tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post114532425986644875..comments2024-02-29T20:00:59.902-08:00Comments on Cartago Delenda Est: The Great DebateMatteohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05393908406875742989noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-52106431131973958052009-11-17T20:32:05.878-08:002009-11-17T20:32:05.878-08:00Thankfully it was a spoof because I was on my head...Thankfully it was a spoof because I was on my head just as he explains in the post.juliohttp://www.debatepopular.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-35210561969752067402008-09-24T15:34:00.000-07:002008-09-24T15:34:00.000-07:00badcat,The post is a parody. I'm surprised that th...badcat,<BR/><BR/>The post is a parody. I'm surprised that this was not obvious to you. I'm a Catholic theist, not an atheist. I'm well aware that Galileo was placed under house arrest, not burned at the stake.Matteohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05393908406875742989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-50641669644950324912008-09-24T15:24:00.000-07:002008-09-24T15:24:00.000-07:00For the record, putz- Galileo was not burnt by the...For the record, putz- Galileo was not burnt by the inquisition, he was subjected to house arrest. You infidels love to exaggerate and collect injustices to build a case against the Old Man.badcathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09879156617615459757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-72230632378457240762008-08-26T02:28:00.000-07:002008-08-26T02:28:00.000-07:00Bertrand Russel: None. If I were to suggest that b...<B>Bertrand Russel:</B> None. If I were to suggest that between the Floor and<BR/>the Ceiling there is a china teapot revolving about the lightbulb in an<BR/>elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my<BR/>assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is<BR/>too small to be revealed even by our most powerful<BR/>telescopes.<BR/><BR/><B>Richard Dawkins:</B> None. I have found it an amusing<BR/>strategy, when asked whether I am an ascrewanist, to point out that the<BR/>questioner is also an ascrewanist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon<BR/>Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying<BR/>Spaghetti Monster. I just go one screwer further.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-64945370183193474722008-08-26T00:14:00.000-07:002008-08-26T00:14:00.000-07:00According to the bible: In the beginning the Screw...<B>According to the bible:</B> In the beginning the Screwer created the room and the socket. And the socket was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of the Screwer moved upon the face of the floor. And the Screwer said, Let there be light: and there was light.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-11971960937411442702008-04-20T04:39:00.000-07:002008-04-20T04:39:00.000-07:00LOL, some of these are pretty funny.Some more to a...LOL, some of these are pretty funny.<BR/><BR/>Some more to add:<BR/><BR/><B>David Berlinksi:</B> None. I've done some basic calculations and determined that the probablity of screwing in a bulb is 1 in 10^934293801991230980980923498. Therefore it is impossible that the a bulb could be screwed in. <BR/><BR/><B>Michael Behe</B>: Changing the lightbulb won't answer my question!<BR/><BR/><B>William Dembski:</B> I predict that in ten years the light bulb will have met its Waterloo and will no longer be necessary. *makes farting noise*<BR/><BR/><B>Jonathan Wells:</B> Using the Theory of Organismal Problem-Solving, I hypothesize that the lightbulb is actually designed to be a Christmas ornament.<BR/><BR/><B>Ken Ham:</B> Were you there when the first lightbulb was screwed in? The Bible says God created light. <BR/><BR/><B>Ben Stein:</B> None, because Big Science won't allow it. <BR/><BR/>or<BR/><BR/><B>Ben Stein:</B> Screwing in another lightbulb won't explain where gravity comes from.<BR/><BR/><B>Stephen C. Meyer</B>: One, but simply screwing in a bulb is not sufficient for light.<BR/><BR/><B>Robert Marks</B>:<BR/>None. Why don't you just call the old one a new bulb?<BR/><BR/><B>Guillermo Gonzalez</B>:<BR/>Only one person is in the right place and under the sufficient conditions to screw in the bulb.