Search This Blog

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Batting cleanup, Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo. the impossibility of Evolution...

Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo has graciously consented to allow me to present portions of his material as I deem fit.  If you are not aware of the man, then you probably are not a devout Darwinist.  Joseph has been challenging Darwinists to back up their long list of mythologies for many years.  Many individuals and groups have been challenged to put up or shut up.  Sadly, they do neither. Gee, you would think the chance to pick up an easy ten grand would have them lining up at his front door, as sure as they sound of themselves, right?
There is also a one thousand dollar prize available:

$1000 Reward for finding an evolutionist that completes a Life Science Prize Mini-Trial.

$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical. It is predicted that this prize also will go unclaimed indefinitely because there is no such thing as a homologue, or an evolution sequence, or micro-evolution, or macro-evolution, or mosaic characteristics, or a common ancestor, by reason of the fact that all living things are devolving, dynamically engineered, unique inventions of omniscient originality. See Biology for the 21st Century and the Life Science Prize Tested Devolution, Evolution, and Genesis, 2005, p. 16. (Originality Prize offered on 3-18-07.)

"Default-judgment. Judgment entered against a party who has failed to defend against a claim that has been brought by another party." -Black's Law Dictionary.



It is still a free country.  If you want to preach the message of Darwinism you are free to do so.  But what is shockingly wrong is that young minds are being brainwashed in that the faith of Darwinism is being taught as established scientific fact.  That the atheist mindset does not have any reason to adhere to God's moral code means that they have no compunctions when it comes to what they say or do.  They will freely call the truth a lie and claim that a lie is true, for they do not concern themselves with eternal consequences.  

Ecclesiastes chapter three is pretty well known in the popular culture, as the Byrds wrote a song derived from the first nine verses of the chapter (ah, the days of bangs and girls ironing their hair and trying to look like Twiggy and Patty Boyd).   I am going to present verses 10-14 in the NIV:

"I have seen the burden God has laid on men.  He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.  I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live.  That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil—this is the gift of God.  I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that men will revere him

Far wiser men than I have studied Ecclesiastes.  It was written by King Solomon, the son of David the King, the Psalmist and also the tragic.  Solomon sought wisdom from God and received it in abundance.  But he then sought pleasures under the sun.  "Under The Sun" is the key phrase to take from this book.  Solomon presents the experience of man during this present life.  He understands the vanity of temporal pleasures and the joys of eternal understanding.  Within the book he presents both carnal and spiritual worldviews of God and life on Earth.  I highlighted the above verses because even in this book clues to the brilliance of God's creation are found and also the spot within every heart that is aware that they belong to a Creator God.  Some of us drown out that still small voice within and some of us seek it and some of us, like me, run from it for many years before taking the time to listen.

credit



Now let us present, from Dr. Mastropaolo, a post I would term an oldie but a goodie:  Batter up!


Evolution Is Biologically Impossible
© Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D., 1999.2


Published in Acts and Facts 28 (11): i-iv, Impact #317, November 1999, Institute for Creation
Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cahon, CA 92021.

Charles Darwin was daydreaming when he wrote that he could visualize “in some warm
little pond,” with all sorts of salts and electricity, the spontaneous generation of the first living
cell.2 Darwin’s dream of the magical powers of salts and electricity may have come from his
grandfather. Mary Shelley in her introduction to Frankenstein reveals, “They talked of the
experiments of Dr. Darwin . . . who preserved a piece of vermicelli in a glass case, till by some
extraordinary means it began to move with voluntary motion.” She goes on to speculate that
galvanism (electricity) was the extraordinary means.9 All theories need testing so I bought some
vermicelli pasta, kept it in salt water in a test tube for a month and never saw any motion,
voluntary or otherwise. I also used a tesla coil to conduct “galvanism” through it to a fluorescent
bulb. The bulb lit and the vermicelli eventually began to cook, but never came to life.

“ Darwin’s bulldog,” Thomas Huxley, had a vision of himself on the early Earth as “a
witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from non-living matter.”6 In Huxley’s day, the cell
was blissfully considered simply a blob of protoplasm. Huxley also may have read Mary
Shelley’s subtitle to Frankenstein, “The Modern Prometheus.”9 Prometheus was the Greek
mythical Titan, who formed a man of clay then animated it. This myth may be the earliest
reference to abiogenesis, the animation of inorganic materials. In order not to leave that
possibility untried, I fashioned a clay man and directed the tesla coil spark over it to light the
bulb. The clay man was not animated.

Evolutionists currently invoke the “primeval soup” to expand the “warm little pond” into
a larger venue, the oceans. They aim to spontaneously generate the first cell so they must
thicken the salt water with (take a breath) polysaccharides, lipids, amino acids, alpha helixes,
polypeptide chains, assembled quaternary protein subunits and nucleotides, all poised to selfcombine
into functional cellular structures, energy systems, long-chain proteins and nucleic
acids.1 Then during an electrical storm, just the right mix of DNA, mRNA, ribosomes, cell
membranes and enzymes are envisioned in the right place at the right time and the first cell is
thunderbolted together and springs to life.5 That marvelous first cell, the story goes, filled the
oceans with progeny competing in incredible polysaccharide, lipid, amino acid, nucleotide and
cannibalistic feasts. The predators thereby thinned the soup to the watery oceans we have today
while the prey escaped by mystically transmuting themselves into the current complex animals
and plants, or perhaps vice versa because no one was there to record it. We are assured by the
disciples of Darwin and Huxley that the “once upon a pond” story to obtain a blob of
protoplasm is still sufficient for the spontaneous generation of the cell as we know it today. All
demur when asked for evidence. All balk when asked to reverse-engineer a cell in the laboratory
in spite of the fact that laboratories rival nature and reverse engineering is orders of magnitude
easier than engineering an original design. One wonders why they balk if cell stuff is so easily
self-generated and carbon molecules seem to have such an innate tendency to self-combine.

To test simply the alleged self-combining tendency of carbon, I placed one microliter of
India (lampblack) ink in 27 ml of distilled water. The ink streaked for the bottom of the test tube
where it formed a dark haze which completely diffused to an even shade of gray in 14 hours. The
carbon stayed diffused, not aggregated as when dropped on paper. At this simple level there is
no evidence that the “primeval soup” is anything but fanciful imagination.
In science, the burden of evidence is on the proposer of the theory. So although the
evolutionists have the burden of providing evidence for their fanciful tales, they take no
responsibility for a detailed account or for any evidence demonstrating feasibility. Contrarily,
they go so far as to imply that anyone holding them to the normal requirements of science is
feebleminded, deranged or evil. For example, Professor Richard Dawkins has been quoted as
saying, “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in
evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”7
Instead of taking proper responsibility for the burden of evidence, the evolutionist propagandizes
by the intimidation of name calling.

To set a better example, let us take up the evolutionist’s burden of evidence to see where
it leads. Our first observation is that apparently all functions in a living organism are based
largely upon the structures of its proteins. The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the
microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by
mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the
microbiology, information theory and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat.
Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein
common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion.
The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion
has 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second
from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of
the way to completion. Yockey concluded, “The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is
impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in
probability.”10

Richard Dawkins agreed with Yockey by stating, “Suppose we want to suggest, for
instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery
spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an
extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not
exceed 100 billion billion to one.”3 The 100 billion billion is 1020. So Dawkins’ own criterion for
impossible in probability, one chance in more than 1020, has been exceeded by 50 orders of
magnitude for only one molecule of one small protein. Now that Professor Dawkins has joined
the ranks of non-believers in evolution, politesse forbids inquiring whether he considers himself
“ ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.”

Let us proceed to criteria more stringent. For example, Borel stated that phenomena with
very small probabilities do not occur. He settled arbitrarily on the probability of one chance in
1050 as that small probability. Again according to this more stringent criterion, we see that
evolving one molecule of one protein would not occur by a wide margin, this time 25 orders of
magnitude.4

Let us go further. According to Dembski, Borel did not adequately distinguish those
highly improbable events properly attributed to chance from those properly attributed to
something else and Borel did not clarify what concrete numerical values correspond to small
probabilities. So Dembski repaired those deficiencies and formulated a criterion so stringent that
it jolts the mind. He estimated 1080 elementary particles in the universe and asked how many
times per second an event could occur. He found 1045. He then calculated the number of
seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by one
billion for 1025 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150 for his Law of
Small Probability.

I have not been able to find a criterion more stringent than Dembski’s one chance in 10150.
Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any
time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic
history. And if the specified event is not a regularity, as the origin of life is not, and if it is not
chance, as Dembski’s criterion and Yockey’s probability may prove it is not, then it must have
happened by design, the only remaining possibility.

Now to return to the probability of evolving one molecule of one protein as one chance in
1075, we see that it does not satisfy Dembski’s criterion of one chance in 10150. The
simultaneous availability of two molecules of one protein may satisfy the criterion, but they
would be far from the necessary complement to create a living cell. For a minimal cell, 60,000
proteins of 100 different configurations would be needed.5,8 If these raw materials could be
evolved at the same time, and if they were not more complex on average to evolve than the iso-1-
cytochrome c molecule, and if these proteins were stacked at the cell’s construction site, then we
may make a gross underestimation of what the chances would be to evolve that first cell. That
probability is one chance in more than 104,478,296, a number that numbs the mind because it has
4,478,296 zeros. If we consider one chance in 10150 as the standard for impossible, then the
evolution of the first cell is more than 104,478,146 times more impossible in probability than that
standard.

Reproduction may be called a regularity because billions of people have witnessed billions
of new individuals arising that way, and in no other way, for thousands of years. The origin of
life was a unique event and certainly not a regularity. Therefore, according to the mathematical
logicians, the only possibilities left are that life either was generated by chance or by deliberate
design. The standard for impossible eliminated evolution so the only remaining possibility is that
life was designed into existence. The probability of the correctness of this conclusion is the
inverse of the probability that eliminated evolution, that is, 104,478,296 chances to one.
Although the certainty of design has been demonstrated beyond doubt, science cannot
identify the designer. Given a designer with the intelligence to construct a cell and all life forms,
it is not logical that he would construct only one cell and leave the rest to chance. The only
logical possibility is that the designer would design and build the entire structure, the entire
biosphere, to specified perfection. That seems to be as far as science can go.
Life was designed. It did not evolve. The certainty of these conclusions is 104,478,296 (1
followed by 4,478,296 zeros) to one. This evidence suggests a Designer who designed and built
the entire biosphere and, for it to function, the entire universe. Primary and secondary sources
from history properly provide additional information on the Designer because the biological
sciences are not equal to that task .

