Category: Uncategorized

We went to a little French reptile show the other day. They had several dozen glass cages containing everything from Blue-tongued Skinks to rare Tarantulas. What was a little disturbing, however, was the fact that one cage had two big cracks in it, one of which showed a definite hole. The cracks were partially covered with duct tape, which was old and peeling away from the cage… of the green mamba.

I mean, it’s not like green mambas are particularly venomous or anything, like rattlesnakes.

Perhaps the evolutionary biologists here can determine whether it was a moral act or an immoral act to have pointed out that the mamba was no longer nosing about its potential exit route, but appeared to have already effected its escape. (Actually, it had only climbed its little tree where it was mostly out of sight.)

I can, however, state that it was an act which afforded some small amusement.

Cedarford disputes the contentions of his fellow sciencists:

It is fitting when VD outed himself as a scientist(actually, more an engineer or technician since VD has never done scientific research or published a single science paper)

Oh, so today we’re deciding that engineers aren’t scientists, now that it doesn’t suit the scientific faithful to describe a particular individual as a scientist? Because only two weeks ago, people were swearing up and down that the guys who invented the silicon chip were scientists because they were engineers.

Do make up your collective mind, science fans.

I have certainly postulated a hypothesis, performed experiments and observed them.. It’s true, I have never published a peer-reviewed paper in a science journal, but then, neither did Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton or Darwin. I suppose they must not be scientists either, then. Or is what makes a scientist different today than 300 years ago, is the problem that science is as mutable in the secularist mind as morality?

You see, Cedarford and others find themselves in a bit of an uncomfortable dilemma. Either science is not responsible for the great majority of the scientific goodness that its worshippers wish to claim for it, or I am a scientist, the son of a scientist, and my dictates must be given great weight on the basis of my membership in the Priesthood of Progressive Man.

Who simply can’t stop lying:

“I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power;”
– Charles Darwin

Here’s where the quote came from, and it carries a rather different message than Cordova communicated.

“Once as a very little boy whilst at the day school, or before that time, I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power; but the beating could not have been severe, for the puppy did not howl, of which I feel sure, as the spot was near the house. This act lay heavily on my conscience, as is shown by my remembering the exact spot where the crime was committed. It probably lay all the heavier from my love of dogs being then, and for a long time afterwards, a passion. Dogs seemed to know this, for I was an adept in robbing their love from their masters.”

Why do creationists lie so? It must be something in their upbringing.

Accurately quoting is not a lie. Darwin did beat a puppy. He did enjoy it. The quote is accurate. To be sure, he regretted it and did not continue to do so, but it doesn’t change the fact that the quote is precisely accurate and within context.

One could reasonably argue that the quote is used unfairly. To describe it as a lie, however, which is to claim that Darwin never said or wrote such a thing, is demonstrably untrue. It is, in other words, a lie.

But one really can’t expect any better of an irrational and amoral atheist, can one?

Personally, I see little point in quote mining to prove that 19th century individuals held beliefs considered unacceptable by 21st century individuals. This strikes me as tantamount to attempting to prove the wetness of water.

It’s impossible… except when it isn’t:

Another surprise sighting is that of giant magnetic field loops crashing down onto the Sun’s surface as if they were collapsing from exhaustion, a finding that Golub describes as “impossible”. Previously, scientists thought they should emerge from the Sun and continue blowing out into space.

The thing that is so wildly stupid about my fellow scientists is the way that they constantly try to have it both ways. One cannot praise something for providing certainty one moment, then praise it for being flexible enough to correct its previous errors.

SCIENCIST: You must believe X!

SKEPTIC: Okay, why?

SCIENCIST: Because 98.2 percent of all scientist say so! Science says so!

SKEPTIC: Okay, I believe X!

SCIENTIST: Um, guys, I kind of hate to bring this up, but we were wrong about X. It’s actually Y.

SCIENCIST: You must believe Y!

SKEPTIC: But, I believe X.

SCIENCIST: You uneducated fool! What are you, a Bible thumper? You must believe Y! Science says so!

SKEPTIC: But didn’t you just say it said X?

SCIENCIST: LIAR!

SCIENTIST: Hey, sorry everyone, it turns out that it’s actually Z.

SCIENCIST: You must believe Z!

SKEPTIC: Yeah, we’re going to let you jokers define truth, beauty, love and morality. That sounds like a brilliant idea. Let me know when you find the “missing” 96 percent of the universe.

One of the more foolish sciencists once commented here that I was insane because I look forward to scientists being forced to admit that they were completely wrong about dinosaurs being separated from humans by millions of years. But science history is nothing except the impossible being proved possible; I don’t believe they’ll be wrong because of any Young Earth beliefs on my part, but because their train of logic on the subject requires several assumptions, any of which could easily prove to be false.