<BR/><BR/><B>Caroline Crocker</B>: None, because Darwinists have never observed a lightbulb being screwed in.Neelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08156578192028778077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-64526759621918211412007-07-04T08:54:00.000-07:002007-07-04T08:54:00.000-07:00So excellent. You should post this one in the Ath...So excellent. You should post this one in the Atheist vs. religion group on MySpace.Darrylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07657866089736980571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-1170214724524725572007-01-30T19:38:00.000-08:002007-01-30T19:38:00.000-08:00ME: One. The Darwinist holds the lightbulb firmly ...ME: One. The Darwinist holds the lightbulb firmly in place, while God spins the entire universe several times (without the Darwinist noticing).David Woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10613366053392696689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-1147134945115599002006-05-08T17:35:00.000-07:002006-05-08T17:35:00.000-07:00This has got to be the stupidest thread I've seen ...This has got to be the stupidest thread I've seen in a long time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-1146761686753577852006-05-04T09:54:00.000-07:002006-05-04T09:54:00.000-07:00Hmm. Your Flying Spaghetti Monster answer was...la...Hmm. Your Flying Spaghetti Monster answer was...lame at best. Try this: Let's address the darkness first. Try two people, one to hold the ladder while the other changes the bulb. Safety first (and do NOT fall down and bleed all over the nice clean forum, if you're smart.) Now, let's address the term Darwinist. Is every valid scientific theory to be made into a pretend life philosophy/religion by people who don't understand science and the meaning of scientific theory? (Newtonists, those silly fools that cling to the THEORY of gravity? See how dumb that sounds?) How about not pretending that the man is the theory. Hmmm. So, that would make us all Gravitationalists? (Well, maybe not Ken Ham. I think he'd be weighed down by his leaden sense of humor. Him and that guy in the banana video with Kirk Cameron.)<BR/><BR/>If you'd like a humorous answer, I will get a better one: We respect all forms of light, or none at all. If it's the position of even the dimmest bulb that he is right and we are all wrong, we still respect his opinion. However, rather than curse the darkness, we'll get a couple of folks with a ladder and change the bulb. One to actually make the change, and the other to provide safety.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-1145728888136907382006-04-22T11:01:00.000-07:002006-04-22T11:01:00.000-07:00SteveG-- Of course, the whole point, from my pe...SteveG--<BR/><BR/> Of course, the whole point, from my perspective, is that no sane person would ever use the parodied arguments to explain something so simple as a lightbulb getting screwed into its socket, so why would they use such arguments to "explain" how the vastly more complicated intricate nanotechnology of life came into being and undergoes progressive improvement?<BR/><BR/>Of course, on the macroscale life does not resemble lightbulbs and sockets. But on the microscale it leaves the relatively simple but still "needing a screwer" complexity of lightbulbs and sockets in the dust. Just my opinion (and I won't be arguing further for it in this comment section).Matteohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05393908406875742989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-1145726805791007202006-04-22T10:26:00.000-07:002006-04-22T10:26:00.000-07:00IDist says: Of course, biological organisms are li...IDist says: Of course, biological organisms are like light bulbs, which is why this humor makes any sense.<BR/><BR/>— Steve G. ;-)Steve Greenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05009463048251525338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-1145658712199598722006-04-21T15:31:00.000-07:002006-04-21T15:31:00.000-07:00Blog link sent to me by a friend as "funny". I fou...Blog link sent to me by a friend as "funny". I found it a bit tiresome with occasional flashes of wit, with contributors intellectually patting themselves on the back for knowing the 'inside game' of the DE/ID debates.<BR/><BR/>I find it esthetically and morally more satisfying to think of the creator as setting in motion, glorious, if often inscrutable natural processes that are to a great extent discoverable by our intellect, and which appear to eventuate in the glorious diversity of life and the wonders of the heavens. <BR/><BR/>I see ID in apposition to that esthetic, stating in essence, the creator handpicked that (and that and that and that) each step of the way and the Darwinian processes somehow "aren't allowed" to have created this wondrous diversity.<BR/><BR/>Having set the processes in motion (call that actor 'God'), is the resulting universe essentially random? One hopes not on one level (we'd like the good and beautiful to win out), but it's bracingly inspirational to me on another level (why and to what purpose? What alternate worlds and universes might there be? How can our actions work to the good we long for?) Who are we to say the creator may not work through Darwinian evolution?<BR/><BR/>I hope this note seems intelligently and constructively designed. I'll be changing the porch light bulb this weekend -- perhaps my wife Lynn will help steady the ladder.