References

1 Behe, Michael J. (1996) Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, New
York: Touchstone, pp. 262-268.
2 Darwin, F., ed (1888) The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, London: John Murray, vol. 1, p. 83.
3 Dawkins, Richard (1996) The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a
Universe Without Design, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., p. 146.
4 Dembski, William A. (1998) The Design Inference:Eliminating Chance Through Small
Probabilities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 5, 209, 210.
5 Denton, Michael (1986) Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Bethesda, Maryland: Adler&Adler, p. 263.
6 Huxley, Thomas H. (1870) “Biogenesis and Abiogenesis” in (1968) Collected Essays of Thomas.H.
Huxley, vol. 8, Discourses Biological and Geological, New York: Greenwood Press., p.256.
7 Johnson, Phillip E. (1993) Darwin On Trial, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, p.9.
8 Morowitz, H.J. (1966) “The Minimum Size of Cells” in Principles of Biomolecular Organization,
eds G.E.W. Wostenholme and M. O’Connor, London: J.A. Churchill, pp. 446-459.
9 Shelley, Mary W. (1831) Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus, London: Henry Colburn and
Richard Bentley, Introduction, p.9.
10 Yockey, Hubert P. (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 255, 257.


~~~~~~~

The thought of Darwin imagining life starting in some little pond in the indeterminate past reminds me of another 60's song, which began, "What a day for a daydream, what a day for a daydreamin' boy..."  John Sebastian and the Lovin' Spoonful.   Too bad Charles Darwin could not have confined his daydreams to a girl rather than a hypothesis which has been rendered an instrument of evil by antitheists around the world. 

This is just one tidbit from a terrific site that Darwinists avoid like the plague.  None of them have dared follow through on the challenge from the good doctor lest they lose a great deal of money!  Imagine that.

Let us clarify the differences between objective and subjective evidence.   What if I wander the North side of Chicago and ask people "which is the best baseball team, Cubs or White Sox?Most will name the Cubs.   Should I wander off to the South side of the city, the answer would normally be White Sox.   These people would have opinions and express their beliefs.   Now, if we had done this in the year 2005, after everyone gave me their subjective opinion, I could have provided objective evidence - The White Sox won 99 games out of 162 versus the Cubs 79 victories in 162 games.  The White Sox won through the playoffs to the World Series, where they were victorious and were crowned MLB Champions for the year 2005.  Objectively, in 2005, the Sox were better.  As I write this, in 2010 the White Sox have won 55 games and are in first place in their division, while the Cubs have won 46 games and are in fourth place in their division.  So both then and now, I would have objective evidence that the White Sox are a better team.   Objective evidence for evolution would be, for instance, a demonstration of life arising from non-life or one kind of animal having become another kind or for a simple organism to become a more complex organism via chance occurrence.  All of these things are part of the Darwinist belief system but not one of them has been observed to happen. 

You Darwinists make assumptions that you prefer to believe and call it theory or even fact.  When asked to present one piece of objective evidence for evolution actually happening, you fail completely.  You simply come up with longer and more convulated subjective just-so stories.  Then you jump up and down and call names and write in big bold letters while continuing to "epic fail".  Common sense and statistics and Occam's Razor and abiogenesis and the Biblical account of creation all stand on one side of the question.  Findings about the inner workings of the cell and the amazing inherent abilities of various kinds of organisms that defy random chance are all around us.   Not one piece of objective evidence for Darwnism can be found to exist.  Not one commenter has provided any observed macroevolution or other objective evidence that Darwinism might be labeled anything other than a failed hypothesis of a less-informed generation of men unfamiliar with modern science and the actual concept of the complexity of the cell and the reproductive process.

Why do I bother writing this blog?  A recent quote noted at creation.com is the answer:

“Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American school is a school of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school's meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?” (Charles F. Potter, “Humanism: A New Religion,” 1930)
and from Karl Priest's website:
By the time a child graduates from high school, they will have spent 14,000 seat hours in school; the largest block of time spent doing any one activity in their life, other than sleeping. Whoever controls those 14,000 hours effectively controls how the child's world-view is shaped. John Dewey, Charles Potter, and other political radicals have known this since the 1930's, and this is a major reason that so many social radicals have gone into education (Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorne are good examples); they knew whoever controlled the school curriculum controlled the worldview of the kids going through it. As Abraham Lincoln once said, "The philosophy of education in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next." Thus, these radicals knew that the way to change the course of government was to indoctrinate the school children into their way of thinking. ( get in the battle

As it was in 1930, so it is in 2010.  Darwinist ignorance still prevails in public schools, but parents and church leaders and individual scientists of all disciplines are rising up against the ruling paradigm.  Tyranny is the enemy of freedom in all of its forms and by any label.   I am thankful for guys like Joseph Mastropaolo who have drawn specific lines in the sand and dared Darwinists to cross so that the world can see, should they care to look, who actually has science on their side and who is simply propped up by mounds of propaganda.

I taught my children to think critically, learn everything that the school teachers teach you and compare it to what I teach you.   I taught them to regurgitate the nonsense they were given on tests but to speak up for themselves in class and in essays.   All of my kids were honor roll students and I did not mind sending them to the local public school because it had a Christian principal and teachers allowed students to speak their minds (or the Dad was going to come down for a talk one on one) without being penalized with an F.  Most public schools are simply humanist thought factories and there are forces at work to change our local schools but thankfully all of my kids are graduates of high school (and two of them intend to teach in public schools as believing Christians in the fields of English and History, yahoo!) and have moved on to college or beyond into careers and marriages and begun cranking out grandchildren.   Grandchildren who are being taught to learn the Darwinist propaganda but believe the truth.  The responsible parent makes sure he is involved intimately in the education of his children or he is foolish indeed!


Children want rules and limits, even if they fight about them.  They want to be taught a set of rules and a belief system based on absolutes.   It is innate within us to want the parents to set a standard of both knowledge and behavior.   If you teach your children and care about them, you will instill within them the values that will allow them, as adults, to set their own rules and then teach their own children from their own core value set.  I am most happy that my children read my blog and that my students read it as well.  


This blog sometimes serves as part of a lesson plan for students and occasionally I publish part of a lesson on the blog since I am making up a powerpoint anyway.   Yes, commenters, I am one of those pesky creationists, teaching children and even adults to believe in creation by God rather than Chance, the Evolution Fairy!

131 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

Impressive, Radar. It must take real talent to screw up the headline permalink in a Blogspot post.

Mastropaolo's challenge has been met twice: McLean v. Arkansas, 1981, and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board, 2005. Naturally, he never paid off.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, commenters, I am one of those pesky creationists, teaching children and even adults to believe in creation by God rather than Chance, the Evolution Fairy!"

Can we take it that this is at your local church, rather than an educational institution?

Anonymous said...

"$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical. It is predicted that this prize also will go unclaimed indefinitely because there is no such thing as a homologue, or an evolution sequence, or micro-evolution, or macro-evolution, or mosaic characteristics, or a common ancestor, by reason of the fact that all living things are devolving, dynamically engineered, unique inventions of omniscient originality. See Biology for the 21st Century and the Life Science Prize Tested Devolution, Evolution, and Genesis, 2005, p. 16. (Originality Prize offered on 3-18-07.)"

So any pair of identical twins can go and claim this prize?

Seriously, what makes the person who's putting up the prize (or Mr. Radar who chose to copy and paste this stuff) think that this has anything to do with evolution or "Darwinism"? Modern biology and the theory of evolution is based on the assumption that all phenotypes are not identical but slightly different.

Better creationists please.

Anonymous said...

The author of the paper that Radar pasted here may be forgiven for being unaware of recent work in abiogenesis, for the simple and obvious reason that as far as I gather most of that research took place after he wrote the paper, but the work of Dr. Jack Szostak that was linked here recently has obviously not been taken into account by Radar himself. And how could it, when he's wearing blinders the size of baseball mitts.

Chaos Engineer said...

What a shame that you got stuck with Dr. Mastropaolo as a cleanup batter! To build on your metaphor: Not only did he strike out in an especially comical fashion, but he deliberately hit the umpire over the head with a baseball bat and caused his team to forfeit the game.

(I mean, honestly! The flaws in all those "probability" arguments have been pointed out again and again. And "I put a drop of India Ink in a glass of water overnight and noting evolved from it" is just embarrassing.)

Also, did you spot the glowing references to Intelligent Design Creationist William Dembski? Prof. Dembski's written a new book called "The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World". ("End" in this context means "Goal", like in "Means to an end".)

I haven't read it, but I've read a summary and a few of the reviews at Amazon. Prof. Dembski has abandoned Creationism in favor of a form of Theistic Evolution. (Where the Fall echoed backwards in time and retroactively replaced the Garden of Eden with a harsh, evolved world.)

It seems like the Creationist house of cards has finally started to crumble and now the rats are slithering off as if it were also a sinking ship. I'm going to predict that within then next 10 years, Creationism will be completely discredited, and no one will believe it but the usual gang of don't-confuse-me-with-the-facts xenophobes.

Anonymous said...

"Prof. Dembski has abandoned Creationism in favor of a form of Theistic Evolution."

IIRC Dembski is an IDer, not a creationist, and ID tends to be a form of theistic evolution. They accept evolution to quite an extent, but focus on elements like irreducible complexity, where they then attempt to wedge in a "designer of the gaps".

To be fair, IDers aren't saddled with having to be in denial about large swaths of science the way YECs are.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Can we take it that this is at your local church, rather than an educational institution?"

Any response to that, Radar?

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Creeper, in my experience 'Intelligent Design' as espoused by the Disco Institute is a very different animal from 'Theistic Evolution.' Theistic Evolution says "God Created using evolution." ID says "God Created instead of evolution." Big difference.

Chaos Engineer: "Prof. Dembski has abandoned Creationism in favor of a form of Theistic Evolution. (Where the Fall echoed backwards in time and retroactively replaced the Garden of Eden with a harsh, evolved world.)"

Hmm, now that's a variant I haven't encountered before.

Anonymous said...

For Anonymous.

Identical twins cannot claim the prize because they are identical in name only. Their fingerprints, iris patterns, and personalities amongst other characteristics prove each is an original, not a duplicate.



Evolution has no brain and therefore cannot make originals. Evolution depends on mutations which are morbid and fatal.



Better educated critics please.



Abiogenesis was disproven in 1668. You are 340 years out
of date.

Godspeed,
Joseph

Anonymous said...

For Chaos Engineer. <"I put a drop of India Ink in a glass of water overnight and noting evolved from it" is just embarrassing.>

How delightful that an evolutionist feels embarassed for the stupid claims evolutionists publish.



In 10 years, the evolution censorship will be so shredded that only Draconian persecutions will keep it in place.

Godspeed,
Joseph

Anonymous said...

For creeper.



The Life Science Prize is YEC. Go for it, creeper. If your “large swaths of science” are anything real, then you should be a millionaire in 6 months or less.

Godspeed,
Joseph

Anonymous said...

For Jon Woolf.

Do you mean Brian Alters # 103, Barbara Forrest # 10, John Haught # 42, Kenneth Miller # 17, Kevin Padian # 139, Robert Pennock # 135, and Michael Ruse # 26 on the Default Judgment List (http://www.lifescienceprize.org )?

These were the "expert" witnesses in the trials you mention, trials that permitted opinions. The Life Science Prize only permits scientific evidence and that is why for 8 years not one evolutionist has had to be paid. Evolution is not science, it is anti-science opinion.

Godspeed,
Joseph

radar said...

"Can we take it that this is at your local church, rather than an educational institution?"

Any response to that, Radar?

-- creeper

Have I taught in church? Yes. Have I taught in other venues? Yes. I have taught at meetings, youth groups, school sessions, conferences and 12-step programs. I have been sent out on video and audio. I have worked on and edited manuals and materials for an institute of learning. I might be sneaking around your virtual neighborhood right now! Oh, no!! Better keep an eye...

radar said...

Really Woolf, Kitzmiller again? Jim Jones copied material from a Rolling Stone reporter that was taken right from the ACLU brief as part of his opinion.

How about telling us that you also would like to share with us a manual on loving leadership by Josef Stalin, learning to live with grace and dignity by Rod Blagoevich or maybe how to be a brilliant conversationalist by Richard Dawkins?

radar said...

Joseph,

Ruse was the guy in Expelled who kept talking about life beginnning "on the backs of crystals" over and over? Yep, that sure is science for you...

radar said...

Hey Woolf and creeper, stay tuned, we may have a way to make a little money together...coming to a blog post near you!

Anonymous said...

oh snap.

- Canucklehead.

radar said...

I am not afraid to use an article by Dembski where he is discussing a point concerning ID, or to use Dr. Russell Humphreys on some subjects or even Dr. Hugh Ross. I do not vet people to be certain that they believe exactly as I do, I simply check out what they say on a particular matter and share it if I think it is germane to the ongoing discussion.

You Darwinists will go to court claiming that William Dembski and other people from the Discovery Institute are just creationists hiding behind a new name, and then turn around and use Dembski as an argument because he is NOT a creationist? All I can say is it is a good thing for people like Ruse that they didn't have to adhere to the rules of the Lifescience challenge, because he would be out ten grand. I am not sure if this is blatant hypocrisy or just good old dumb. You cannot use Dembski on both sides of the argument. If all ID'ers are just creationists according to sworn court testimony by Darwinists, then those Darwinists must therefore be perjurers? Right?

radar said...

Nice, Joseph. Succinct and factual answers. Thanks for the comments! Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo is an actual scientist so now you are messing with a big dog...

"Joseph Mastropaolo has a B.S., M.S., Ph.D. in kinesiology and a three-year Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship with the National Heart Institute of the National Institutes of Health in human physiology (possibly the equivalent of the European habilitation). As Aerospace Physiologist for Douglas Space Systems, he published two monographs on life in space, one for humans and one for experimental animals. He received two Vice Presidential Awards, one for Aerospace Safety and one for Aerospace Medicine. He taught biomechanics and physiology at California State University, Long Beach for 26 years and was the physiologist for the Gossamer Condor and Gossamer Albatross human powered flight projects which earned a medal in physiology from the Royal Aeronautical Society for the Kremer Cross Channel Challenge. He built five unique laboratories and was principal investigator for 17 grants to support the pure and applied research that resulted in the publication of 22 science articles in peer reviewed science journals."

Chaos Engineer said...

Jon: Hmm, now that's a variant I haven't encountered before.

Yes. Actually I think I came up with that idea a couple of years ago and posted it somewhere, so I'm going to fantasize that Prof. Dembski stole it from me.

(I was inspired by a line in one of Neil Gaiman's "Sandman" comix. To set the scene, the Immortal Personification of Delirium needs to talk to Lucifer, who has resigned as King of Hell and is now running a nightclub in LA, abandoned by all of his followers except for the Demoness Mazikeen.)

(So the line is: "Hmph. If you don't let me in, I will turn you into a demon half-face waitress night-club lady with a crush on her boss, and I'll make it so you've been that from the beginning of time to now and you'll never ever know if you were anything else and it will itch inside your head worse than little bugses.")

Anyway, it seems like a good idea at first glance, but it only explains the lack of physical evidence for Creation Week. He still needs to explain the lack of physical evidence for the Flood, and the Tower of Babel, and probably some other stuff.

Radar: You cannot use Dembski on both sides of the argument. If all ID'ers are just creationists according to sworn court testimony by Darwinists, then those Darwinists must therefore be perjurers?

I haven't read the book, but the impression I get is that Prof. Dembski is still an Intelligent Design Creationist but he's not as attached to the idea as he used to be. He's maybe in the process of changing his mind.

Jon Woolf said...

Radar, your side got a hearing before an impartial court in 1981, in McLean v. Arkansas. Do you know anything about that case? Probably not, because it sounds like you converted to creationism after that. Look it up, you'll find it instructive. McLean was perhaps the best chance creationists have ever had to get a fair hearing. It was a Bible Belt state, Act 590 was drafted with great care, and the defense had some of the biggest names in creation-science available as witnesses.

What happened? The pro-science side trampled the creationists into the ground. The senior creationists ran for cover, and the defense collapsed. After a lengthy trial, Judge William Overton ruled that "creation science" was religion, not science, and could not be taught in a public school science classroom.

Oh wait, Judge Overton was a [shudder] Carter appointee. Obviously a dirty lowdown no-good yellabelly librul, couldn't be trusted to give ya the time o'day.

So 25 years later, the fools in Dover tried again, with "intelligent design." This time they lucked out and got a conservative judge -- a good Christian, a good Republican, a man with a history of legal, fiscal, and social conservatism (check his record on the Pennsy state liquor board if you don't believe me).