Logic and theory are great, but they are no substitute for demonstrable fact. The strongest claim to truth are when logic, experience and demonstrable fact all point to the same place, and when they don’t all fit perfectly together, you’ve got a pretty good clue that you’re missing something somewhere.

Man’s scientific understanding is a snapshot, nothing more. Investing too much in the snapshot is foolish, history strongly suggests that you WILL be proven hopelessly wrong, quite possibly even within your lifetime.

I am a fan of both science and religion. I don’t worry at all about conflicts between them, not when science can’t even find most of the universe it infers and when the best social scientists can’t achieve better results with even the smallest focus group than an ancient text.

From the New York Times:

Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.

And in other news, rapists argue that it is for rapists to say what consent is, while thieves argue that it is for thieves to say what private property are.

Seriously, who falls for this idiocy? If morality “grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution”, how would that give biologists any more claim on defining those rules anyhow?

Even if the evolutionary biologists are correct about absolutely everything, they are still merely the products of evolution, not the directors of it. Their claim on it is no greater than anyone else’s. Adam Smith didn’t claim the right to set prices because he discovered the law of supply and demand, after all.

They’re merely self-defensive and insecure about their underwear. That’s not weird, not at all:

“Being a Mormon is weird.” Being a Baptist Bigot is OK right? You sound like exactly what you are an immature kid, not a high IQ writer!

I don’t care if Mormons wear their angelic underoos on their heads or if they weave them out of gold, it’s a bizarre practice any way you look at it. It doesn’t make one a bigot to notice that people are behaving strangely, it’s merely the recognition of a departure from societal norms.

I encourage every Mormon to take their underwear seriously; if that’s part of what makes you Mormon, then be a Mormon and do it right. Don’t be concerned about the fact that I think it’s weird, it’s not like I’m the precise epicenter of human normality.

Revel in your freakiness, that’s my view. Just don’t expect to do it and be elected president.

To play evolutionist and avoid these questions with a simple “if weren’t such a hopelessly ignorant and uneducated god-botherer, you would have read the study on mutating cockroaches that is kept in a locked gun safe bolted to the floor of the broom closet in the Harvard sociology department which answers your incredibly simplistic question that I am nevertheless not going to bother to answer in any meaningful way.”

But I can’t really do that and continue to rag on the dog-botherers for not answering questions, so I’ll have a whack at Raker’s inquisition here:

#1: When a preborn child is developing, if there is an interuption in the process, like something stressful happening to the mother, or a drug overdose, the development isn’t delayed, the particular stage is passed. This is why people are born handicapped or deformed. I’m trying to transpose that idea over onto a child born healthy, only in this case, the child was never encouraged to develope very far mentally.

Do you suppose this child in his teen or adult years could develope a vastly improved IQ, or is chilhood the optimum time?

Childhood appears to be the optimum time. However, most adults still fall very far short of their adult potential. Myself included.

#2: Do you recall any unique methods your parents used to provoke mental advancement in your early years? (Things few, if any other people use)

All I remember was that I never had a shortage of books. As fast as I’d read them, as many as 70 per month at times, my mother would keep them coming. I was the neighborhood’s MS Readathon nightmare. My parents bought me two particularly good classics library; I wish I could remember the names. One was these very tall books with the extended stories of Robin Hood, the Jungle Book and Paul Bunyan, the other had abridged versions of Greek classics and the original Harry Potter, Tom Brown. Elementary school teachers were always astounded when I was familiar with Plato and Demosthenes, but it was simply a matter of having read those books. I even tried putting pebbles in my mouth once just to see what it was like… never could figure out how that helped him.

#3: If you had children, what would you do to the wee little tykes to stimulate their minds?

Homeschool them. Teach them their phonics at three and then let them advance at their own rate. Give them histories, kids love history and they don’t realize it’s supposed to be boring. I still love history, my current dilemma is whether to upgrade to the New Cambridge Medieval History series or stick with JW Bury, editor.

#4: If there are things that strain your cognitive abilities, are you immediately aware of it (man am I groggy) or do you first notice it in performance?

Yes. I find math to be tedious in the extreme. I always do well on tests, but I simply loathe it. I used to keep Isaac Asimov’s Guide to Physics by my bedside, that could knock me out in two pages. I’m also not very good with languages, I waste too much effort trying to understand a nonexistent logic rather than simply going with it.

#5: Have you ever tried herbal (or other) suppliments like ginko-gilboa (sp?) that alledgedly improve the mind, and if so, did you notice a benefit?

It’s called caffeine. I’m not so much addicted as enamoured.

#6: You’ve no doubt heard the numbers that say most people only use a portion of their brain, say 20%. Do you have any thoughts regarding this? For example -I’m making this up- It’s like the difference between ram and hard drive, the unused portion being the hard drive, storage. Having great reserves of storage won’t help with problem solving, because ram and hard drive usually remain separate. Like I said, that’s totally made up, but do you have any speculations or observations about this vast unused mind business?

