man/monkey similarity has to do with language. A chimpanzee named Washoe and a bonobo named Kanzi “have become famous for their ability to respond to human language in surprisingly complex ways.” In contrast, however, Robert Seyfarth, one of the most dedicated primate researchers in the world, says, “You can teach a bear to ride a bicycle in the circus, but it doesn’t tell you much about what bears learn to do in the wild.” And lastly, “even in the laboratory, no animal has attained anything like true language.”

The Point: Sparkie is an ape-man, but most human beings are not, they cannot be related to the Chimpanzee!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Stan: Good dog, Sparky. Who’s my best buddy? Who’s the boy? Who’s the buddy?

Cartman: Eh. You’re making me sick, dude.

Stan: He’s part Doberman and part wolf. He’s the toughest dog on the mountain.

Cartman: No way. Everybody knows that Sylvester is the toughest dog in South Park.

Sylvester: Arrrrrr

Stan: He’s not meaner than Sparky.

Cartman: Oh yeah, let’s see. Hey, Sylvester.
[he comes over]

Stan: Sparky’ll kick his ass.

Cartman: I’ll put a dollar on Sylvester.

Kyle: You’re on, dude.

[Sylvester starts after Sparky. Both dogs growl]

Stan: That’s it, Sparky! Kick his ass!

[Sparky lunges after Sylvester and out of view. Aggresive panting can be heard. The boys stand there, shocked]

Cartman: Heh, he’s doing something to his ass. He’s not kicking his ass, but he’s definitely doing something to his ass.

Stan: Sparky, bad dog!

Kenny: (Oh my God, I think they’re screwing.)

Stan: What?!

Cartman: Yeah dude, I think your dog is gay.

Stan: What do you mean?

Cartman: That dog is a gay homosexual.

...for great justice

If we’re descended from apes…

How come there are still apes?

...for great justice

Links...sources...citations… anything, Neiman. The arguments and stance you’re making is interesting and deserves to be looked at in closer detail. Plus, it makes it a lot harder for people to refute any of your sources if no one knows what they are. I’m not simply going to trust some unknown “writer from the Smithsonian”. I can’t say that I really buy into ID (actually I don’t at all), but some of the arguments its proponents employ do reveal some holes in current evolutionary theories. If anything, ID can at least highlight gaps in evolutionary theory and generate more knowledge in regards to the subject.

I won’t attempt to refute the many sources you quoted, but I will say that the one argument is slightly flawed. With regards to the argument related to chromosome numbers, to believe it, one must assume that evolution theories purport that the evolutionary process works simply through increasing the genetic material and complexity of an organism. To a degree that’s true, but it deals mainly with the rearrangement and change of genetic material rather than the addition of chromosomes. As we all know, genetic complexity does not translate into anatomical or structural complexity, as the example of humans versus ferns illustrates.

If we’re descended from apes…

How come there are still apes?

I’m not sure if this is serious or not, but I’ll answer any way. The reason, according to evolutionary theories, is because evolution occurs in pockets. This can be explained by geographical barriers and distances.

Ken,

That was a joke.  A shameless rip-off from the straight-faced Steven Wright in fact.

The guy that bought a life-sized map of the United States.

...for great justice

A shameless rip-off from the straight-faced Steven Wright in fact.

I’m not to familiar with his material, but he’s pretty funny any time I see him. Nice avatar by the way.

Ken: I regret to say I read books, the internet and therefore ‘links’ are not always my primary source for information. It seems to me that any honest investigator, any true evolutionary scientist would always be open-minded, willing to examine what Creation Scientists and Intelligent Design Scientists have to say on the subject. Then if they can objectively, clearly refute what they have to say, all well and good; on the other hand, if they cannot objectively counter their claims, they should be honest enough to admit that fact.

Fortunately, in many of the books and articles I read, some top, highly respected evolutionists are, while still defending evolution, honest enough to admit that the evidence is more on the side of Special Creation than on that of evolution.

One link, providing much of the information provided in direct quotations in my previous comments is: http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/monkeybusiness.htm, I also provided siome answers in direct quotations and loose paraphrases from “Scientific Creationism,” by Henry H. Morris, Ph.D. There are several Creation Research sites on the internet and many excellent books available.