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-1145643209923653752006-04-21T11:13:00.000-07:002006-04-21T11:13:00.000-07:00Anonymous 9:34 AM,Yes, it is essentially an "insid...Anonymous 9:34 AM,<BR/><BR/>Yes, it is essentially an "inside joke" for those who've been immersed in the topic for a while. Familiarity with the original quotes and arguments from the metaphysical naturalists is assumed for most of them.Matteohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05393908406875742989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-1145637250800541542006-04-21T09:34:00.000-07:002006-04-21T09:34:00.000-07:00hi, this may be the first "world-famous" post on t...hi, this may be the first "world-famous" post on the topic that makes the rounds of e-mails; I just wonder what percent of the folks who receive it eventually will understand 90% of it; <BR/>this is goodAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-1145635480322680942006-04-21T09:04:00.001-07:002006-04-21T09:04:00.001-07:00Just one, but it takes billions and billions of ye...Just one, but it takes billions and billions of years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-1145635469050192512006-04-21T09:04:00.000-07:002006-04-21T09:04:00.000-07:00That proofs that it was not screwed in, but the ai...That proofs that it was not screwed in, but the air gradually around the socket evolved into the lightbulb we wee today. <BR/><BR/>=<BR/><BR/>That proofs that it was not screwed in, but the air around the socket gradually evolved into the lightbulb we see today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-1145635342801781742006-04-21T09:02:00.000-07:002006-04-21T09:02:00.000-07:00All lightbulbs shines. Using electromagnetic datin...All lightbulbs shines. Using electromagnetic dating techniques, we can proof the lightbulb is 35 million years old. That proofs that it was not screwed in, but the air gradually around the socket evolved into the lightbulb we wee today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-1145633149650541242006-04-21T08:25:00.000-07:002006-04-21T08:25:00.000-07:00"Stephen J. Gould: None. The bulb jumped into the ..."Stephen J. Gould: None. The bulb jumped into the socket when no one was looking. Gradually."<BR/><BR/>Very funny. I really enjoyed this one! <BR/><BR/>For those that don't know, Gould is the guy who proposed the proposterous idea of "Punctuated Equilibrium" - the idea of rapid evolution followed by long periods of stasis. He proposed it to make Evolution fit the fossil evidence. But when he heard of ID, he quickly changed his tone, saying there's lots of evidence for gradual evolution. Hmmm.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-1145526823142687612006-04-20T02:53:00.000-07:002006-04-20T02:53:00.000-07:00The light bulb was caused to have been screwed in ...The light bulb was caused to have been screwed in by its being observed. Until then it was indefinite.rhhardinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06901742898653890646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-1145520362422075272006-04-20T01:06:00.000-07:002006-04-20T01:06:00.000-07:00Richard Dawkins: Errr.... Are we talking Bright li...Richard Dawkins: Errr.... Are we talking Bright light bulbs?Tob-Senhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14653920777340247771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-1145512715670599732006-04-19T22:58:00.000-07:002006-04-19T22:58:00.000-07:00This is so stinking awesome!!! Mark at Mark my Wor...This is so stinking awesome!!! Mark at Mark my Words pointed me here. I have been battling macroevolutionists for months now, and I intend to post your post (and of course link to you) tomorrow for it is far too good not to publish!radarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08009074315229001910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-1145496890118293772006-04-19T18:34:00.000-07:002006-04-19T18:34:00.000-07:00I think you'd do better to have the theistic evolu...I think you'd do better to have the theistic evolutionist (or, more correctly, the <B>evolutionary creationist</B>) say something to the effect of: <I>One. But when we say "screwed", do we mean that in the literal sense, or is it possible that perhaps God is using this vernacular term to accomodate to our limited understanding of the mechanics of affixing a bulb to a socket?</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-1145491269318383992006-04-19T17:01:00.000-07:002006-04-19T17:01:00.000-07:00Ken Miller - none, because the bulb could be used ...Ken Miller - none, because the bulb could be used as a drinking glass, the filament could be a spring, the screw could be used as an archimedian pump and the contacts could be used to make a dandy tie-clip!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-1145485265039758672006-04-19T15:21:00.000-07:002006-04-19T15:21:00.000-07:00If God had wanted Man to have light bulbs, he woul...If God had wanted Man to have light bulbs, he would have created a light bulb, probably on the fourth day. Therefore, anyone who would screw in his own light bulb is a liberal atheist.<BR/><BR/>Now here's the collection plate. Give until it hurts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com