beam me up scottie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-02-11 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #97 |
| 98. "But I will tell you this, I sure as heck know more about theology than they do." |
|
Maybe PZ should rename the Courtier's Reply after you. The Courtier's Reply Category: Godlessness Posted on: December 24, 2006 10:16 AM, by PZ Myers There's a common refrain in the criticisms of Dawkins' The God Delusion that I've taken to categorizing with my own private title—it's so common, to the point of near-unanimous universality, that I've decided to share it with you all, along with a little backstory that will help you to understand the name. The Courtier's Reply. It refers to the aftermath of a fable. I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.
Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.
Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.
Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtier... 
|
| -Intelligent Design: Atheists to the Rescue |
rug |
Nov-29-11 12:50 PM |
#0 |
-
If you're like me and terminally cynical, you'll look to what they're trying to accomplish. |
DCKit |
Nov-29-11 12:56 PM |
#1 |
-
Sorry, any article not correctly identifying Behe is dishonest. |
Warren Stupidity |
Nov-29-11 12:57 PM |
#2 |
 -
Whatever else you call him he's a professor of biochemistry with a PhD from Penn. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 01:07 PM |
#4 |
-
He is a paid wanker for the Discovery Institute. |
Warren Stupidity |
Nov-29-11 01:17 PM |
#7 |
 -
I see. He's No True Scientist. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 01:20 PM |
#8 |
-
He is a paid wanker for the Discovery Institute. |
Warren Stupidity |
Nov-29-11 01:33 PM |
#11 |
 -
Saying it twice does not add any veracity. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 01:48 PM |
#13 |
-
No it makes me wonder if you understand who the players are. |
Warren Stupidity |
Nov-29-11 01:59 PM |
#16 |
-
I know exactly who the players are. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 02:11 PM |
#17 |
-
"I'm looking at the entire issue without any dogma whatsoever." |
Warren Stupidity |
Nov-29-11 02:31 PM |
#20 |
-
There's plenty of dogma to go around. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 03:28 PM |
#23 |
-
LMAO! +1,000 |
Sal316 |
Nov-29-11 04:40 PM |
#31 |
-
"Behe...tutored Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism" |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 04:51 PM |
#36 |
 -
So he's not a "True Scientist"? |
Sal316 |
Nov-29-11 05:12 PM |
#38 |
-
To anti-science right wing christian conservatives, he's a whore with a degree. |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 05:25 PM |
#39 |
 -
Essentially he's like Paul Cameron |
NMMNG |
Nov-29-11 07:19 PM |
#44 |
-
ugh. |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 07:37 PM |
#45 |
-
I can see you're clueless |
skepticscott |
Nov-29-11 07:48 PM |
#46 |
-
Educate me, o wise one |
Sal316 |
Dec-01-11 08:59 AM |
#83 |
-
It's funny you play on the NTS fallacy while invoking an argument from authority. |
darkstar3 |
Dec-02-11 01:26 AM |
#94 |
 -
Keep on shufflin' PZ |
Sal316 |
Dec-02-11 05:38 PM |
#97 |
-
"But I will tell you this, I sure as heck know more about theology than they do." |
beam me up scottie |
Dec-02-11 06:06 PM |
#98 |
 -
Keep on shufflin' |
Sal316 |
Dec-03-11 10:40 AM |
#106 |
-
The Courtier's Reply was written about critics like you. |
beam me up scottie |
Dec-03-11 11:18 AM |
#107 |
-
Thanks for proving my point.. |
Sal316 |
Dec-03-11 03:07 PM |
#110 |
-
Keep digging. |
beam me up scottie |
Dec-03-11 03:12 PM |
#111 |
-
Yeah, cause I'M shufflin'. |
darkstar3 |
Dec-02-11 07:41 PM |
#99 |
-
I don't support Behe's bs. It's crap science. |
Sal316 |
Dec-03-11 10:33 AM |
#104 |
-
Really? Because your contributions all over the thread strongly suggest otherwise. |
darkstar3 |
Dec-03-11 01:17 PM |
#108 |
-
No, they don't. |
Sal316 |
Dec-03-11 03:06 PM |
#109 |
-
Oh really? |
darkstar3 |
Dec-03-11 04:33 PM |
#112 |
-
Are you a farmer? |
Sal316 |
Dec-03-11 06:49 PM |
#114 |
-
That pole you're stirring with, |
darkstar3 |
Dec-03-11 06:57 PM |
#115 |
-
I'll take that as a "no", then. |
Sal316 |
Dec-05-11 10:03 AM |