I am not a scientist as regards evolution or Special Creation, but I believe I have a good nose for the truth by studying such matters. For instance: It is without much doubt that mutations always result in loss of information and complexity; and it is always impacted by the Law of Entropy wherein energy is always lost. Therefore, I must reject out of hand that random mutations over time can ever result in an increase in information or complexity.

For evolutionists to manufacture theories to explain the faults in the theory of randum mutations over time or any other evolutuionary position, absent clear and objective proof is dishonest and betrays the true religiuous nature of evolutionary science.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

I regret to say I read books

then you back up what you say with a title, author, date of pub, city, publisher, and page number.
thanks.

that information would be especially helpful when you make patently false comments like this one

Fortunately, in many of the books and articles I read, some top, highly respected evolutionists are, while still defending evolution, honest enough to admit that the evidence is more on the side of Special Creation than on that of evolution.

when we know what publishers are printing these turds, we can then make the same bogus authority arguments as you b/c no respectable, credible publisher touches that sort of garbage you refer to.

Compared to many, many other posts here at SA, yours did not receive all that much attention, very, very modest actually. Silly, unscientific, ignorant evolutionary nonsense doesn’t generate that much interest!

well, the blog has been here for a while. there are many many posts that get more comments than mine, not especially due to the creative devices that the poster is exploiting, but rather what’s in the news.

hold on, let me do a post about how the UK has banned teaching about the holocaust. hee hee hee.

Most, if not all, scientific, peer reviewed journals are published by liberal publishing houses. Liberal academics must refuse to peer review any studies that challenge their evolutionary religious dogma, and so those scientists wanting to publish evidence that refutes Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, must seek other publishers. For any scientist within a university system to challenge Darwinian Evolutionary Theory will not advance within the educational community, they will not get articles reviewed or published, because almost all science today is based on biased, politically correct dogma and they cannot, they will not consider any information that seriously challenges their belief system. Thus to challenge the liberal academic community is death to their careers.

I dare say you will refuse to objectively review any scientific material on I.D. or Special Creation because you fear the truth will overthrow your ignorant views of how life began. You cannot challenge I.D. or Special Creation with facts and by objective, rational debate. That is science today, intolerant, closed minded, politically correct and militantly dogmatic.

“Astronomers are curiously upset by proof that the universe had a beginning. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind - supposedly a very objective mind - when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in their profession. There is a kind of religion in science.”

Robert Jastrow, for years Director of the Goddard
Space Institute and an agnostic

“Evolutionists - like the Creationists they periodically do battle with - are nothing more than believers themselves. I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for more than twenty years, and there was not one [factual] thing I knew about it. Its quite a shock to learn that one can be misled for so long.”

British Museum of Natural History senior paleontologist Colin Patterson.

“Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible {i.e. something most scientsist don’t want to admit.”

D.M.S. Watson, Britain’s Counterpart to Carl Sagan.

“even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup, the chance of producing the basic enzymes of life by random processes without intelligent direction would be approximately one in 10 with 40,000 zeros after it. In other words, it couldn’t happen.”

Eminent British astronomer Sir. Fred Hoyle

You have a right to your religious faith - evolution. You have a right to deny the existence of God and/or Special Creation; but unless you are willing to consider all the evidence against Darwinian Evolutionary Theory with as much effort and attention, you are not approaching the subject in an objective scientific manner and you are being intellectually dishonest, IMO.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

It’s just that you seem very focused on justifying and apologizing for homo behavior…

Thats because with the ego and self importance you display on this and other topics, you assume anyone who disagrees with you must have a dog in the fight, instead of simple objective thinking. Another example of your unbalanced and prejudiced thinking bobbie blue

You are all monkeys.

Most, if not all, scientific, peer reviewed journals are published by liberal publishing houses.

Back it up.

Nieman - There is no evidence that there have ever been transitional forms between these basic kinds.

It’s always dangerous to declare something settled well before all of the facts are in.

Behold, the transitional fossil record of the flat fish.

The evolutionary science is still incredibly young, but you dismiss it as a “a man made religion” even as you hold onto that Christian Bible - a book written by, you guessed it, man.

Suit yourself, but don’t kid yourself.

That is science today, intolerant, closed minded, politically correct and militantly dogmatic.

Then it’s no wonder that you disparagingly compare it to religion.