So what happened? Same thing again. Five of eight defense witnesses ran for cover, and again the pro-science side ran roughshod over the defense's feeble, pathetic whining about "lack of evidence for evolution." They documented everything they talked about. They blew the defense case to smithereens even before the defense had presented it. They convinced the judge. They convinced the trial-watchers. They also convinced the people of Dover, who threw out the creationist school board in the next election.

You're 0 for 2, Radar. And the reason nobody bothers with Mastro's little grandstanding challenge is that they know it wouldn't do any good. If your side lost, you'd blame a biased judge or some other excuse, and continue telling the same old discredited lies. Don't bother denying it, you know as well as I do that's exactly what would happen. You didn't respect Overton's opinion, you didn't respect Jones's decision -- why would you respect any other judge's opinion ... unless, of course, he ruled in your favor?

Mastropaolo is a con man, and his challenge is a scam.

Anonymous said...

Joseph,

"Identical twins cannot claim the prize because they are identical in name only. Their fingerprints, iris patterns, and personalities amongst other characteristics prove each is an original, not a duplicate."

So what they're looking for are identical "originals"? And what exactly makes them think that that is something that the theory of evolution would predict?

I'm curious because it strikes me as a completely novel reading of the theory of evolution as well as all of modern biology, which would predict that evolution results in a large number of phenotypes that are patently not identical, but each have slight variations.

The closest the wording of that pointless prize would come would in fact be identical twins, but for some reason not specified in the wording of the Life Science Prize itself, they don't count.

WIth such nonsensical wording, it's no wonder that the Default Judgment List is a mile long - it should be, since any scientist should of course avoid such a bizarre challenge.

"Evolution has no brain and therefore cannot make originals."

Non sequitur.

"Evolution depends on mutations which are morbid and fatal."

Quite the opposite. Mutations that are morbid and fatal are discarded as they will not pass the filter of natural selection and will not be passed on to future generations. Evolution depends on mutations that are beneficial, rare as they may be.

Better educated critics please.

And to show off your own superior education, you come up with the following?

"Abiogenesis was disproven in 1668. You are 340 years out of date."

And you appear stuck in some past century where the distinction between abiogenesis and biogenesis was not understood - even though the difference can be easily found if you google around a little.

For the umpteenth time, what Pasteur and his predecessors proved was that fairly advanced life forms (they were talking about mice, maggots, fungi) could not form spontaneously. They were talking about things like putting a glass dome over a piece of rotting meat to demonstrate that maggots came from flies, not out of thin air.

It has nothing to do with abiogenesis, which is of course the study of very simple forms of life being formed in chemical processes and then slowly evolving, which is far from disproven and indeed interesting progress is made in this field today.

"How delightful that an evolutionist feels embarassed for the stupid claims evolutionists publish."

How delightful that a creationist thinks that evolutionists publish claims that "carbon self-combines" in a jar of Indian ink overnight.

"In 10 years, the evolution censorship will be so shredded that only Draconian persecutions will keep it in place.

Ah yes, the usual delusions of imminent victory.

BTW, are you the "Joseph" from the Life Science Prize or some other Joseph?

Either way:

Better creationists please, indeed.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Have I taught in church? Yes. Have I taught in other venues? Yes. I have taught at meetings, youth groups, school sessions, conferences and 12-step programs. I have been sent out on video and audio. I have worked on and edited manuals and materials for an institute of learning. I might be sneaking around your virtual neighborhood right now! Oh, no!! Better keep an eye..."

So no educational institutions then, phew.

But what, what's this about "working on and editing manuals and materials for an institute of learning"? I'm guessing it's a creationist website, right?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Joseph Mastropaolo has a B.S., M.S., Ph.D. in kinesiology and a three-year Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship with the National Heart Institute of the National Institutes of Health in human physiology (possibly the equivalent of the European habilitation). As Aerospace Physiologist for Douglas Space Systems, he published two monographs on life in space, one for humans and one for experimental animals. He received two Vice Presidential Awards, one for Aerospace Safety and one for Aerospace Medicine. He taught biomechanics and physiology at California State University, Long Beach for 26 years and was the physiologist for the Gossamer Condor and Gossamer Albatross human powered flight projects which earned a medal in physiology from the Royal Aeronautical Society for the Kremer Cross Channel Challenge. He built five unique laboratories and was principal investigator for 17 grants to support the pure and applied research that resulted in the publication of 22 science articles in peer reviewed science journals."

The usual appeal to authority (the counterpart to a good old ad hominem). But all the qualifications don't mean squat when what comes out of his mouth (or virtual pen) are some of the nonsensical statements presented above.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

So, in addition to giving you permission to publish his work on your blog, did Mastropaolo also give you permission to use him as yet another sock puppet in the comments section? Nice try Radar, AKA American vet, AKA "regmend"... You had me for a minute there. But come on, as if the good Doctor would use your very own tired "pasteur abiogenisis" line. Or wouldn't have some kind of fancy Blogger user-name linked directly to his equally fancy website. Seriously Radar. Fool me once...

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

You know, that pasted Mastropaolo article above is so comedically incompetent that it's actually good ammo to demonstrate how utterly unserious creationists can be about science. Definitely a keeper, if not in a way that Mastropaolo would be proud of.

Anonymous said...

Radar.

I am disappointed. Like their 363,000 evolution comrades, your critics are bereft of any science. All they seem capable of contributing are kindergarten insults and name-calling. Pity. Let me know if any of them convert to science.

Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

radar said...

American Vet is the identity on one of my computers.

Joseph Mastropaolo writes his own comments, he is hardly a "sock puppet."

Keep it coming, you are saying so many idiotic things I will get another post or two just from recent comments. Nothing like intentional ignorance and fact-free name-calling for a Darwinist to resort to as they seem bereft of evidence.

highboy said...

"Can we take it that this is at your local church, rather than an educational institution?"

Educational institutions don't teach creation by chance. They don't teach "creation by" anything. They don't deal with the subject at all and if they do they're pretty arrogant and way over their heads. If they teach science, they can't possibly deal with the issue at all.

highboy said...

As for abiogenesis, creeper and I discussed this before and it frankly didn't score the point any agnostic/evolutionist may perceive. It explains a process by which life may become life but doesn't explain the "why" or the "cause".

Anonymous said...

Hmmmm... Things are just getting curiouser and curiouser around here. So this "Dr. J" posts a very Radar like comment (in that the writer decides it's much more prudent at this point to cut-and-run instead of actually answering the commenters with that "science" he appears to be so fond of) and then minutes later Radar posts something in an attempt to "verify" that this anonymous poster is Mastropaolo? Yeah right, Kimbal.

That said, I suppose if it is Mastropaolo, we can just add his name to the growing list of creationists that don't have the stones to debate Creeper, Jon, Chaos, etc. Come on Dr. J, if that is your real name, if you're as tough a debater as you say you are on your website, a couple amateur scientists on the internet shouldn't be too much of a challenge for someone of your stature, now should it? That said, if your answer is to ignore said challenges because us lowly "Radaractive commenters" are too insignificant to warrant a response from you, perhaps you can begin to understand the responses ,or lackthereof, by every prominent "Evolutionist" in existence, to your own "challenges". Makes you think doesn't it Dr, J?

Oh and Radar why were you so quick to punt this post from the top spot when, by your own account, we have the actual author of the cut-and-pasted article in question making an appearance in the comments section. Was your ridiculous fruit fly post that important, when we consider your apparently distinguished guest commenting live on an article he apparently wrote? I mean, at the very least it's not very polite, now is it?

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

"As for abiogenesis, creeper and I discussed this before and it frankly didn't score the point any agnostic/evolutionist may perceive. It explains a process by which life may become life but doesn't explain the "why" or the "cause"."

When you're explained why a cloud gathers and makes rain and thunder and lightning, do you complain about the "why" or the "cause" not being explained? It seems to me you're imposing a religious viewpoint on a scientific explanation. Perhaps asking yourself why you wouldn't ask the same of an explanation of rain can make this clear.

The hypothesis provided for abiogenesis is a scientific one based on chemical and physical processes. It doesn't enter into the metaphysical.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"I am disappointed. Like their 363,000 evolution comrades, your critics are bereft of any science. All they seem capable of contributing are kindergarten insults and name-calling. Pity. Let me know if any of them convert to science.

Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo


Joseph,

perhaps you were so blinded by "kindergarten insults" and "name-calling" that you may have missed some factual rebuttals against your claims.

1. The theory of evolution does not predict the creation of "identical originals". Please explain why you think this is the case.

2. Re. abiogenesis: what was disproven in 1668 was not the possibility of life arising from non-life, but the possibility of complex life (e.g. mice, maggots, fungi) arising spontaneously. What the studies at the time did not address, of course - seeing as this was centuries before Darwin's theory of evolution and, later on, microbiology - was the potential creation of very simple life that could then evolve.

Surely we wouldn't get very far if we were held back by things that were supposedly "disproven" centuries ago. Radar, the purveyor of this blog, has repeatedly made similar nonsensical claims, in our opinion in an effort to deceive, seeing as the difference has been pointed out to him numerous times in extremely simple terms, and he has never managed to rebut us on this issue.

3. "Evolution depends on mutations which are morbid and fatal."

Quite the opposite. Mutations that are morbid and fatal are discarded as they will not pass the filter of natural selection and will not be passed on to future generations. Evolution depends on mutations that are beneficial, rare as they may be.

4. "Evolution has no brain and therefore cannot make originals."

Non sequitur. Yes, evolution has no brain, but the second part doesn't necessarily follow. But to discuss the issue properly, please explain what you mean by "originals". I'm especially puzzled by how you see this fitting into your life science prize.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"When you're explained why a cloud gathers and makes rain and thunder and lightning, do you complain about the "why" or the "cause" not being explained? It seems to me you're imposing a religious viewpoint on a scientific explanation. Perhaps asking yourself why you wouldn't ask the same of an explanation of rain can make this clear."

When you proposed abiogenesis in the previous discussion I was referring to it was in answer to my question as to why life becomes life. You gave me a youtube link going over the abiogenesis explanation of the process, but not what drives the process. I must have just misunderstood the reason behind your posting it.

Anonymous said...

"You gave me a youtube link going over the abiogenesis explanation of the process, but not what drives the process. I must have just misunderstood the reason behind your posting it."

Highboy, what drives the process described in the youtube link is physics and chemistry, that's all.

Were you looking for a conscious intelligence behind it, or something else that "controls" it somehow?

The reason behind my posting it was just to show a simple presentation of a current avenue in researching abiogenesis.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"The reason behind my posting it was just to show a simple presentation of a current avenue in researching abiogenesis."

Like I said, I misunderstood what point you were making by posting it.

Anonymous said...

Did I misunderstand something, or did Mr. "Godspeed" just breeze in here, dump some outdated talking points and name-calling on the carpet and then depart without defending the logic of his prize?

My, creationism is in a sorry state.

Anonymous said...

<1. The theory of evolution does not predict the creation of "identical originals". Please explain why you think this is the case.>
There is no theory of evolution. The entire universe is devolving, always has, always will.
Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

"<1. The theory of evolution does not predict the creation of "identical originals". Please explain why you think this is the case.>
There is no theory of evolution. The entire universe is devolving, always has, always will."


Could you explain why you offer a "$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical"? What do you think "two or more living things that are identical" would prove or disprove?

"There is no theory of evolution."

You clearly disagree with the theory of evolution, but if you want to deny its very existence, then you're not being very coherent.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

8-3-10

No, not I, the universe. The universe is devolving, the exact opposite of evolving, always has and always will. There is no evolution anywhere in the universe, never has been and never will be.
Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

Your hollow assertions are oh so impressive. It's duly noted that you dismiss a great deal of scientific evidence without troubling yourself with factual rebuttals.

In the meantime, what is the scientific evidence for devolution?

And perhaps you missed the question in the comment immediately preceding yours. Don't feel like answering?

Anonymous said...

There is no theory of evolution. The entire universe is devolving, always has, always will.

"You clearly disagree with the theory of evolution,"

No, not I, the universe. The universe is devolving, the exact opposite of evolving, always has and always will. There is no evolution anywhere in the universe, never has been and never will be.

"Your hollow assertions are oh so impressive."
No, not mine. The entire universe.

"what is the scientific evidence for devolution? "
Are you ignorant, a mercenary, or hallucinating?

Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

"Are you ignorant, a mercenary, or hallucinating?"

I'm either none, some or all of the above; the same goes for you.

Joseph, are you seriously not capable of answering these very straightforward questions?

1. What is the scientific evidence for devolution? You seem quite convinced of devolution. Is this for religious reasons, or can you cite some scientific evidence for devolution?

2. Could you explain why you offer a "$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical"? What do you think "two or more living things that are identical" would prove or disprove?

Anonymous said...

8-3-10
<1. The theory of evolution does not predict the creation of "identical originals".>
There is no theory of evolution. The entire universe is devolving, always has, always will.

"You clearly disagree with the theory of evolution,"

No, not I, the universe. The universe is devolving, the exact opposite of evolving, always has and always will. There is no evolution anywhere in the universe, never has been and never will be.

"Your hollow assertions are oh so impressive."
No, not mine. The entire universe.

"what is the scientific evidence for devolution? "
Are you ignorant, a mercenary, or hallucinating?

"I'm either none, some or all of the above"
Are you (1) ignorant, or (2) a mercenary, or (3) hallucinating, or (4) an ignorant mercenary, or (5) an ignorant hallucinator, or (6) a hallucinating mercenary, or (7) an ignorant hallucinating mercenary?

Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

So, uh, Radar - what do you make of this little houseguest of yours? Proud of him?

Anonymous said...

Joseph,

So you are indeed NOT willing or capable of answering the above questions, if I'm understanding you correctly.At this point, you're defaulting on the argument.

Be on your way, you've done enough damage to your host.

Definitely better creationists please. This is one of the most embarrassing I've seen yet.

Anonymous said...

Kudos to Highboy for at least being honest about the utterances of Joseph Mastropaolo. And I will defend Highboy on this point: he has been agnostic on the YEC/OEC divide. Why he would be agnostic re. young Earth claims is something I'll happily explore with him in times to come.

But in the meantime: Hawkeye, Radar, do you endorse Matropaolo's comments above? Would you like him to answer the pretty straightforward questions above - or if Mastropaolo doesn't feel like doing it himself, do you think you could?

And man, Radar, I really don't think you were expecting Mastropaolo to stink up the place like this. I never bought the accusations that Mastropaolo was a sockpuppet, but just like yourself he appears completely incapable of defending his position. Repeatedly. There's just nothing there.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"I never bought the accusations that Mastropaolo was a sockpuppet, but just like yourself he appears completely incapable of defending his position"

Actually, I take that back, Radar. Mastropaolo makes you seem like a master of scientific debate. So feel free to fill in for his deficits.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

8-3-10
<1. The theory of evolution does not predict the creation of "identical originals".>
There is no theory of evolution. The entire universe is devolving, always has, always will.

"You clearly disagree with the theory of evolution,"

No, not I, the universe. The universe is devolving, the exact opposite of evolving, always has and always will. There is no evolution anywhere in the universe, never has been and never will be.

"Your hollow assertions are oh so impressive."
No, not mine. The entire universe.

"what is the scientific evidence for devolution? "
Are you ignorant, a mercenary, or hallucinating?

"I'm either none, some or all of the above"
Are you (1) ignorant, or (2) a mercenary, or (3) hallucinating, or (4) an ignorant mercenary, or (5) an ignorant hallucinator, or (6) a hallucinating mercenary, or (7) an ignorant hallucinating mercenary?

"I'm either none, some or all of the above"
A good answer is matched to the intellect of the interrogator. You want to know "what is the scientific evidence for devolution? " I am willing to tell you and I am willing spell out the choices you wanted to describe yourself for your answer: Are you (1) ignorant, or (2) a mercenary, or (3) hallucinating, or (4) an ignorant mercenary, or (5) an ignorant hallucinator, or (6) a hallucinating mercenary, or (7) an ignorant hallucinating mercenary? Tell which one you are and I'll answer appropriately.
Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

highboy said...

Okay due to the childish crap in the last comment there, its pretty evident Joseph whatshis is nothing more than a troll. Radar, while I don't see your posts in the negative light as most of your dissenters, Joseph sure isn't doing you any favors.

Joseph: go do something productive like color a book or look at some flash cards. You and canucklehead have a lot in common.

creeper: any time you like we can discuss the yec/oec thing, but the reality is that I plead ignorance and that is the reason for the agnostic position in this debate. For one, I really don't care about the age of the earth. Its not that its not interesting, but that its not important for me that the earth be a certain age. Second, as again you and I have discussed, when it comes to reading material and sources on the subject, its a matter of credibility. Your side has most of the degrees while the yec side has the same Christian worldview as me and this makes a lot of their arguments enticing. But just because their fellow Christians doesn't mean their science is correct, but neither am I willing to just concede to any scientist simply because they have a better college endorsement. I'm quite capable of knowing when I'm in over my head in any particular subject, and being honest is my highest priority. While my presentation and tact may be questionable at times, my honesty I feel has been 100%. I simply don't have the guts at this point to take one position over the other. I'm simply not that confident ye

Anonymous said...

Joseph,

I am none of the above. I don't understand why this should matter to you, but whatever.

To jog your memory, here are the questions again:

1. What is the scientific evidence for devolution? You seem quite convinced of devolution. Is this for religious reasons, or can you cite some scientific evidence for devolution?

2. Could you explain why you offer a "$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical"? What do you think "two or more living things that are identical" would prove or disprove?

... though I have to say, I kinda suspect what your answers are going to be. There's a certain, shall we say, predictability to your comments.

Anonymous said...

Highboy,

I completely understand what you're saying in your last paragraph, and I appreciate your honesty. I don't think YEC is married to a belief in God, and when I argue with Radar and Hawkeye about YEC or the theory of evolution, it is not a belief in God that I am attacking, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions. On the contrary, it is always Radar who links an acceptance of modern science (be it geology, the theory of evolution, abiogenesis, the Big Bang) with a certain religious stance (or rather absence thereof), even though it has been demonstrated to him countless times that, for example, an acceptance of the theory of evolution runs across multiple faiths even forming a majority in many religions.

As for this Joseph character, Radar, is there any way you can verify that the author of the comments on this post is actually Joseph Mastropaolo of the Life Sciences Prize? Would Mr. Mastropaolo perhaps wish to disclaim that these comments are his?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"You and canucklehead have a lot in common."

Now now. I know you don't like Canucklehead, but he has never posted anything as inane as the caricature-like comments posted by "Joseph" in the comments above.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"Now now. I know you don't like Canucklehead, but he has never posted anything as inane as the caricature-like comments posted by "Joseph" in the comments above."

I don't know, its pretty close. He has that ridiculous habit of never actually posting any facts, just logs on long enough to insult radar's arguments without actually providing any of his own. C'mon creeper, they're both trolls, just canucklehead always sides with evolution, which is why no one calls him on his ridiculous and childish posts.

Anonymous said...

8-3-10
<1. The theory of evolution does not predict the creation of "identical originals".>
There is no theory of evolution. The entire universe is devolving, always has, always will.

"You clearly disagree with the theory of evolution,"

No, not I, the universe. The universe is devolving, the exact opposite of evolving, always has and always will. There is no evolution anywhere in the universe, never has been and never will be.

"Your hollow assertions are oh so impressive."
No, not mine. The entire universe.

"what is the scientific evidence for devolution? "
Are you ignorant, a mercenary, or hallucinating?

"I'm either none, some or all of the above"
Are you (1) ignorant, or (2) a mercenary, or (3) hallucinating, or (4) an ignorant mercenary, or (5) an ignorant hallucinator, or (6) a hallucinating mercenary, or (7) an ignorant hallucinating mercenary?

"I'm either none, some or all of the above"
A good answer is matched to the intellect of the interrogator. You want to know "what is the scientific evidence for devolution? " I am willing to tell you and I am willing spell out the choices you wanted to describe yourself for your answer: Are you (1) ignorant, or (2) a mercenary, or (3) hallucinating, or (4) an ignorant mercenary, or (5) an ignorant hallucinator, or (6) a hallucinating mercenary, or (7) an ignorant hallucinating mercenary? Tell which one you are and I'll answer appropriately.

"I am none of the above. I don't understand why this should matter to you, but whatever."

If you are none of the above, not ignorant, then you must know the answer to your question. A fish in water does not ask, "What is water?" A person in an entire universe universally devolving does not ask, "What is the scientific evidence for devolution?" Such an interrogator must be at least ignorant. Can such a person be at all conscious? Or is the person a mercenary or hallucinating?

What is your condition? I need to know in order to answer your question appropriately.

Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

Like I said, I kinda suspected what your answer was going to be. And I was right.

I guess we can take it that you are in fact not willing to contribute anything constructive to the conversation.

Kthxbye.

scohen said...

"A fish in water does not ask, "What is water?""

Ridiculous. Humans live in air and questioned its nature. Same goes for light. Sentient fish would, no doubt, ask "What is water?".

Anonymous said...

8-3-10
<1. The theory of evolution does not predict the creation of "identical originals".>
There is no theory of evolution. The entire universe is devolving, always has, always will.

"You clearly disagree with the theory of evolution,"

No, not I, the universe. The universe is devolving, the exact opposite of evolving, always has and always will. There is no evolution anywhere in the universe, never has been and never will be.

"Your hollow assertions are oh so impressive."
No, not mine. The entire universe.

"what is the scientific evidence for devolution? "
Are you ignorant, a mercenary, or hallucinating?

"I'm either none, some or all of the above"
Are you (1) ignorant, or (2) a mercenary, or (3) hallucinating, or (4) an ignorant mercenary, or (5) an ignorant hallucinator, or (6) a hallucinating mercenary, or (7) an ignorant hallucinating mercenary?

"I'm either none, some or all of the above"
A good answer is matched to the intellect of the interrogator. You want to know "what is the scientific evidence for devolution? " I am willing to tell you and I am willing to spell out the choices you wanted to describe yourself for your answer: Are you (1) ignorant, or (2) a mercenary, or (3) hallucinating, or (4) an ignorant mercenary, or (5) an ignorant hallucinator, or (6) a hallucinating mercenary, or (7) an ignorant hallucinating mercenary? Tell which one you are and I'll answer appropriately.

"I am none of the above. I don't understand why this should matter to you, but whatever."

If you are none of the above, not ignorant, then you must know the answer to your question. A fish in water does not ask, "What is water?" A person in an entire universe universally devolving does not ask, "What is the scientific evidence for devolution?" Such an interrogator must be at least ignorant. Can such a person be at all conscious? Or is the person a mercenary or hallucinating?

What is your condition? I need to know in order to answer your question appropriately.

"you are in fact not willing to contribute anything constructive to the conversation."
Merely say you are ignorant or a mercenary or hallucinating and I'll answer the question. Why are you afraid to say you are ignorant? Or a mercenary? If you are a mercenary, then be proud, not ashamed, of being a traitor to the truth.

Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

Mr. Mastropaolo, you really don't have answers to those questions, do you? In case it matters to you, you're really making a bad impression here, which is probably not what Radar intended.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Mastropaolo,

unless you are (a) ignorant and hallucinating at the same time, or (b) just ignorant, or (c) just hallucinating, or (d) all of the above, or (e) none of the above, or (f) none of the above except for (b), then you are gravely mistaken, Mr. Mastropaolo. Allow me to explain to you why. You see, it's like this:

The universe is evolving, the exact opposite of devolving, always has and always will. There is no devolution anywhere in the universe, never has been and never will be. Look around you.

I hope that this has clarified the issue.

But allow me to continue:

There is no creationism, never has been and never will be. Theories do not exist, as that would require consciousness, which none of us clearly possess, or do not. Theories are hallucinations sprung upon us by ignorant mercenaries. Unless they are not.

Incidentally, a round Earth was disproven back around the 8th century. I trust this settles that matter definitively as well.

Science is a religion and religion is a science. That's where most people get confused. If you can convince me otherwise, you will be a millionaire.

Yours,
Dogspeed, a.k.a. Joey Paolomastro

Anonymous said...

8-4-10
<1. The theory of evolution does not predict the creation of "identical originals".>
There is no theory of evolution. The entire universe is devolving, always has, always will.

"You clearly disagree with the theory of evolution,"

No, not I, the universe. The universe is devolving, the exact opposite of evolving, always has and always will. There is no evolution anywhere in the universe, never has been and never will be.

"Your hollow assertions are oh so impressive."
No, not mine. The entire universe.

"what is the scientific evidence for devolution? "
Are you ignorant, a mercenary, or hallucinating?

"I'm either none, some or all of the above"
Are you (1) ignorant, or (2) a mercenary, or (3) hallucinating, or (4) an ignorant mercenary, or (5) an ignorant hallucinator, or (6) a hallucinating mercenary, or (7) an ignorant hallucinating mercenary?

"I'm either none, some or all of the above"
A good answer is matched to the intellect of the interrogator. You want to know "what is the scientific evidence for devolution? " I am willing to tell you and I am willing to spell out the choices you wanted to describe yourself for your answer: Are you (1) ignorant, or (2) a mercenary, or (3) hallucinating, or (4) an ignorant mercenary, or (5) an ignorant hallucinator, or (6) a hallucinating mercenary, or (7) an ignorant hallucinating mercenary? Tell which one you are and I'll answer appropriately.

"I am none of the above. I don't understand why this should matter to you, but whatever."

If you are none of the above, not ignorant, then you must know the answer to your question. A fish in water does not ask, "What is water?" A person in an entire universe universally devolving does not ask, "What is the scientific evidence for devolution?" Such an interrogator must be at least ignorant. Can such a person be at all conscious? Or is the person a mercenary or hallucinating?

What is your condition? I need to know in order to answer your question appropriately.

"you are in fact not willing to contribute anything constructive to the conversation."
Merely say you are ignorant or a mercenary or hallucinating and I'll answer the question. Why are you afraid to say you are ignorant? Or a mercenary? If you are a mercenary, then be proud, not ashamed, of being a traitor to the truth.

Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

As the commenter indicated, he or she is none of the above.

Can you answer the questions or can't you?

Anonymous said...

8-5-10
<1. The theory of evolution does not predict the creation of "identical originals".>
There is no theory of evolution. The entire universe is devolving, always has, always will.

"You clearly disagree with the theory of evolution,"

No, not I, the universe. The universe is devolving, the exact opposite of evolving, always has and always will. There is no evolution anywhere in the universe, never has been and never will be.

"Your hollow assertions are oh so impressive."
No, not mine. The entire universe.

"what is the scientific evidence for devolution? "
Are you ignorant, a mercenary, or hallucinating?

"I'm either none, some or all of the above"
Are you (1) ignorant, or (2) a mercenary, or (3) hallucinating, or (4) an ignorant mercenary, or (5) an ignorant hallucinator, or (6) a hallucinating mercenary, or (7) an ignorant hallucinating mercenary?

"I'm either none, some or all of the above"
A good answer is matched to the intellect of the interrogator. You want to know "what is the scientific evidence for devolution? " I am willing to tell you and I am willing to spell out the choices you wanted to describe yourself for your answer: Are you (1) ignorant, or (2) a mercenary, or (3) hallucinating, or (4) an ignorant mercenary, or (5) an ignorant hallucinator, or (6) a hallucinating mercenary, or (7) an ignorant hallucinating mercenary? Tell which one you are and I'll answer appropriately.

"I am none of the above. I don't understand why this should matter to you, but whatever."

If you are none of the above, not ignorant, then you must know the answer to your question. A fish in water does not ask, "What is water?" A person in an entire universe universally devolving does not ask, "What is the scientific evidence for devolution?" Such an interrogator must be at least ignorant. Can such a person be at all conscious? Or is the person a mercenary or hallucinating?

What is your condition? I need to know in order to answer your question appropriately.

"you are in fact not willing to contribute anything constructive to the conversation."
Merely say you are ignorant or a mercenary or hallucinating and I'll answer the question. Why are you afraid to say you are ignorant? Or a mercenary? If you are a mercenary, then be proud, not ashamed, of being a traitor to the truth.

"As the commenter indicated, he or she is none of the above."
If not ignorant, then the person knows the answer to the question. Why is the person afraid to say, "I am ignorant of the answer to the question?" Is it because that would spoil the plan to subsequently claim superior knowledge and make a mess of the answer? Superior knowledge from an ocean of pure ignorance?

"Can you answer the questions or can't you?"
Can you read or can't you? "Merely say you are ignorant or a mercenary or hallucinating and I'll answer the question."

Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

"If not ignorant, then the person knows the answer to the question."

There is a difference between (1) ignorant, (2) all-knowing, and (3) knowing what you will answer to the questions at hand. All three are completely different from each other. Somebody who is not ignorant can at the same time not know your answer to the question.

"Why is the person afraid to say, "I am ignorant of the answer to the question?""

(1) That was not what you were asking the person to say. You asked them to claim that they were either ignorant or hallucinating or a mercenary. Those or any combination thereof is all you're willing to allow in this sad little shell game of yours. "Ignorant of your answer to the question" was not one of the options and is implied by the fact that the question was asked.

(2) What makes you think the person is afraid to say such a thing? Perhaps the person wishes to simply say the truth, namely that he or she is none of the above.

"Is it because that would spoil the plan to subsequently claim superior knowledge and make a mess of the answer?"

Getting a little paranoid here - a plan to make a mess of your answer...

Is it possible that your "answers" have been met with less than universal acceptance before, and that this was not to your liking?

"Superior knowledge from an ocean of pure ignorance?"

Are you really that scared of providing your best answer to the questions? Given your level of conviction, it would appear you would have a very intelligent way of backing up your convictions. Instead you squirm and evade questions that should be quite easy for you to handle:

1. What is the scientific evidence for devolution? You seem quite convinced of devolution. Is this for religious reasons, or can you cite some scientific evidence for devolution?

2. Could you explain why you offer a "$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical"? What do you think "two or more living things that are identical" would prove or disprove?


"Can you read or can't you? "Merely say you are ignorant or a mercenary or hallucinating and I'll answer the question.""

You're hiding behind what a "fallacy of false choice". Why?

Anonymous said...

8-5-10
<1. The theory of evolution does not predict the creation of "identical originals".>
There is no theory of evolution. The entire universe is devolving, always has, always will.

"You clearly disagree with the theory of evolution,"

No, not I, the universe. The universe is devolving, the exact opposite of evolving, always has and always will. There is no evolution anywhere in the universe, never has been and never will be.

"Your hollow assertions are oh so impressive."
No, not mine. The entire universe.

"what is the scientific evidence for devolution? "
Are you ignorant, a mercenary, or hallucinating?

"I'm either none, some or all of the above"
Are you (1) ignorant, or (2) a mercenary, or (3) hallucinating, or (4) an ignorant mercenary, or (5) an ignorant hallucinator, or (6) a hallucinating mercenary, or (7) an ignorant hallucinating mercenary?

"I'm either none, some or all of the above"
A good answer is matched to the intellect of the interrogator. You want to know "what is the scientific evidence for devolution? " I am willing to tell you and I am willing to spell out the choices you wanted to describe yourself for your answer: Are you (1) ignorant, or (2) a mercenary, or (3) hallucinating, or (4) an ignorant mercenary, or (5) an ignorant hallucinator, or (6) a hallucinating mercenary, or (7) an ignorant hallucinating mercenary? Tell which one you are and I'll answer appropriately.

"I am none of the above. I don't understand why this should matter to you, but whatever."

If you are none of the above, not ignorant, then you must know the answer to your question. A fish in water does not ask, "What is water?" A person in an entire universe universally devolving does not ask, "What is the scientific evidence for devolution?" Such an interrogator must be at least ignorant. Can such a person be at all conscious? Or is the person a mercenary or hallucinating?

What is your condition? I need to know in order to answer your question appropriately.

"you are in fact not willing to contribute anything constructive to the conversation."
Merely say you are ignorant or a mercenary or hallucinating and I'll answer the question. Why are you afraid to say you are ignorant? Or a mercenary? If you are a mercenary, then be proud, not ashamed, of being a traitor to the truth.

"As the commenter indicated, he or she is none of the above."
If not ignorant, then the person knows the answer to the question. Why is the person afraid to say, "I am ignorant of the answer to the question?" Is it because that would spoil the plan to subsequently claim superior knowledge and make a mess of the answer? Superior knowledge from an ocean of pure ignorance?

"Can you answer the questions or can't you?"
Can you read or can't you? "Merely say you are ignorant or a mercenary or hallucinating and I'll answer the question."

You wrote, ""Ignorant of your answer to the question" was not one of the options"
Then you quoted, ""Why is the person afraid to say, "I am ignorant of the answer to the question?""
Evidently, you do not understand what you read or write.

"Are you really that scared"