#118 |
-
Isn't that what you did in #114? |
trotsky |
Dec-05-11 10:19 AM |
#119 |
-
No, you're clueless in spite of all that. |
skepticscott |
Dec-02-11 08:08 PM |
#100 |
-
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Dec-02-11 08:29 PM |
#101 |
-
Nice. |
beam me up scottie |
Dec-02-11 08:36 PM |
#102 |
 -
He's a theologian, so presumably, he knows. n/t |
laconicsax |
Dec-04-11 08:04 PM |
#116 |
-
And Dawkins needs to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin before debunking IDiots. |
beam me up scottie |
Dec-04-11 09:14 PM |
#117 |
-
*self delete* |
Sal316 |
Dec-03-11 10:34 AM |
#105 |
-
No, go ahead. Say what you were going to. |
laconicsax |
Dec-03-11 05:52 PM |
#113 |
-
Well, I've never heard of the guy |
rrneck |
Nov-29-11 06:16 PM |
#41 |
-
He's a paid schill for the ACSI, too. |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 05:05 PM |
#37 |
-
I don't understand why they'd HAVE to be "intentions". Why not just super-super ordinate, macro, |
patrice |
Nov-29-11 01:03 PM |
#3 |
 -
Intention can be ascribed to such things, but it isn't necessary to the phenomena themselves. |
patrice |
Nov-29-11 01:07 PM |
#5 |
-
Oh and "What Darwin Got Wrong" is a joke. |
Warren Stupidity |
Nov-29-11 01:14 PM |
#6 |
 -
It's always nice to get an objective view. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 01:22 PM |
#9 |
-
PZ Meyers is an actual reputable biologist. |
Warren Stupidity |
Nov-29-11 01:29 PM |
#10 |
-
And he's an actual biochemist. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 01:49 PM |
#14 |
-
William Demsbki is a scientist now? |
AmericaIsGreat |
Nov-29-11 01:36 PM |
#12 |
 -
Actually, a mathematician. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 01:53 PM |
#15 |
-
Right |
AmericaIsGreat |
Nov-29-11 02:22 PM |
#18 |
-
You do realize that arguments from authority are useless right? |
Humanist_Activist |
Nov-29-11 02:27 PM |
#19 |
 -
To a degree. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 03:30 PM |
#24 |
  -
Considering I didn't use either, your mention of them is inapplicable.. |
Humanist_Activist |
Nov-29-11 03:34 PM |
#25 |
   -
Of course there's "to a degrre" here. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 03:47 PM |
#27 |
  -
to a degree |
deacon_sephiroth |
Nov-29-11 04:23 PM |
#29 |
   -
Yes, get them on the line, please. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 04:42 PM |
#34 |
  -
they agree with me, and further point out that the tactics you are |
deacon_sephiroth |
Nov-30-11 03:11 AM |
#55 |
  -
I didn't say you should do anything, I pointed out facts about the ID movement and their tactics... |
Humanist_Activist |
Nov-29-11 09:12 PM |
#48 |
  -
Like post #9, yes. |
trotsky |
Nov-30-11 06:25 AM |
#56 |
 -
#57 is closer. |
rug |
Nov-30-11 05:27 PM |
#64 |
 -
Glad you admit you launched an ad hom! |
trotsky |
Nov-30-11 05:51 PM |
#65 |
 -
Not at all. |
rug |
Nov-30-11 06:00 PM |
#66 |
 -
No, you did indeed admit it. |
trotsky |
Nov-30-11 06:12 PM |
#67 |
 -
And this? |
rug |
Nov-30-11 06:22 PM |
#69 |
 -
What can I say? |
trotsky |
Nov-30-11 06:41 PM |
#71 |
 -
OOO...the Meyers shuffle! |
Sal316 |
Nov-29-11 04:41 PM |
#33 |
-
I don't understand this reference, but I find it ironic that even here, creationist cretins... |
Humanist_Activist |
Nov-29-11 09:23 PM |
#49 |
-
What it comes down to is fear and hatred of atheists, I guess. |
trotsky |
Nov-30-11 06:27 AM |
#57 |
 -
That I don't get, why discredit yourself in this way? |
Humanist_Activist |
Dec-01-11 03:05 AM |
#77 |
-
Considering I'm not a creationist... |
Sal316 |
Dec-01-11 09:00 AM |
#84 |
-
I don't believe that claim was made. |
trotsky |
Dec-01-11 11:14 AM |
#88 |
-
I didn't say you were... |
Humanist_Activist |
Dec-02-11 01:41 PM |
#96 |
-
Really? So you don't believe that the universe was created in some fashion by God? |
darkstar3 |
Dec-02-11 11:54 PM |
#103 |
-
And Dobson is a psychologist, that doesn't make HIM any less an idiot. |
Odin2005 |
Nov-29-11 09:59 PM |
#51 |
-
"What Darwin Got Wrong" was widely derided by philosophers |
muriel_volestrangler |
Nov-29-11 02:54 PM |
#21 |
-
Why are you posting creationism "theories" from right wing conservative christian "think tanks"? |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 03:25 PM |