I have no idea what they’re talking about.

#7: What is the biggest mistake you see people make regarding how they use or train their minds?

They don’t use it. It’s amazing how easy it is to accept assumptions. I believed the crust was “the best part of the bread” until I was 27, eating it reluctantly because my mother had told me that when I was young and I simply never gave the matter a moment’s thought. The best part was when Spacebunny, knowing this, asked my brother about it… after she quizzed him regarding his answer, he paused for a long moment, then shouted “MOM!”

#8: On a daily basis, are your mental abilities much affected by things like: sleep, sugar, overeating, undereating, water consumption and exersize?

Not much. I usually do my most creative thinking when I’m half out of it from staying up too late. Which, in my case, means the sun is coming up. I don’t know if it’s a cause or a result, but I find that I tend to eat and sleep less when I’m going through a creative phase. I also look like a zombie on crack, but hey, that’s sexy, right?

#9: What place has curiosity? For example, I long held reading as the most important thing I could teach a child, as it is the key to unlock other knowledge. Now though, I’m thinking that healthy curiosity is a priority. Are the people you regard highly people with an active curiosity?

Almost every highly intelligent person I know is incredibly curious. This tends to get them into trouble, of course, and tends to lead to bizarre stories that you’d never believe if you weren’t there, as well as great lines such as “I thought your father was in Peru!” and “Dude, you can’t wrestle with those pigs, they’ll eat you.”

#10: If a person had a limited IQ, it was obvious they would never be much more, what subject do you think would be most beneficial for them to study? That is, is there one subject (math, logic, reading, etc) that would have the most all around practicality in everyday life?

Everyone’s IQ is limited. But I understand… I would say basic logic and attempting to instill a general love of reading would be the most helpful, since history and things that require pattern-recognition is not going to be a strong point, to say nothing of math. Helping them recognize patterns of behavior in others would probably be most beneficial.

#11: When I was much younger, I started in on this experiment if you will. I would simultaneously read a book and listen to a talk show at the same time, and be able to repeat each. I have since been through very heavy drug abuse, and while I doubt I could do the same now, I wouldn’t want to for this reason: The thing got away from me. I would be standing in a group of people, and while conversing with one person, I would be following some else’s conversation, or, when tired, and wanting to concentrate on one topic, my mind would launch into two. Beleive me, I’ve gotten over it, one topic is hard enough now, even wide awake.

What? As Spacebunny knows, being 50 percent there tends to run on the high side for me. However, I’ve been able to listen and read as long as I can remember, after third grade my teachers permitted me to do so openly after I demonstrated that I could follow along with the class while having my nose in a book.

Anyway-y-y, have you ever engaged in any mind experiments that were benificial or regretful?

I plead the Fifth Amendment.

#12: I read that Albert Einstein wouldn’t memorize things like phone numbers or addresses, because he didn’t want trivial information taking up space in his mind. Any thoughts on this?

I’m skeptical. That sounds like a clever excuse not to waste time and effort on people that don’t interest him to me. It’s also straight ou
t of Arthur Conan Doyle. While I don’t think Einstein was a fraud or anything, I do think he had more than a little Andy Warhol in him. I think his reputation will fade significantly with time.

#13: Speaking of Einstein, he became aware of previously unknown forces and formulas. If you could go back in time and try to explain to people what electricity was, or steam power, you could at least point to lightning or a kettle and attempt an explanation. But this relativity, this mass equals energy, was so new, I’m amazed that he saw it so boldly. Anyway, do you suppose there will be other discoveries as dramatic, or might we be leveling off in that regard?

We’ll see how it holds up over time, won’t we. I think there will be discoveries that will be more dramatic than we are imagining, that will rock science to its very core.

#14: Do you have any ideas regarding man’s intellect in past ages? This would include Adam and Eve, stories one hears about lost civilizations, ancient technology used by the Egyptians and others. Also any overall chronological observations, as in scenarios where the intellect of the masses declines, and higher IQ is a commodity that would be scarce, with increased efforts to silence or hire said ability.

Anyone who is sufficiently well read in history is aware that ancient man was just as intelligent, and just as capable of doing stupid things with that intelligence, as we are. This is one reason I loathe the idea of Progress, the notion that we are somehow superior to the medieval scholastics or the Athenian Greeks on the basis of possessing superior metallurgy and satellite television.

The intelligence of the masses is not declining, but their level of education is. This is ironic, given that more people believe they possess a solid education than ever before, since they’ve been physically present in a building owned by a university for a sufficient period of time. Of course, they are completely wrong.

If you want to learn, then read. Books are simply stored knowledge, but you have to open them to get at it.