Be the last to accuse of fear. You are afraid to even sign your own name.

Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

8-5-10
<1. The theory of evolution does not predict the creation of "identical originals".>
There is no theory of evolution. The entire universe is devolving, always has, always will.

"You clearly disagree with the theory of evolution,"

No, not I, the universe. The universe is devolving, the exact opposite of evolving, always has and always will. There is no evolution anywhere in the universe, never has been and never will be.

"Your hollow assertions are oh so impressive."
No, not mine. The entire universe.

"what is the scientific evidence for devolution? "
Are you ignorant, a mercenary, or hallucinating?

"I'm either none, some or all of the above"
Are you (1) ignorant, or (2) a mercenary, or (3) hallucinating, or (4) an ignorant mercenary, or (5) an ignorant hallucinator, or (6) a hallucinating mercenary, or (7) an ignorant hallucinating mercenary?

"I'm either none, some or all of the above"
A good answer is matched to the intellect of the interrogator. You want to know "what is the scientific evidence for devolution? " I am willing to tell you and I am willing to spell out the choices you wanted to describe yourself for your answer: Are you (1) ignorant, or (2) a mercenary, or (3) hallucinating, or (4) an ignorant mercenary, or (5) an ignorant hallucinator, or (6) a hallucinating mercenary, or (7) an ignorant hallucinating mercenary? Tell which one you are and I'll answer appropriately.

"I am none of the above. I don't understand why this should matter to you, but whatever."

If you are none of the above, not ignorant, then you must know the answer to your question. A fish in water does not ask, "What is water?" A person in an entire universe universally devolving does not ask, "What is the scientific evidence for devolution?" Such an interrogator must be at least ignorant. Can such a person be at all conscious? Or is the person a mercenary or hallucinating?

What is your condition? I need to know in order to answer your question appropriately.

"you are in fact not willing to contribute anything constructive to the conversation."
Merely say you are ignorant or a mercenary or hallucinating and I'll answer the question. Why are you afraid to say you are ignorant? Or a mercenary? If you are a mercenary, then be proud, not ashamed, of being a traitor to the truth.

"As the commenter indicated, he or she is none of the above."
If not ignorant, then the person knows the answer to the question. Why is the person afraid to say, "I am ignorant of the answer to the question?" Is it because that would spoil the plan to subsequently claim superior knowledge and make a mess of the answer? Superior knowledge from an ocean of pure ignorance?

"Can you answer the questions or can't you?"
Can you read or can't you? "Merely say you are ignorant or a mercenary or hallucinating and I'll answer the question."

You wrote, ""Ignorant of your answer to the question" was not one of the options"
Then you quoted, ""Why is the person afraid to say, "I am ignorant of the answer to the question?""
Evidently, you do not understand what you read or write.

"Are you really that scared"
Be the last to accuse of fear. You are afraid to even sign your own name.

Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

8-5-10
"what is the scientific evidence for devolution? "
Are you ignorant, a mercenary, or hallucinating?

"I'm either none, some or all of the above"
Are you (1) ignorant, or (2) a mercenary, or (3) hallucinating, or (4) an ignorant mercenary, or (5) an ignorant hallucinator, or (6) a hallucinating mercenary, or (7) an ignorant hallucinating mercenary?

"I'm either none, some or all of the above"
A good answer is matched to the intellect of the interrogator. You want to know "what is the scientific evidence for devolution? " I am willing to tell you and I am willing to spell out the choices you wanted to describe yourself for your answer: Are you (1) ignorant, or (2) a mercenary, or (3) hallucinating, or (4) an ignorant mercenary, or (5) an ignorant hallucinator, or (6) a hallucinating mercenary, or (7) an ignorant hallucinating mercenary? Tell which one you are and I'll answer appropriately.

"I am none of the above. I don't understand why this should matter to you, but whatever."

If you are none of the above, not ignorant, then you must know the answer to your question. A fish in water does not ask, "What is water?" A person in an entire universe universally devolving does not ask, "What is the scientific evidence for devolution?" Such an interrogator must be at least ignorant. Can such a person be at all conscious? Or is the person a mercenary or hallucinating?

What is your condition? I need to know in order to answer your question appropriately.

"you are in fact not willing to contribute anything constructive to the conversation."
Merely say you are ignorant or a mercenary or hallucinating and I'll answer the question. Why are you afraid to say you are ignorant? Or a mercenary? If you are a mercenary, then be proud, not ashamed, of being a traitor to the truth.

"As the commenter indicated, he or she is none of the above."
If not ignorant, then the person knows the answer to the question. Why is the person afraid to say, "I am ignorant of the answer to the question?" Is it because that would spoil the plan to subsequently claim superior knowledge and make a mess of the answer? Superior knowledge from an ocean of pure ignorance?

"Can you answer the questions or can't you?"
Can you read or can't you? "Merely say you are ignorant or a mercenary or hallucinating and I'll answer the question."

You wrote, ""Ignorant of your answer to the question" was not one of the options"
Then you quoted, ""Why is the person afraid to say, "I am ignorant of the answer to the question?""
Evidently, you do not understand what you read or write.

"Are you really that scared"
Be the last to accuse of fear. You are afraid to even sign your own name.

Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

"You wrote, ""Ignorant of your answer to the question" was not one of the options"
Then you quoted, ""Why is the person afraid to say, "I am ignorant of the answer to the question?""
Evidently, you do not understand what you read or write."

The two are not incompatible. Evidently, you do not understand what you read or write.

"Be the last to accuse of fear. You are afraid to even sign your own name."

That is the second time you leaped to fear as a conclusion of someone else's motivation. Is this a case of psychological projection?

You are still unable or unwilling to answer the questions, by the way:

"1. What is the scientific evidence for devolution? You seem quite convinced of devolution. Is this for religious reasons, or can you cite some scientific evidence for devolution?

2. Could you explain why you offer a "$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical"? What do you think "two or more living things that are identical" would prove or disprove?"

Anonymous said...

Incredible.

Yes, we know from the laws of thermodynamics that the Universe is devolving. Only a simpleton is unaware of this.

Yes, we know abiogenesis has been accepted as proven by scientists of the past and only the religious fervor of Darwinists allows them to remain blind to the fact.

Yes, we know that no Darwinist will agree to challenge Joseph in court because they are afraid to lose the money and would not want the facts concerning Darwinism to presented in court minus all the propaganda. Once you remove the propaganda and speculation from Darwinism you have absolutely nothing. There is no there there.

So much BS and after all these years not one objective fact offered in evidence for Darwinism. Lots of ad hominem attacks, lots of piled-on assumptions and opinions, no facts. None. All Darwinists are afraid to face Joseph in court. True.

Youknowwho

Karl said...

Well, boys, I am reminded why Dr. Mastropaolo set up the LSP in the first place.

Evos are all hot air and endless argument on websites.

They worship their own egos. i.e. They are gods in their won minds.

I sat (with a nationally recognized atheist and other witnesses) and watched Dr. Mastropaolo debate the best NCSE has. We all heard the atheist proclaim, "Evolution is silly, but I will not accept creation because no god would allow all of the bad things that there are."

That is the bottom line of most (such as the late S. J. Gould) evolutionist's religious fervor.

Let's talk man-to-man. When you get called out, you come out and act like a man or you hide behind mommy's dress tail.

All the evos on the LSP list and in this blog have been called out. There are enough of you to chip in $q0 bucks and send your best to take on Dr. Mastropaolo.

Do it or continue to be the cowards that you are. All you have got is kid tripe like, "If we won Mastropaolo would say the judge was unfair."

Your chickenhearedness is comical!

Anonymous said...

"Evos are all hot air and endless argument on websites. "

Strange, since Mr. Mastropaolo has displayed a LOT of hot air and NO answers to some pretty straightforward questions right here in this thread. Mastropaolo can't provide answers to the simplest of questions about his beliefs and about one of his prizes, which in its current formulation makes little to no sense:

"1. What is the scientific evidence for devolution? You seem quite convinced of devolution. Is this for religious reasons, or can you cite some scientific evidence for devolution?

2. Could you explain why you offer a "$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical"? What do you think "two or more living things that are identical" would prove or disprove?"

All he and you have managed to bring to the table so far are some long-debunked creationist claims auch as:

1. Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (It doesn't.)

2. Scientists disproved abiogenesis centuries ago. (They didn't.)

We'll gladly debunk those claims for you again, right here, if you'd like.

"I sat (with a nationally recognized atheist and other witnesses) and watched Dr. Mastropaolo debate the best NCSE has. We all heard the atheist proclaim, "Evolution is silly, but I will not accept creation because no god would allow all of the bad things that there are.""

Since you put that in quotes, you're implying a direct quotation. Who was the atheist in question, when did he say it, and could you provide evidence please? Or, in the interest of politeness, shall we just term this claim as not being operative and save ourselves the hassle of watching you squirm and evade for days?

"Let's talk man-to-man. When you get called out, you come out and act like a man or you hide behind mommy's dress tail."

Let's. Can you guys answer the questions or can't you? You're both hiding behind this challenge and a lot of mumbo-jumbo while shying away from actual debate. And Mastropaolo keeps hiding behind a bizarre logical fallacy, which frankly does not leave a good taste in anyone's mouth regarding his ability to debate. You might have noticed that even one of the regular creationists here (representing half of the 2 creationists that regularly comment here aside from Radar) is distinctly unimpressed with Mastropaolo's behavior.

"All the evos on the LSP list and in this blog have been called out."

Yes, and we're piling on the evidence all the time, Radar's lies to the contrary notwithstanding. He can't address it, and judging from the outdated talking points that you and Mastropaolo are stuck on (see above), neither can you.

As for the challenge, the terms of it are so vague and nonsensical (e.g. "If the creationist proves creation is science and evolution is religion") that any sane person will of course steer clear of it. That by itself does not indicate anything about the relative scientific merit of the theory of evolution and creationism.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Can we take it that the "Youknowwho" that signed this is Radar?

"Yes, we know from the laws of thermodynamics that the Universe is devolving. Only a simpleton is unaware of this."

That would be a simpleton reading of the laws of thermodynamics. Somebody with a little more knowledge would be aware that the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to an entire system, not to every part of it equally at all times. If that were the case, there would be no birth, and every simpleton knows that that isn't true. That isn't my prime objection to this claim, though I suspect you've forgotten the other one.

"Yes, we know abiogenesis has been accepted as proven by scientists of the past and only the religious fervor of Darwinists allows them to remain blind to the fact."

Can we take it that you "misspoke" here and meant to say "accepted as disproven"? I'm only saying that because you've made this claim many times in the past. And no, it is not the "religious fervor of Darwinists" that makes us blind to this so-called "fact" (which strictly speaking is not a fact but a lie).

The spontaneous generation of complex organisms (on the order of maggots, mice, fungi) was indeed disproven, but that is not what the current study of abiogenesis is about - not the spontaneous generation of complex organisms, but the gradual evolution of extremely simple forms of life. The links to the current research have been presented to you over and over.

"Yes, we know that no Darwinist will agree to challenge Joseph in court because they are afraid to lose the money and would not want the facts concerning Darwinism to presented in court minus all the propaganda. Once you remove the propaganda and speculation from Darwinism you have absolutely nothing. There is no there there."

It's a pity then that when such matters were debated in court, there happened to be quite a lot of there there. Read the court transcripts and see for yourself.

And what is it with this obsession with fear? The theory of evolution is laid out in countless scientific papers and experiments. If the facts were in favor of, say, creationist theory (such as it is), it would be exceedingly simple for a creationist to formulate testable hypotheses, verify them, and present the results to the world, thus demolishing the theory of evolution. But when you read creationist articles, it's not about the evidence and how it shows, say, a young Earth, but about trying to cast doubt on existing science. Why do you think that is? It would be so much more potent to show how the evidence indicates, say, a world younger than 6,000 years, or to look at radiometric dating data and not just hop on the small percentage of faulty results, but a consistent and logical way of explaining how the data that do indicate an old Earth with incredible consistency should be interpreted and why.

So much BS and after all these years not one objective fact offered in evidence for Darwinism. Lots of ad hominem attacks, lots of piled-on assumptions and opinions, no facts. None."

How ironic that after you lie yet again about no objective facts being presented for "Darwinism", the first thing you mention is ad hominem attacks, since that was your predictable response to almost all the evidence that actually was presented to you.

"All Darwinists are afraid to face Joseph in court. True."

BS. Given the gibberish on Mastropaolo's website (and in this comment thread right here), there are plenty of good reasons not to want to get entangled with this man, fear being the least of them.

Youknowwho

Yeah whatever.

Radar, doesn't it bother you that this hero of yours is so reluctant to answer such simple questions about his opinions and his challenges? He can't even defend his own propaganda stunt in a simple setting like a blog comment thread and hides behind a lame logical fallacy.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

you know who is radar at work and busy as heck.

I will try to get time maybe Saturday to summarize the comment threads here.

YKW

highboy said...

enough already. This site has "devolved" into a masterpiece of confusion thanks to the ridiculous rants of these newcomer trolls. Radar, you're my boy and your posts are great reading but these guys aren't helping you at all. A tarot card could engage in a discussion better than these clowns. Or an orange traffic cone.

Anonymous said...

"I will try to get time maybe Saturday to summarize the comment threads here."

Your recent "summaries" were outright up-is-down and black-is-white style lies, so in the interest of you no further abusing the heck out of the Ninth Commandment, how about you save yourself the trouble and do something useful instead, such as...

... provide objective evidence that rocks are no older than 6,000 to 10,000 years. Not some vague sprinkling of doubt on some detail in established mainstream science, but actual, objective evidence that rocks are no older than 6,000 to 10,000 years.

Can you do it? Judging by the last 5 years or so of this blog, the answer appears to be a solid no.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Creeper: "... provide objective evidence that rocks are no older than 6,000 to 10,000 years..."

Secondary historical evidence and confidence interval analyses confirm that the Earth is 6,800 ± 850 years old. Where is your contrary confirming objective, valid, reliable, and calibrated evidence?

Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

"Secondary historical evidence" being the Bible, I take it? Sorry, the request was for objective evidence. The Genesis creation myth is just one of numerous creation myths. If you can come up with an objective way of discerning this creation myth above the others, let's hear it.

"Where is your contrary confirming objective, valid, reliable, and calibrated evidence? "

Let's note up front that you were actually unable to provide any objective, valid, reliable, calibrated evidence.

As for such evidence that contradicts your assertion, we can start with radiometric dating, ice core layers, dendrochronology.

Nice to know you're still reading this thread, btw. Are you still unable or unwilling to answer these questions?

"1. What is the scientific evidence for devolution? You seem quite convinced of devolution. Is this for religious reasons, or can you cite some scientific evidence for devolution?

2. Could you explain why you offer a "$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical"? What do you think "two or more living things that are identical" would prove or disprove?"


-- creeper

Anonymous said...

8-7-10
"Secondary historical evidence" being the Bible, I take it? Sorry, the request was for objective evidence."
Must you always show off your ignorance? Your ocean of pure ignorance?

"Let's note up front that you were actually unable to provide any objective, valid, reliable, calibrated evidence."
I did provide it but your vast ignorance prevents you from understanding it.

"As for such evidence that contradicts your assertion, we can start with radiometric dating, ice core layers, dendrochronology."
None are objective, valid, reliable, and calibrated.

"Are you still unable or unwilling to answer these questions?"
If you cannot understand that, "Ignorant of your answer to the question," and "ignorant of the answer to the question" are the same, then there is no hope that you can understand the answers.

Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

Wow, those are some stunning comebacks. You sure showed me, huh? I can see how your intellect must have been indispensable in composing these impressive bon mots.

"Secondary historical evidence" being the Bible, I take it? Sorry, the request was for objective evidence."
Must you always show off your ignorance? Your ocean of pure ignorance?


1. So by "secondary historical evidence", did you mean the Bible and, more specifically, Genesis? Please confirm or correct.

2. If so, how does the particular part of the Bible you have in mind count as objective evidence? The Genesis creation myth is just one of numerous creation myths. If you have an objective way of discerning this creation myth above the others, can you share it with us?

"Let's note up front that you were actually unable to provide any objective, valid, reliable, calibrated evidence."
I did provide it but your vast ignorance prevents you from understanding it.


How is Genesis "objective, valid, reliable, calibrated evidence"?

"As for such evidence that contradicts your assertion, we can start with radiometric dating, ice core layers, dendrochronology."
None are objective, valid, reliable, and calibrated.


Wrong on all counts, seeing as anyone can verify the data for themselves, regardless of their religion.

Which is how this evidence differs from Genesis, of course.

Hey, you're the one that asked for objective, valid, reliable, and calibrated evidence. Surely it should have occurred to you while typing those words that you had none to offer in return.