#22 |
 -
Are you saying only sources you approve may be posted? |
rug |
Nov-29-11 03:45 PM |
#26 |
  -
I didn't say you're not allowed to post crap from the religious right. In fact I applaud your choice |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 04:20 PM |
#28 |
 -
I'll be glad to after I remove the assumptions, misstatements, snark and opinion from your post. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 04:28 PM |
#30 |
 -
I read the article before I posted. It's bullshit and doesn't merit rational discourse. |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 04:41 PM |
#32 |
 -
That explains your irrational comments. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 04:43 PM |
#35 |
 -
It's amazing is it not? |
EvolveOrConvolve |
Nov-29-11 06:26 PM |
#43 |
-
We've been told we don't deserve protection under the Constitution because we're not a true minority |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 07:55 PM |
#47 |
-
I don't think that's what gave rise to the movement |
Major Nikon |
Nov-29-11 06:10 PM |
#40 |
-
It's been a while since I read "What Darwin Got Wrong." |
Jim__ |
Nov-29-11 06:21 PM |
#42 |
 -
See #21 - philosophers destroyed their point #1 |
muriel_volestrangler |
Nov-30-11 06:32 PM |
#70 |
-
I've seen post #21. |
Jim__ |
Nov-30-11 08:30 PM |
#73 |
-
If this is your response |
skepticscott |
Nov-30-11 09:25 PM |
#74 |
-
Did you miss my citation from the book? |
Jim__ |
Nov-30-11 10:07 PM |
#75 |
-
The excerpt from the book doesn't explain anything |
muriel_volestrangler |
Dec-01-11 05:40 AM |
#78 |
-
The excerpt from the book addresses, in part, the excerpt from the review by Block and Kitcher. |
Jim__ |
Dec-01-11 07:09 AM |
#80 |
-
It implies that biologists do not take 'endogenous factors' into account |
muriel_volestrangler |
Dec-01-11 07:55 AM |
#82 |
-
No, it doesn't imply that at all. |
Jim__ |
Dec-01-11 09:10 AM |
#85 |
-
And by not limiting it to biology, they step away from Darwin |
muriel_volestrangler |
Dec-01-11 09:53 AM |
#86 |
-
Their argument is against the Theory of Natural Selection as the primary driver of evolution. |
Jim__ |
Dec-01-11 11:28 AM |
#89 |
-
Not sure this will get anywhere; you say "the authors are right", but don't give reasons |
muriel_volestrangler |
Dec-01-11 11:52 AM |
#90 |
-
I didn't say the authors are right. |
Jim__ |
Dec-01-11 02:20 PM |
#92 |
-
I read Fodor's book and it's one giant straw-man argument. |
Odin2005 |
Nov-29-11 09:56 PM |
#50 |
 -
Hey! I had the same reaction to The God Delusion. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 10:42 PM |
#52 |
-
And a non-sequitur from rug. n/t |
laconicsax |
Nov-29-11 11:52 PM |
#54 |
 -
You expected more? |
trotsky |
Nov-30-11 06:29 AM |
#58 |
 -
Sorry if I went too fast for you. |
rug |
Nov-30-11 01:24 PM |
#60 |
-
Except it's not |
edhopper |
Nov-30-11 01:59 PM |
#61 |
-
If Intelligent Design exists then there should be a blue print |
Angry Dragon |
Nov-29-11 11:45 PM |
#53 |
-
Unrec for posting right-wing garbage on DU. n/t |
trotsky |
Nov-30-11 06:30 AM |
#59 |
 -
Isn't it interesting how readily it's embraced here? |
laconicsax |
Nov-30-11 06:17 PM |
#68 |
-
Back in 2000 my fundy sister confidently predicted... |
Silent3 |
Nov-30-11 04:10 PM |
#62 |
-
Dembski's probabalistic arguments have been thoroughly debunked by |
MarkCharles |
Nov-30-11 04:24 PM |
#63 |
-
I think "irreducible complexity" is an intriguing idea... |
Silent3 |
Nov-30-11 07:52 PM |
#72 |
-
I think the problem with "irreducible complexity" is that it is an argument from ignorance... |
Humanist_Activist |
Dec-01-11 02:59 AM |
#76 |
 -
And you nailed it right there. |
trotsky |
Dec-01-11 06:05 AM |
#79 |
  -
Its particularly funny when they use the eye... |
Humanist_Activist |
Dec-02-11 01:32 PM |
#95 |
 -
Developing the idea would mean factoring ignorance out... |
Silent3 |
Dec-01-11 07:53 AM |
#81 |
-
Evolution predicts irreducibly complex systems. |
laconicsax |
Dec-01-11 11:10 AM |
#87 |
 -
True and any intelligent microbiologist would know how this works in the |
MarkCharles |
Dec-01-11 01:25 PM |
#91 |
-
It's a damn good try and might give one pause, but only pause |
deacon_sephiroth |
Dec-01-11 02:53 PM |
#93 |