Another GT writes:

I would expect that someone who would want to be taken seriously as a scholar and commentator, never mind the lecture on IQ that you should have, would at least do as much as Hugh Hewitt and learn a little bit about what you so recklessly disparage in reference to Mitt Romney. That little bit of infantile and adolescent chatter about sacred underwear, (and that’s it?), is surely beneath you? What gives?

If you’re genuinely naming Hugh Hewitt as a serious political commentator, then no, I don’t want to be taken seriously. Remember how he and a bunch of other Republicans publicly and repeatedly declared that Arnold Schwarzenegger would save conservativism and the Republican Party in California? I seem to recall making some very different predictions… how’d that work out?

Hewitt thinks Romney is electable in both senses of the word, presumably based on his height and his hair. I think an openly homosexual Catholic priest has a better chance of getting nominated and elected and I’ve been stating that Hillary Clinton will win in 2008 for two years now.

Hugh is a nice guy, probably a much nicer guy than me. I merely happen to be correct most of the time. Go with what you like, I don’t care.

I expect remarks like that, ranking up there with the gutter level
politics of MoveOn.org folks, to not be in WND. Have you ever talked to Mr. Romney? He surely deserves a much better level of treatment than a Hillary or Bill Clinton and I don’t remember your addressing their underwear…

Yes, I must be a liberal Democrat, to think that sacred Masonic underwear is weird. In my opinion, “sacred” and “underwear” do not belong in the same sentence unless “Alessandra Ambrosio” and “Victoria’s Secret” are also involved. As for the Lizard Queen, I’m not exactly known for treating her in a particularly respectful manner, and I very much hope to avoid any possibility of ever being forced to speak to her underwear.

(Sweet Darwin, NO!!!!! Writing that just inspired the most hideous thought about Hillary taking a Britney turn….)

SM takes a little less offense:

Being a Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon), I appreciate your honesty in your reply to question about the Presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney. I’m not sure “weird” is the best description, but I will agree with “unusual”. But since you are the author of your response, you call it like you see it. I guess people thought Moses was weird when he told the people he saw God and was visited by an Angel of the Lord, also people must have had a lot of fun at the expense of old Noah. I wonder what kind of underwear he wore? And just think of Elijah, the nerve of him challenging all those priest. And Jesus Christ must have been quite a hoot for the religious establishment, with his weird ideas. We maybe we are weird. Or maybe….

I do like your commentary on World Net Daily. Keep up the good work.

I’m guessing Moses went commando, actually… now look, weird is a simple fact of a departure from the norms. If you don’t like getting made fun of for wearing a wool straitjacket under your clothing, then don’t wear it. You cannot do things that are wildly out of the normal realm of behavior, then act all hurt and offended when people point their fingers and laugh at you, as you deserve.

Either have the courage of your convictions or shut up. Whining just makes you contemptible as well as weird.

Mitt Romney has other problems:

People chuckled when presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a Mormon raised in Michigan and elected in Massachusetts, bungled the names of Cuban-American politicians during a recent speech in Miami.

But when he mistakenly associated Fidel Castro’s trademark speech-ending slogan — Patria o muerte, venceremos! — with a free Cuba, listeners didn’t laugh. They winced.

Castro has closed his speeches with the phrase — in English, ”Fatherland or death, we shall overcome” — for decades.

Ah well. At least he has great hair. It’s not enough to overcome the Lizard Queen or the Magic Negro, but at the end of the day, you know what? He’ll still have great hair.

AC wants to know if I can summon the courage to address a daunting topic:

Why is it that being a Mormon is a bad thing when running for President? Why is the media not looking at the other candidates religions? Why only Mit Romney’s??

Dare you answer?

I’ve been the subject of a CAIR email-bombing campaign, there’s dozens of websites quoting my assertion of the theoretical morality of toddler-offing, and you suspect I might be afraid to answer this softball? Seriously?

Anyhow, the reason is that being a Mormon is weird. The vast majority of people aren’t Mormons, and they don’t think much of polygamy, scriptures that require angelic opthalmologists or sacred underwear. Whether you regard that as being fair or not, that’s the reality of what most people think about Mormons.

The same would be true of a candidate who claimed to be a voodoo worshipper or a Thuggee. No doubt these religions have some good points which go beyond beheading chickens and strangling people, but any presidential campaign by an adherent is going to center around the abnormal beliefs instead of the candidate himself. This is fatal in any campaign wherein the nominating process is of interest to the public, which is why you can do anything and be anything and still get elected governor or senator, but not president.

The reason the media isn’t looking at any other candidate’s religion is that they all claim to be normal Catholic or Protestant Christians. They’re almost surely not, of course, but the media is in no position to judge the truth of their claims and is not particularly interested in anything that doesn’t let them play judge, jury and executioner.