"Are you still unable or unwilling to answer these questions?"
If you cannot understand that, "Ignorant of your answer to the question," and "ignorant of the answer to the question" are the same, then there is no hope that you can understand the answers.


Having only seen your Life Science Prize website and your comments on this blog, I can't honestly say that I've seen enough of your keen intellect in action to come to the conclusion that your answer to a question is quite simply and definitively "the" answer to that question - especially since (a) one of the few actual claims you've made relied on a long outdated and erroneous talking point and (b) you made some rather basic logic errors in your comments above, as you did in this comment as well. Perhaps it would be wise for you to adjust your level of humility accordingly.

But be that as it may, you remain amusingly coy to share your answers to some rather straightforward questions, so I suspect I'm not the only one here to come to the conclusion that you simply don't have the goods.

Here are the questions again:

"1. What is the scientific evidence for devolution? You seem quite convinced of devolution. Is this for religious reasons, or can you cite some scientific evidence for devolution?

2. Could you explain why you offer a "$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical"? What do you think "two or more living things that are identical" would prove or disprove?"


-- creeper

Anonymous said...

8-7-10
"Having only seen your Life Science Prize website"
When you are ready, we can design a mini-trial especially for you. You believe the universe is evolving. I believe it is devolving. Let's have a mini-trial on that and if that does not cure you then we can go on from there.

Talk is cheap. For the mini-trial, you have to put your money where your mouth is. I have my $10,000 ready to hand the judge and I agree to abide by the objective, valid, reliable, and calibrated rules for evidence. If you have your $10,000 ready to hand the judge and you agree to those rules for evidence, then I'll begin arrangements.

Shall we have the showdown in a mini-trial?

Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

"Talk is cheap."

It seems that you wish talk to be rather expensive, while having a discussion on a blog is indeed "cheap" as it is generally free of charge. You'll be pleased to hear that this applies to you as well, as I'm willing to have this discussion with you right here, without you incurring any cost or financial risk whatsoever.

In any case, thank you for the invitation, but I happen to have neither the time necessary to take this discussion to court (literally) nor the ten grand in liquid funds at this time, nor would I want to profit off your bluster and ill-conceived challenges. I note that you still appear utterly incapable of even explaining one of your actual challenges:

"Could you explain why you offer a "$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical"? What do you think "two or more living things that are identical" would prove or disprove?"

Surely since you conceived of this challenge, you can explain its very foundation, can you not? How do you expect anyone to take your challenges seriously when you can't explain them, or when they include wishy-washy conditions such as "If the creationist proves creation is science and evolution is religion"?

Your continued evasions of what should be a very simple matter of explaining yourself are duly noted. The questions, for the record, are:

1. What is the scientific evidence for devolution? You seem quite convinced of devolution. Is this for religious reasons, or can you cite some scientific evidence for devolution?

2. Could you explain why you offer a "$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical"? What do you think "two or more living things that are identical" would prove or disprove?

3. By "secondary historical evidence", did you mean the Bible and, more specifically, Genesis? Please confirm or correct. If so, how does the particular part of the Bible you have in mind count as objective evidence? The Genesis creation myth is just one of numerous creation myths. If you have an objective way of discerning this creation myth above the others, can you share it with us?


-- creeper

highboy said...

Creeper, stop. Seriously. What's the point? This isn't going anywhere.

Anonymous said...

8-7-10
"I'm willing to have this discussion with you right here, without (you) incurring any cost or financial risk whatsoever."

Anyone not willing to put his money where his big irresponsible mouth is, is merely a kibitzer.

Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

"Anyone not willing to put his money where his big irresponsible mouth is, is merely a kibitzer."

Anyone not willing to back up with facts and logical arguments what his big irresponsible mouth is spouting is merely a kibitzer. There, fixed it for you.

Can we take it then that you are choosing to concede that there is no scientific evidence for devolution, that you can't explain your own challenge, and that you wish to default on the questions presented above? Just say the word and we will note the concession.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Better creationists please.

Anonymous said...

8-7-10
The Life Science Prize is a test for those convinced that evolution is science. The test uses the rules for the mini-trial, an alternate form of dispute resolution that has been a tried and true part of the American legal system. The mini-trial takes place in a courthouse with a presiding judge to decide the case, a court reporter to provide a written record, and a bailiff to keep order. The presiding judge is under oath to decide the case exclusively on the merits of the admitted evidence. If the judge cannot be unbiased, then the judge must be recused.
The mini-trial rules specify that only scientific evidence will be admitted as evidence. Opinions and anything else that is subjective will not be admitted as evidence.
The mini-trial rules define admissible scientific evidence as objective, valid or calibrated, and reliable. Objective means that the evidence was gathered with a method that anyone may follow and obtain the same results. Controlled experiments are a good example because they always have a methods section with step-by-step instructions. Valid means that the determinations measure what they say they measure. For example, if anyone presents as evidence that an object is 10 million years old, then a clock must have been used to make that determination. If something other than a clock is used, like a degrading radioisotope, then that substitute measurement must have been calibrated to a clock and it must give reliable measurements. Reliable means that the determinations measure consistently. Usually in science, determinations that agree with each other within 1 to 5 % are considered reliable.
In the mini-trial, each side presents their scientific evidence and may be cross-examined by the other side. When finished, the judge decides which side presented the preponderance of scientific evidence. Then the judge presents the escrowed funds to the prevailing side. From the escrowed funds, the prevailing side pays the honoraria for the judge, the court reporter, the bailiff, and pays for the rental of the courthouse.
The Life Science Prize usually begins with some evolutionist making a public statement in support of evolution. Upon request, the conventions of science require that the best scientific evidence be sent unconditionally in support of the public statement. With a reminder of that convention, I write for the evolutionist’s best scientific evidence. In eight years, I have never received any and that suggests that there is none, or the evolutionist is not a scientist, or both.
Next, I make a claim to the evolutionist that evolution is not science. With that claim is the reminder that a default judgment may be rendered on a public list, according to the American legal system, if no defense is made against that claim in a mini-trial. In eight years, no evolutionist has ever made a defense against that claim and they accordingly have been placed on the Default Judgment List. Individually and by organization, there are 363,000 evolutionists worldwide on the Default Judgment List (see http://www.josephmastropaolo.com/prize.html or http://www.lifescienceprize.org).
The rules for the Life Science Prize permit the evolution side to have complete freedom on quantity and qualifications of defenders on their side. I shall stand them alone. Further, the evolutionists may use the same scientific evidence repeatedly in subsequent mini-trials. An evolutionist with prevailing scientific evidence can net more than a million dollars in less than six months with the same scientific evidence prepared probably in less than four hours.
In the last eight years, I have noticed that the usually very vocal evolutionists making their ostentatious public statements have become strangely silent. Perhaps, the Life Science Prize has had a part in the improvement in public discourse.
Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

Joseph,

thank you for that self-congratulatory discursive attempt at product placement in lieu of an attempt to answer the questions at hand.

Incidentally:

"In the last eight years, I have noticed that the usually very vocal evolutionists making their ostentatious public statements have become strangely silent."

Is this a subjective impression, or do you have objective evidence in support of this statement?

"For example, if anyone presents as evidence that an object is 10 million years old, then a clock must have been used to make that determination. If something other than a clock is used, like a degrading radioisotope, then that substitute measurement must have been calibrated to a clock and it must give reliable measurements."

On that basis, do you accept or reject radiometric clocks and the half-lives on which they are based? If you reject them, on what basis?

It is of course possible that the questions at hand may have slipped your mind, seeing as you chose to still not answer them. Here they are again:

1. What is the scientific evidence for devolution? You seem quite convinced of devolution. Is this for religious reasons, or can you cite some scientific evidence for devolution?

2. Could you explain why you offer a "$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical"? What do you think "two or more living things that are identical" would prove or disprove?

3. By "secondary historical evidence", did you mean the Bible and, more specifically, Genesis? Please confirm or correct. If so, how does the particular part of the Bible you have in mind count as objective evidence? The Genesis creation myth is just one of numerous creation myths. If you have an objective way of discerning this creation myth above the others, can you share it with us?


If you continue not to answer them, you will be in default and will have conceded that:

1. There is no scientific evidence for devolution.

2. The reasoning behind the "Omniscient Originality Prize" has no rational basis.

3. The "secondary historical evidence" you referred to was Genesis, but you admit there is no objective way to discern this from other creation myths and that it is therefore of no historical value.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Oh and this one:

You claimed that you had provided "objective evidence that rocks are no older than 6,000 to 10,000 years".

You've now been kind enough to add more detailed specifications:

"Objective means that the evidence was gathered with a method that anyone may follow and obtain the same results. Controlled experiments are a good example because they always have a methods section with step-by-step instructions. Valid means that the determinations measure what they say they measure. For example, if anyone presents as evidence that an object is 10 million years old, then a clock must have been used to make that determination. If something other than a clock is used, like a degrading radioisotope, then that substitute measurement must have been calibrated to a clock and it must give reliable measurements. Reliable means that the determinations measure consistently. Usually in science, determinations that agree with each other within 1 to 5 % are considered reliable."

1. Could you please point us to where you think you provided evidence that meets these criteria?

2. Could you please explain on what basis you reject radiometric dating in this regard?

And please, no further evasions, Mr. Mastropaolo. You run the risk as coming across as a somewhat shifty character, and we'd like to avoid that if possible.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

8-8-10
Below are the first 10 evolutionists on the Default Judgment List (http://www.lifescienceprize.org). They made public statements in support of evolution but could not send one iota of scientific evidence to support that claim.
 1. Dr. Massimo Pigliucci. Atheist and science professor, Tennessee University. (3-11-02)
 2. Mr. Andre H. Artus. Atheist. No credentials.
 3. Mr. Lee Bowen. Atheist. No credentials.
 4. Dr. Angela Ridgel. Geneticist, Case Western Reserve University.
 5. Mr. Dan Radmacher. Editorial page editor, Charleston Gazette.
 6. Dr. James Paulson. Biochemist, University of Wisconsin.
 7. Dr. Lawrence Krauss. Physicist, Case Western University.
 8. Dr. Dennis D. Hirsch. Law professor, Capital University.
 9. Mr. John Rennie. Editor, Scientific American.
10. Dr. Barbara Forrest. Professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana.
Barbara Forrest was one of the "expert" witnesses for evolution in the Dover trial in 2005. Like the others on this list, she had only opinion and would have scored zero in a Life Science min-trial. And that is why neither she nor any of the others on this list would contend: no scientific evidence, score = 0, $10,000 entry fee lost.
Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

Joseph,

thank you for yet another discursive attempt at product placement in lieu of an attempt to answer the questions at hand. Predictably, you're unable to answer some very basic questions. Your gloating explanation that people won't take you up on your mini-trial because they have no evidence to support their position is an increasingly unlikely one. Has it ever occurred to you that due to your behavior, you simply don't come across as a credible partner for debate?

Witness the discourse above. Instead of answering straightforward questions, you hide behind boastful denigration, logical fallacies, "Alice in Wonderland"-style obfuscation and insistent advertising of your website.

In any case, regarding the questions asked of you repeatedly in this thread, you have demonstrated you can not answer the following questions:

1. What is the scientific evidence for devolution? You seem quite convinced of devolution. Is this for religious reasons, or can you cite some scientific evidence for devolution?

2. Could you explain why you offer a "$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical"? What do you think "two or more living things that are identical" would prove or disprove?

3. By "secondary historical evidence", did you mean the Bible and, more specifically, Genesis? Please confirm or correct. If so, how does the particular part of the Bible you have in mind count as objective evidence? The Genesis creation myth is just one of numerous creation myths. If you have an objective way of discerning this creation myth above the others, can you share it with us?


That means that you are now in default.


You therefore now concede that::

1. There is no scientific evidence for devolution.

2. The reasoning behind the "Omniscient Originality Prize" has no rational basis.

3. The "secondary historical evidence" you referred to was Genesis, but you admit there is no objective way to discern this from other creation myths and that it is therefore of no historical value.


Don't feel bad, though. Personally I have no interest in wasting time on demagoguery, but I suspect that if I went to the trouble of posing the questions above to 363,000 creationists, they would likewise come up blank.

In any case, you'll be pleased to hear that I'll be linking to this comment thread with great frequency so that others may get a chance to see your lacking seriousness in action.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

8-8-10
On the Default Judgment List
#10. Dr. Barbara Forrest. Professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University.
Barbara Forrest was one of the "expert" witnesses for evolution in the Dover trial in 2005. Like the others on the Default Judgment List, she had only opinion and would have scored zero in a Life Science min-trial. And that is why neither she nor any of the others on this List would contend: no scientific evidence, score = 0, $10,000 entry fee lost.
To date, those evolutionists individually and by organization on the List are more than 363,000, and none will contend because they have no scientific evidence to support their insulting public statements. They are premier examples of anti-scientists because all of their so-called evidence is either superstitions (12%), frauds (74%), or forgeries (14%). Not only do evolutionists have no science to present, they have nothing true to present. They have only superstitions, frauds, and forgeries.
The analyses were done in Rise and Fall of Evolution, A Scientific Examination, 2003, pp. 63-77.
Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

Mr. Mastropaolo,

see the comment above yours. You continue to default.

Repeat at will.

Anonymous said...

8-9-10
Below are the next 10 evolutionists on the Default Judgment List. They made insulting public statements and refused to send one iota of scientific evidence to support their claims as the conventions of science require. They also refused to defend in a mini-trial when reminded that all of the scientific evidence in the universe demonstrates that their claims are the exact opposite of the truth. Here they are. Recognize any?
11. Dr. Steve Rissing. Professor in the Department of Evolution at Ohio State University.
12. Dr. Eugenie Scott. Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, misnamed National Center for Anti-Science Evolution Indoctrination.
13. Dr. Michael Shermer. Founder/director of the Skeptics Society.
14. Dr. Richard Dawkins. Oxford University, Professor of Public Understanding of Science. Possibly the world's foremost propagandist for evolution possesses not one iota of scientific evidence. Recently fired because he has no evidence.
15. Dr. Francisco J. Ayala. Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, Dept. of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Professor of Philosophy, School of Humanities, University of California, Irvine.
16. Dr. Joe Meert, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Florida.
17. Dr. Kenneth R. Miller. Professor of Biology, Brown University. This textbook author and "expert" witness to support evolution for the Dover trial has no scientific evidence and has many frauds and forgeries in his Biology textbook.
18. Dr. Lawrence S. Lerner. Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy, California State University, Long Beach.
19. Dr. Adrian L. Melott. Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Fellow, American Physical Society.
20. Dr. Stephen W. Hawking. Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge University.
Without the totalitarian censorship and persecutions in the schools, evolution would not last a month.
Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

Mr. Mastropaolo,

see the comment above yours. You continue to default and to concede the following:

1. There is no scientific evidence for devolution.

2. The reasoning behind the "Omniscient Originality Prize" has no rational basis.

3. The "secondary historical evidence" you referred to was Genesis, but you admit there is no objective way to discern this from other creation myths and that it is therefore of no historical value.

Repeat at will.

Anonymous said...

8-9-10
#12. on the Life Science Default Judgment List is Dr. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), misnamed because it is actually the National Center for Anti-Science Evolution Indoctrination. Why do we say that NCSE is actually the National Center for Anti-Science Evolution Indoctrination? We say it because it is accurate. NCSE goes around America threatening lawsuits by the ACLU if any school teaches anything except evolution. The boards of education usually cave in because they do not want the expense of a lawsuit. Dover was one of the few school boards that did not believe it was unconstitutional to advise their students to read a book in the library. Unfortunately, Judge Jones took 90% of his ruling from what the ACLU gave him to say and Dover lost. What science did the “expert” witnesses for evolution present? None! How do we know? We know because we contacted everyone and asked for their best scientific evidence, which the conventions of science required them to send. And what did we receive? Nothing! So we claimed that evolution is anti-science, which it is, and that they had to defend against that claim in a mini-trial or be put on a public list for the whole world to see that evolution is anti-science. How many of the Dover “expert” witnesses defended in a mini-trial? None! How many are on the public list? All of them: Brian Alters # 103, Barbara Forrest # 10, John Haught # 42, Kenneth Miller # 17, Kevin Padian # 139, and Robert Pennock # 135. The NCSE and the ACLU with the help of the anti-science “experts” and an evolutionist judge made a school board demand that their students become psychotic, that is, believe reality is the exact opposite of what it actually is. Thank you Eugenie Scott and the ACLU and Judge Jones and the experts in how to make American school kids psychotic for the rest of their lives.
Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

Mr. Mastropaolo,

Still can't answer those questions I see.

See the comment above yours. You continue to default and to concede the following:

1. There is no scientific evidence for devolution.

2. The reasoning behind the "Omniscient Originality Prize" has no rational basis.

3. The "secondary historical evidence" you referred to was Genesis, but you admit there is no objective way to discern this from other creation myths and that it is therefore of no historical value.

Repeat at will.

Anonymous said...

8-10-10
Some of you may have thought I was exaggerating when I last wrote that Eugenie Scott, the ACLU, Judge Jones, and their “expert” witnesses are making American school kids psychotic for the rest of their lives. That was no exaggeration and the proof is on this blog, dated 8-3-10, with verbatim quotes below.
Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Psychosis proceeds in stages. Note the hallucination stage: “The universe is evolving, the exact opposite of devolving, always has and always will. There is no devolution anywhere in the universe, never has been and never will be. Look around you.”
The sun is losing 4.5 million tons per second of its mass. It is burning out like a candle. People get old and die, roofs leak, buildings crumble, clothes wear out, roads get potholes, brand new cars in 20 years are in the junk yards. Obviously all of that is universal devolution.

Note the babbling stage: “There is no creationism, never has been and never will be. Theories do not exist, as that would require consciousness, which none of us clearly possess, or do not. Theories are hallucinations sprung upon us by ignorant mercenaries. Unless they are not.”

Note the confusion: “Incidentally, a round Earth was disproven back around the 8th century. I trust this settles that matter definitively as well.” “Science is a religion and religion is a science. That's where most people get confused. If you can convince me otherwise, you will be a millionaire.”

The person has lost even self identity: “Yours, Dogspeed, a.k.a. Joey Paolomastro.”

Here is the entire post.
8-3-10
Dear Mr. Mastropaolo,

unless you are (a) ignorant and hallucinating at the same time, or (b) just ignorant, or (c) just hallucinating, or (d) all of the above, or (e) none of the above, or (f) none of the above except for (b), then you are gravely mistaken, Mr. Mastropaolo. Allow me to explain to you why. You see, it's like this:

The universe is evolving, the exact opposite of devolving, always has and always will. There is no devolution anywhere in the universe, never has been and never will be. Look around you.

I hope that this has clarified the issue.

But allow me to continue:

There is no creationism, never has been and never will be. Theories do not exist, as that would require consciousness, which none of us clearly possess, or do not. Theories are hallucinations sprung upon us by ignorant mercenaries. Unless they are not.

Incidentally, a round Earth was disproven back around the 8th century. I trust this settles that matter definitively as well.

Science is a religion and religion is a science. That's where most people get confused. If you can convince me otherwise, you will be a millionaire.

Yours,
Dogspeed, a.k.a. Joey Paolomastro

Anonymous said...

Mr. Mastropaolo,

Not only do you appear to be incapable of answering rather straightforward questions in areas in which you claim to possess some expertise, but you cannot spot an obvious parody. Interesting.

In any case, see the comment above yours. You demonstrate at length the exact thing of which you accuse others - not being able to back up their position. And while the evolution side has already passed an equivalent of your proposed trial in actual court cases and won, you yourself can't answer a handful of simple questions on a blog.

For the record, you continue to default and to concede the following:

1. There is no scientific evidence for devolution.

2. The reasoning behind the "Omniscient Originality Prize" has no rational basis.

3. The "secondary historical evidence" you referred to was Genesis, but you admit there is no objective way to discern this from other creation myths and that it is therefore of no historical value.

Keep it up. Evade and repeat at will.

Anonymous said...

8-10-10
#12 Dr. Eugenie Scott was seen at a creation & evolution conference giving instructions to her editor of the NCSE newsletter. The editor took a front seat at the next session, was recognized first during the question period, and instead of asking a question he took up the entire 10 minute question period with a rant about why the creationist’s presentation was all wrong. He made sure no one else, including the presenter, had a chance to reply. The moderator stood by as if in shock at this gross breach in etiquette. I gave the next paper and the editor did not wait to be recognized during the question period and began his rant. The moderator was still in shock and unable to do anything so I shouted the editor down and explained to the audience that everything the editor had said was patently untrue. The evidence I had reported was from the world’s foremost data bank kept at one of the world’s foremost medical schools supervised and researched by one of the world’s foremost researchers. The editor shouted that the data were not up to date and I shouted back that he was lying again. Everything he was shouting was lies. The data were updated every month.
Scientists do not lie. Scientists do not rant. Scientists properly ask questions during a question period, briefly and clearly, and make sure others have a turn. Anti-scientists must lie because they have nothing truthful to report, and they do their best to make sure that no one else has a chance to reveal the fact that all they have to report are superstitions, frauds, and forgeries. Evolution anti-scientists do not hesitate to make a mess of a conference. They use without qualms any anarchist method at their disposal to prevent the truth from being reported and to prevent their exposure as the unethical anarchistic anti-scientists that they are.
When dealing with an evolutionist, be prepared for anarchy. Do not stand by in shock like the moderator did.
At one of the following conferences, the moderator held on to the microphone, and would not let the evolutionist hold it. When the evolutionist started the rant, the moderator asked again for the question and when the rant continued the moderator cut him off and gave the next questioner a turn.
When dealing with evolutionists, be prepared for anarchy. Modify the civilized science protocols accordingly. Expect anarchy and be prepared for it.
Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

"Scientists do not lie. Scientists do not rant. Scientists properly ask questions during a question period, briefly and clearly, and make sure others have a turn. Anti-scientists must lie because they have nothing truthful to report, and they do their best to make sure that no one else has a chance to reveal the fact that all they have to report are superstitions, frauds, and forgeries"

Well, here we are. You've been asked questions and you've been given ample opportunity to respond.

Here are the questions again, just to make sure you're clear on this:

1. What is the scientific evidence for devolution? You seem quite convinced of devolution. Is this for religious reasons, or can you cite some scientific evidence for devolution?

2. Could you explain why you offer a "$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical"? What do you think "two or more living things that are identical" would prove or disprove?

3. By "secondary historical evidence", did you mean the Bible and, more specifically, Genesis? Please confirm or correct. If so, how does the particular part of the Bible you have in mind count as objective evidence? The Genesis creation myth is just one of numerous creation myths. If you have an objective way of discerning this creation myth above the others, can you share it with us?


It's pretty hypocritical that a man who makes such a big deal out of other people not choosing to engage him regarding evidence is unable to come up with evidence to support his own position.

You've defaulted, Mr. Mastropaolo.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

8-11-10
#13 on the public list is Dr. Michael Shermer, a famous evolutionist and debater.
#17 is Dr. Kenneth Miller, author of the country’s foremost textbook, Biology, and famous as the lead debater for the evolution side on the William Buckley TV program, Firing Line. Miller presented at a creation & evolution conference and Shermer was the moderator. During the question period I asked Miller, “Why do you still have in your current biology textbook, as evidence for evolution, the drawings that were reported 130 years ago as stolen and then forged? Why are you still using 130-year-old frauds and forgeries as evidence for evolution?”
Michael Shermer shouted into his moderator’s microphone, “Get away from the microphone!”
I replied, “I waited my turn. Dr. Miller give me your answer. Why are still using in your current biology textbook frauds and forgeries from 130 years ago?”
Dr. Shermer shouted louder, “Get away from the microphone!”
I replied, “First, instruct Dr. Miller to answer the question. Why are 130-year-old frauds and forgeries still in his biology textbook?”
Dr. Shermer shouted even louder, “Get away from the microphone!” as he jumped down from the stage with his fists clenched. He came within two feet of my face shouting, “Get away from the microphone!”
This was assault and I expected at any minute to be battered, but I held on to the microphone and repeated, “Dr. Miller, why are 130-year-old frauds and forgeries still in your biology textbook?”
Miller would not answer and Shermer would not stop shouting, “Get away from the microphone!”
So, I said, “I believe we have our answer. Evolutionists have no scientific evidence and that is why you put in your textbooks frauds and forgeries from 130 years ago.” Then, I relinquished the microphone.
Evolutionists do not hesitate to steal other scientists’ drawings and they do not hesitate to forge them with changes that make them appear to be evolving. And they do not hesitate to use those thefts, frauds, and forgeries in their biology textbooks as evidence for evolution, the biggest fraud and forgery of the last 2,500 years. And when confronted with these anti-science crimes at science meetings, evolutionists do not hesitate to assault, to threaten physical violence, to silence any bona fide scientist exposing their anarchist agenda.
Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

If you can whine on and on about questions not being answered, why not answer the questions that are posed to you? You're only succeeding in painting yourself as a hypocrite.

Jon Woolf said...

Re: Shermer vs. Mastropaolo

Again, searches found no other websites that refer to this alleged event. Not even one. Not even in Google.

However, given the claimed context, I rather strongly suspect it was a case of self-serving grandstanding in a venue where such carrying-on was expressly forbidden, and Shermer got justifiably angry because Mastropaolo was intentionally disrupting the proceedings with lies.

Anonymous said...

8-12-10
#14 on the public List is Dr. Richard Dawkins, no longer at Oxford University, no longer Professor of Public Understanding of Science. He is possibly the world's foremost propagandist for evolution and he possesses not one iota of scientific evidence to support evolution. He was recently fired because he has no scientific evidence to support evolution and that fact has been made public on the List. He lost his endowed professorship because his corporate sponsor could not justify spending so much money on a charlatan.

This is another piece of evidence that evolutionists are full of propaganda and zero science. They cannot earn an academic professorship with science articles published in peer reviewed science journals. They are unable to obtain grants for bona fide science studies because evolution exists nowhere in the entire universe and the only evidence they can put on their grant application is 12% superstitions, 74% frauds, and 14% forgeries.

Dawkins made public statements using brass and bluff in support of evolution. Accordingly, I wrote for his best objective, valid, reliable, and calibrated scientific evidence in support of evolution, which he was obliged to send according to the conventions of science. He wrote back giving not one iota of evidence. In fact, he did not even know what calibrated meant (like his apprentices on this blog) and said so in writing. Accordingly, he was challenged to a mini-trial to defend against the claim that evolution is anti-science, the exact opposite of science. He responded with a nervous breakdown, similar to Michael Shermer’s rage and assault witnessed by about 400 in that science conference auditorium, and similar to the nervous breakdown of 8-3-10 by the evolutionist apprentice on this blog.

Dawkins claims he is an evolutionist to be an “intellectually fulfilled” atheist. Doesn’t that say it all? Superstitions, frauds and forgeries to prop up the obvious atheist hallucination. Hallucinations so withdrawn from reality, in fact the exact opposite of reality, is the medial dictionary definition of psychosis. In charity, I advised Dawkins (as I advise his apprentices) to seek psychiatric help as soon as possible.
Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

"he possesses not one iota of scientific evidence to support evolution"

He has provided rather a lot, actually. Perhaps you're not familiar with his writings.

And keep in mind that you in turn have managed to present nothing at all to defend your positions, as can be seen in the thread above.

"In fact, he did not even know what calibrated meant (like his apprentices on this blog) and said so in writing"

Dawkins said, in writing, that he did not know what calibrated meant? Evidence please - or a retraction/correction.

"He responded with a nervous breakdown, similar to Michael Shermer’s rage and assault witnessed by about 400 in that science conference auditorium, and similar to the nervous breakdown of 8-3-10 by the evolutionist apprentice on this blog. "

Looking back at "8-3-10" on this blog, are you referring to your obfuscation and evasion of the clear questions posed to you on that day or the parody comment? The only thing resembling a nervous breakdown there - and even that would be quite a stretch - would be your absurd evasions, which disgusted even creationists.

Your constant refrain of "Darwinism is a religion" would seem jus the slightest bit more credible if you were able to present any scientific evidence for your position at all, seeing as otherwise it appears you only have your religion as a basis for your "scientific" "conclusions".

A discussion of science does not seem to lie within your capacity or repertoire - instead you try to cover it up with endless propaganda and hyperbole.

For the record, this is now the 5th day of you having defaulted on these questions:

1. What is the scientific evidence for devolution? You seem quite convinced of devolution. Is this for religious reasons, or can you cite some scientific evidence for devolution?

2. Could you explain why you offer a "$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical"? What do you think "two or more living things that are identical" would prove or disprove?

3. By "secondary historical evidence", did you mean the Bible and, more specifically, Genesis? Please confirm or correct. If so, how does the particular part of the Bible you have in mind count as objective evidence? The Genesis creation myth is just one of numerous creation myths. If you have an objective way of discerning this creation myth above the others, can you share it with us?


And you therefore continue to concede the following:

1. There is no scientific evidence for devolution.

2. The reasoning behind the "Omniscient Originality Prize" has no rational basis.

3. The "secondary historical evidence" you referred to was Genesis, but you admit there is no objective way to discern this from other creation myths and that it is therefore of no historical value.


As long as you continue to concede that you have no evidence for your position, you have no call to complain about Dawkins, who cheerfully publishes his evidence at voluminous length.

Perhaps it's a matter of "evidence envy"? :-)

-- creeper

highboy said...

Dawkins isn't exactly someone I'd want to claim as being on my side. Science aside, his arguments against the existence of God are pretty adolescent.

Jon Woolf said...

It should be noted that Mr. Mastropaolo may have committed actionable libel in this comment-thread. Above, he claimed that:

"[Richard Dawkins] was recently fired because he has no scientific evidence to support evolution and that fact has been made public on the List. He lost his endowed professorship because his corporate sponsor could not justify spending so much money on a charlatan."

Richard Dawkins retired in 2008 from his post as Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. The retirement was almost certainly a matter of simple age: Dawkins was 67 at the time. I can find no evidence anywhere on the Web to support Mr. Mastropaolo's contention that Dawkins was fired. There is nothing to suggest that his retirement was in any way forced, or that it had anything to do with his fervent defense of evolutionary theory.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that Mr. Mastropaolo is honesty-challenged; he is, after all, a YEC.

Anonymous said...

8-12-10
#12 Dr. Eugenie Scott was seen in a video claiming that evolution was a theory as valid as the theory of gravity. With a few corrections, she could almost be correct. There are an immense number of experiments to illustrate gravity, and any child can and does perform a countless number of them. Unfortunately, there is not one experiment that can be done to illustrate evolution because evolution is the exact opposite of reality, devolution. A child drops a ball and it falls straight downward at S = 1/2 gt^2. For the gravity of evolution, according to Eugenie Scott and her zombies, the ball would have to fly straight upward at S = - 1/2 gt^2. The rule of thumb is: believe the exact opposite of what an evolutionist claims and you’ll find the verifiable truth.

The next time you see Eugenie Scott or any of her brainwashed evolutionist zombies, ask them to converse with you by first standing on their heads. Upside down will give them a better chance of saying something true.

Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

Mr. Mastropaolo,

would you care to respond to the question re. your allegations of Dawkins being fired from his position? Do you have any facts to back this up?

Do you confirm that you, Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo, made this claim, and would you be willing to do so in a forum that clearly and indisputably identifies you as the author of this claim?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Science aside, his arguments against the existence of God are pretty adolescent."

His writings on science are pretty interesting. I'd recommend reading them with an open mind some day.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

So hb disagrees with the arguments in The God Delusion? Say it ain't so?!?! You mean to say that an uber-Christian and "theologian", like Tim, believes Dawkins arguments, in his book called THE GOD DELUSION to be "adolescent"? Truly shocking. For the record, as someone who actually read the book, the God Delusion is a wonderful tome that has opened many many minds and will continue to do so far into the future because it speaks to so many people that have bean searching for answers that actually make sense. That said, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens is even better IMHO.

- Canucklehead.

Oh and Dr. J, you are rambling like a crazy person, here. You have to understand that you are not doing your "side" any favors by behaving the way you are. Heck, even hb thinks you sound stupid and he likes all god fearing people (as long as they aren't "abortionists" of course). So, Dr. J, please, either answer the questions asked of you or, like you enjoy claiming when you challenge luminaries in the field of evolution, admit defeat and move on.

Anonymous said...

8-13-10
"Do you confirm that you, Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo, made this claim, and would you be willing to do so in a forum that clearly and indisputably identifies you as the author of this claim?"

Can it be true? Are you now ready to contend in a mini-trial? I have searched in vain for 8 years for an evolutionist champion. Do we finally have one?

Do you finally intend to tell us who you are? Surely, you are not a creep or a creeping thing, like your Creeper name suggests.

Please confirm that you have your $10,000 ready to hand the judge and that you will abide by the rules and I'll begin the arrangements. As you know, the rules are at http://www.lifescienceprize.org.

Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

Hey, Dr. J, you're doing it wrong.

Seriously.

Why would anybody in their right mind pony up 10 Large to debate a crazy person? I mean, creeper asks if you are willing to back up your libelous clams about Dawkins, as pointed out by Jon, and you take that to mean he's signing up for your bizarre "mini-trial"? Are you off your meds or something? Perhaps we should alert your family (if you aren't estranged from them, of course).

- Canucklehead.

highboy said...

"So hb disagrees with the arguments in The God Delusion? Say it ain't so?!?! You mean to say that an uber-Christian and "theologian", like Tim, believes Dawkins arguments, in his book called THE GOD DELUSION to be "adolescent"? Truly shocking"

Not to anyone with common sense. The guy got his ass handed to him time and time again in debates over the existence of God. I could care less about his positions on science.

Anonymous said...

8-13-10
Canucklehead:
”Why would anybody in their right mind pony up 10 Large to debate a crazy person?” As any sane person knows, it is easier to beat a crazy person in a debate. If you are convinced I am crazy, here is your golden opportunity to make an easy $10,000 over and over again. How about it? All of you against one crazy person, what could be easier?

Let Creeper alone. He may have the evidence. If he does he can roll it over to over a million in less than 6 months.

”Are you off your meds or something?”
I did not realize you were on meds. In fact, I assumed you were out of the booby hatch. Please confirm that you are not institutionalized, or not institutionalized any longer. You already have had one nervous breakdown and I would not want to be responsible for another.

Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

Mr. Mastropaolo,

would you care to respond to the question re. your allegations of Dawkins being fired from his position? Do you have any facts to back this up?

Do you confirm that you, Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo, made this claim, and would you be willing to do so in a forum that clearly and indisputably identifies you as the author of this claim?

Yes or no.

And quit trying to misunderstand what people are asking of you. Why do you think anyone would have 10,000 dollars held hostage to someone who is unwilling to give a straight answer on just about any subject, as you demonstrate in this thread? People respectfully declining your invitation does not indicate a lack of evidence on their side, as that evidence is found at length elsewhere and has in fact been presented in real courts.

The trials you so yearn for already took place. The evidence is out there. You're like a Japanese soldier still fighting years after the war is over. Biogenesis experiments from the 17th century, wow.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

8-14-10
”and would you be willing to do so in a forum ”
I already told you I am ready to hand the judge my $10,000 with my pledge to abide by the rules. If you are willing to do the same we can proceed immediately.

Unlike Dover, the judge would be under oath to be unbiased or recuse himself.
Unlike Dover, no subjectivity would be considered evidence.
Unlike Dover, “expert” opinions won’t count.
Unlike Dover, only objective, valid, reliable, calibrated evidence will count.

”that evidence is found at length elsewhere and has in fact been presented in real courts.”
The mini-trial is a real court of long standing in the American legal system.
If your side has already won with real evidence, then do it again and make a fortune over and over again.

”The trials you so yearn for already took place. The evidence is out there.”
Then do it again with no preparation and make a fortune -- over and over again.

Stop creeping around.
Pick anybody and as many as you want for your side.
I’ll stand you alone.
It is showdown time.
Put up or shut up.
Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

Mr. Mastropaolo,

I asked you a very clear question as well as to "quit trying to misunderstand what people are asking of you". So what do you do? Instead of answering the question regarding potential libel on your part, you dishonestly take a fraction of a sentence out of context so you can continue to advertise your sad PR stunt:

”and would you be willing to do so in a forum ”
I already told you I am ready to hand the judge my $10,000 with my pledge to abide by the rules.


The question from which you lifted that quote of course has nothing to do with your circus act. Here is the question again:

Would you care to respond to the question re. your allegations of Dawkins being fired from his position? Do you have any facts to back this up?

Do you confirm that you, Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo, made this claim, and would you be willing to do so in a forum that clearly and indisputably identifies you as the author of this claim?


As one of the creationists (!) has noted earlier in this thread, you are a troll, one who has, as Jon has noted, now committed what may well be actionable libel. Do you stand by your claim with regard to Richard Dawkins, and if so, can you back it up?

As for "making a fortune over and over again", I'll file that right along with the Nigerian mail scams that occasionally pop up in my junk mail folder. It's about as credible.

Mr. Mastropaolo, you've made it more than clear in the above comment thread that you are an extremely unserious discussion partner (with what appears to be an unhealthy obsession of perceiving "nervous breakdowns" at the drop of a hat); what's more, you've defaulted on questions that should be exceedingly easy for you to answer, including a basic explanation of one of your prizes itself. Your website features similar proclamations that would make any actual scientist give you a wide berth. It is not a lack of evidence that makes them avoid you, but the clear warning signs that dealing with you is a complete waste of time. 10,000 dollars is surely no bargain when it comes to going through a "mini-trial" with you.

Perhaps it is a defense mechanism that you act so irrationally so as to deter people from engaging with you, as any actual discussion regarding the relative scientific merits would naturally soon see your claims bite the dust. That is, after all, what has been happening in actual court cases and in actual scientific work.

If you had any confidence in your position or could even as much as explain the reasoning behind your Omniscient Originality Prize, then you would have done so by now. What is more valuable to you is your propaganda. That much is clear to, I suspect, everyone here except for Radar.

"Put up or shut up."

On the evolution side: the putting up is already done. Look around for yourself. Read the court transcripts, scientific papers etc. We can't take your blinders off you.

On the "devolution" side: you've defaulted. See above. End of story.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

8-14-10
Radar,
You asked me to bat cleanup, and I did but there was no opposing team.
The little boys in short pants got up first and watched nine strikes go by. Not one could swing a bat because it was too heavy for their tiny arms.

Then, we were at bat, and it was the strangest spectacle. Their pitcher could only roll the ball from the mound toward home plate. His tiny arms would not permit him to pitch even one over the plate. After we had scored 100 entirely from walks, the umpire called the game, “no contest.” He then gave each of their team little plastic bats with a whiffle ball, escorted them to the playground, and kindly asked them not to come back until they at least had outgrown their short pants.

We missed not having a real game and we especially missed not having the chance to hit the ball out of the park at every at bat. But that is the way it is with evolutionists. They are the greatest brass and bluffers on the planet as long as no one calls their bluff. Then they have tizzy fits, nervous breakdowns, and weep and wail because no one is supposed to call their bluff and prove they have nothing.

We won’t put them on the public List. That is reserved for evolutionists that have arrived, not little kids with wet diapers under their short pants.
Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Anonymous said...

The usual (in this case particularly infantile) bragging about victory without having put in the effort of properly making their case, as can be clearly seen from the content of this thread. This is omething we have seen from creationists before, especially when they are cornered and have run out of arguments.


Mr. Mastropaolo is now on record as having defaulted on these questions:

1. What is the scientific evidence for devolution? You seem quite convinced of devolution. Is this for religious reasons, or can you cite some scientific evidence for devolution?

2. Could you explain why you offer a "$1000 Omniscient Originality Prize for two or more living things that are identical"? What do you think "two or more living things that are identical" would prove or disprove?

3. By "secondary historical evidence", did you mean the Bible and, more specifically, Genesis? Please confirm or correct. If so, how does the particular part of the Bible you have in mind count as objective evidence? The Genesis creation myth is just one of numerous creation myths. If you have an objective way of discerning this creation myth above the others, can you share it with us?

4. Could you please point us to where you think you provided objective evidence that rocks are no older than 6,000 to 10,000 years that meets your own criteria for "objective" etc.?

5. Could you please explain on what basis you reject radiometric dating in this regard?

6. You observed: "In the last eight years, I have noticed that the usually very vocal evolutionists making their ostentatious public statements have become strangely silent."

Is this a subjective impression, or do you have objective evidence in support of this statement?


And he has therefore conceded the following:

1. There is no scientific evidence for devolution.

2. The reasoning behind the "Omniscient Originality Prize" has no rational basis.

3. The "secondary historical evidence" he referred to was Genesis, and he admits that there is no objective way to discern this from other creation myths and that it is therefore of absolutely no historical value.

4. There is no objective evidence that rocks are no older than 6,000 to 10,000 years that meets his own criteria for "objective".

5. Radiometric dating, on the other hand, does meet these criteria.

6. His observation that "In the last eight years, I have noticed that the usually very vocal evolutionists making their ostentatious public statements have become strangely silent" is a subjective impression for which he has no objective evidence whatsoever.


Regarding his potentially libelous claims re. Richard Dawkins, Mastropaolo has failed to back up his assertion in any way, leaving open the likelihood that he is spreading malicious and even legally actionable lies about others.

My, what a mess you've left behind, Mr. Mastropaolo.

At this point one might be inclined to demand "Better creationists please", but there's a nagging suspicion that this is actually the cream of the crop...

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

8-15-10
The Evolved Evolutionist
Yesterday’s description of the evolutionists on this blog was incomplete. They are not only like little children too weak to hold a bat and swing at the baseball. They are not only like little children too weak to pitch the ball over the plate. Their faces also have the appearance of Ota Benga who filed all of his teeth to points. Further, the evolutionist’s mouth drips with toxic venom like the mouth of the Komodo dragon. And the venom drips on its claws.

Why the additional descriptors? Because these evolutionists are only interested in destruction, chaos, and gang attacks like a pack of hyenas. Like hyenas, they can only operate in packs. Individually, they are afraid to even sign their names. They are venomous gremlins with only anarchy and predation programmed into their only pair of functioning neurons.

I offered to stand their whole pack, but they still squealed and ran for the swamp’s dank shadows.

Evidently, their evolved purpose in life is to eat carrion.
There at last they may do some good.
Godspeed,
Joseph Mastropaolo

Jon Woolf said...

I see you've added racism to the list of contemptible vices which you've displayed here, Mr. Mastropaolo. I'm disgusted and appalled that any modern, God-fearing Christian would express such vile sentiments in public.

The malevolence that is manifest in your last couple of comments deserves to be distributed far and wide. No one who sees them will ever again make the mistake of thinking that creationists are actually motivated by a regard for science and reason.

Anonymous said...

88-15-10
How charming that Jon Woolf is not disgusted and appalled at the undisguised malevolence consistently displayed by his fellow anarchists. You are only appalled at the accurate summary, which you hope will be censored and stay hidden. Atilla the Hun and Genghis Kahn could hardly have had more apt pupils on how to crash and burn all of the revelations on the greatest racist hoax in recoded history, evolution.
Well done, apt pupil.
Keep up the predation and carnage.
And may your dreams be simple and pure in a baggie sealed tightly against all of the chaos and carnage you have practiced in your waking hours.
Joseph Mastropaolo

Jon Woolf said...

[jokerlaugh.wav]

Ah, young feller-me-lad, if you only knew ...

As if somebody who holds the Constitution of the United States in far higher esteem than you hold your Bible could ever be an anarchist!

As if someone who extends fellow-sapient status to cyborgs and dragons, talking rocks and walking trees, telepathic mops, and superintelligent shades of the color blue would ever judge others inferior on the basis of something as trivial as skin color!

Radar, do you really want Mastro's kind of rhetoric polluting your blog?

Anonymous said...

"You are only appalled at the accurate summary, which you hope will be censored and stay hidden."

On the contrary, Joseph, be assured that your behavior on this thread will be linked to and laughed at for some time to come. You have not done your side any favors at all.

Anonymous said...

To think that Radar (the bug nutjob and others?) consider Dr. Joseph to be one of creation "science"'s big time "heavy hitters"... incredible really.


That said, what do I know? I'm just some tiny-armed-anarchist-little-kid-with-wet-diapers-under-my-short-pants, from the booby hatch.


- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

8-18-10
ARE THE CARRION EATERS IN DISTRESS?
You evolutionists come to a creationist blog peddling 12% superstitions, 74% frauds, and 14% forgeries with the arrogant attitude of the British colonizing America. Do you expect to be admired for it?

You are seen as unable to do research, unable to teach, unable to publish, unable to do a single thing to lift society. So you decide to feed your egos by practicing the confidence and anarchy games amongst those who do lift society. With cute rhetorical tricks, you insist the truth is lies and your lies are true. You must keep that going as long as possible while planting as much anarchy as you can or your mission fails. And you must gang attack anyone revealing your confidence and anarchy games.

When found out, you are in distress because you are seen as gremlins with teeth filed to points drooling toxic saliva on claws to gang attack like hyenas. You are seen in your transformed state only fit to eat carrion.

But you struck that bargain when you became toxic missionary anti-scientists.

Live your transformation. Write a theme entitled, “My life as a toxic gremlin.” Draw a picture of yourself with teeth filed to points dripping poisonous saliva on your claws. Post it on your refrigerator door to admire every day. And be sure to dream of yourself in your cape soaked in the blood of honest ideas.

And don’t be distressed. Be happy. You reaped what you sowed.
Be proud that you are carrion eaters.
There at last you may do some good.

OR YOU CAN ABANDON THE STUPID PSYCHOSIS THAT NEVER WAS TRUE AND CHANGE YOUR INNER SELVES FROM DESPICABLE TO GLORIOUS. SEE THE UNIVERSE AS IT TRULY IS IN ALL OF ITS INCREDIBLE SPLENDOR AND EXCLAIM, O BONITAS!

Joseph Mastropaolo

scohen said...

"When found out, you are in distress because you are seen as gremlins with teeth filed to points drooling toxic saliva on claws to gang attack like hyenas. You are seen in your transformed state only fit to eat carrion."

Why would a carrion eater need their teeth filed to points and poisonous saliva?

Sounds like the carrion eaters aren't the only ones in need of research.

And the 'gang' you speak of consists of just two members, Jon Wolf and Creeper (and one of them *has* been published).

What a joke you are!

Indeed --Better Creationists please!

Anonymous said...

"OR YOU CAN ABANDON THE STUPID PSYCHOSIS THAT NEVER WAS TRUE AND CHANGE YOUR INNER SELVES FROM DESPICABLE TO GLORIOUS. SEE THE UNIVERSE AS IT TRULY IS IN ALL OF ITS INCREDIBLE SPLENDOR AND EXCLAIM, O BONITAS!"

0_o

Man, this "cleanup" batter of Radar's sure has made a mess of things. In fact, this whole thread reminds me of the quote we've all heard before,

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
—Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

For the record Dr. J, as evidenced by everything you've posted here so far, YOU are the one that is unwilling to answer questions and defend your positions relative to evolution, not us "carrion eaters". That said, feel free to continue to hide behind that $10,000 "debate fee" of yours, it seems to be working out really great for you so far.

- Canucklehead.

Oh and finally, Dr. J., you mentioned "nervous breakdowns" quite a few times in your screeds above. I suspect you are likely intimately familiar with the condition and so I think now is probably a good time to talk to a family member about how you are currently feeling. I hope you get better soon.

Anonymous said...

8-19-10
”Indeed --Better Creationists please!”
Fine. Spend the rest of your life peddling the superstitions, frauds, and forgeries that are the exact opposite of reality.

You are clutching a straw that has been petrified for 3.4 centuries. And how pitiful you look accelerating toward the falls.

However, chacun son gout.
Joseph Mastropaolo

scohen said...

If you want to talk, then fine --we can talk. Creeper and Jon have asked numerous questions that you refuse to answer.

However, if you prefer to call people babies who make poopy in their little poop and pee filled baby short-short diapers while they drip venom from their pointy teeth on their nasty anarchist claws and are hell-bound atheists -- well then, you're not going to be met with a lot of seriousness.

I've been talking to Radar on this blog for years now, mostly civilly, and your proclamations about 'ganging up' and 'anarchy' are absurd. Just ask him.

So what's it going to be --discourse or petulant whining?

If it's the former, please answer the questions. If it's the latter --Better creationists please.