Chez Watt Ballot, October 1, 2007

Normally I try to say something witty here as an introduction to the
ballot. Frankly I've been left at a loss to figure out how to
introduce this batch.

So perhaps you can help me sort them out. Vote early, vote often.

Jason Harvestdancer


======

Put this Chez Watt under "low tide alert":

The GPS vector indicate that the pacific is not
converging with North America.

The GPS shows that the pacific is running AWAY
from N-Am.

======

Chez Watt this one under "Earth's pear shaped body
dripping oceans off anklewards in the shower".

I realize that the sea levels rose at the same rate
all over the world. But the northern hemsphere
doesn't seem to have been as effected as the
southern hemisphere.
Why?
Duh....the Northern hemsiphere is at a higher
altitude! The world is not round, little junior
boy, it's kind of pear shaped.

Duh indeed.

That level of stupidity just deprives me momentarily
of the will to answer. Perhaps a look at Wikipedia
will help peel the blinders off your eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius#Introduction

Clue: the ocean surface follows the figure of the
earth very much like the land surface does, it
doesn't "run downhill" to fill the hollows, since it
follows gravity potential, not theist's wishes.

Sadly for your thesis, both North America and
central Asia, northern hemisphere areas to a
continent, are among the _lowlands_ areas of the
figure of the Earth, so if your idiot thesis were
meaningful, they'd be submerged.

However, as the geoid height, which the water
surface follows, varies only 110 meters from an
ideal ellipsoidal form, that tiny variation being
the "pear shape", and the ocean depths range to
4,000 meters over large extents, "figure of the
earth" influence is at the noise level, a perfect
match for your Usenet contributions.

Ye, chaos. Such stupidity should be bottled and
sold, terrorists could feed it to their children
before strapping them into their all-dynamite
combination shopping togs and winding shrouds.

======

In the "Just because they're different, doesn't make them different"
department:

Differential reproductive success gets you: differential reproductive
success, not change.

======

In the "Ceci n'est pas expansion" category

If you mean than
material would gain volume by expanding, then that's all wrong.

======

In the category 'dead letter office'

Whenever we do not have a detailed explanation for the cause of the
universe due to naturalistic causes, we can always invoke the "science
is working on it" of the gaps theory. It's better than saying that the
check is in the mail.

And you of all people know exactly how reliable checks are in the
mail.

======

Chez Watt in the category: "Trying to be funny but falling on ones
face."

======

Can one Chez Watt a Chez Watt of a Chez Watt?

This was the entire post, in the "Ouch, my dose!" category:

Chez Watt in the category: "Trying to be funny but falling on ones face."

======

Mixing skills in time travel, jigsaw-making and carbon chemistry,

- to breed a tree that naturally splits itself into matching
cornicework. These dominated the Late Victorian Era, ...

======

In the category of homoimmunology:

HOMOSEXUALS & LESBIANS REJECTED BY GOD

When did he have them implanted?

======

Nominated for the scariest single sentence in the piece:

And no, I am not joking.
We now have many in this society who act like animals: spiritually,
mentally, sexually and emotionally.

You can see them right out in the open, being irritable, ingesting
food,
respiring, lacking cell walls, having gap junctions. It's madness, I
tell you!

======

Nominated in the "gasp ! I have a gap junction ?? Oh noes !"
category :

Nominated for the scariest single sentence in the piece:

And no, I am not joking.
We now have many in this society who act like animals: spiritually,
mentally, sexually and emotionally.

You can see them right out in the open, being irritable, ingesting food,
respiring, lacking cell walls, having gap junctions. It's madness, I
tell you!

======

In the "Floats Like A Butterfly, Stings Like A Bee" Department:

In the boxing ring of this scientific battle field there is a clear
trend . Evolutionists are knocked out very quickly by creationists.
Here is not a single evolutionist who would participate to boxing in
this field.

Which raises the interesting question: if all our local loonies were
put into a cage fight, who would win? Nando would decide he was the
winner, of course, while Ray would claim victory as his by dint of
invulnerable logic: UC would dispute the terms under which the fight
was being conducted, and backspace would demand a definition of 'cage
fight' before he fought. McCoy would say he'd won, because he has a
video of him winning, only he won't show it to anybody. Pagano would
change the name of the fight to something else, and the EE mob would
claim the cage was getting bigger, thus allowing them space to run
away. Nashton wouldn't join in: he'd just sit sneering on the
sidelines.

In the end, of course, nobody would win, because none of them will
fight each other. Any strawmen in the ring would get the crap beaten
out of them, mind.

======

Let the truth be known:

Here is an article I wrote regarding Ronald Numbers' conclusions
about the rise of Creationism. Do the militant atheists of the
middle of the 20th century have a share in the blame for the rise of
modern creationism?
[...]

What do you mean by 'militant'?

Don't play the innocent. It's a form of words they use to describe the
way atheists have weekly, even daily, meetings in specially constructed
tax-free buildings to reinforce their unfaith, special public holidays
devoted to their heroes, send their youth round in pairs to knock on
people's doors to sell their unbelief, run big TV campaigns urging each
other to shell out millions of dollars for the cause, fill conference
centres with huge rallies, and send death threats to those who publicly
espouse religion. They get kids and fill them with lifelong guilt and
fear. They get their message printed on the currency, too. You must have
seen that Dawkins whipping up his followers to weep, scream, roll on the
floor babbling in many tongues; maybe even read his strident writings
urging death to all believers. I tell you, those militant atheists are
scary.

======

For the "Sing No Evil" Dept.:

Monkey Evolution March (sung to the tune of "Battle Hymn of the
Republic")

Mine eyes have seen the coming of the monkey from his tree.
He is standing at the forest edge a tad unsteadily.
Now he is walking on the plain a-bending of his knee.
He keeps evolving on.

Monkey, monkey eat banana (x3).
He keeps evolving on.

As he goes walking on the plain he utters not a screech.
His tiny brain is struggling for the sounds beyond its reach.
Until at last he has the rudiments of basic speech.
He keeps evolving on.

Monkey, monkey say banana (x3).
He keeps evolving on.

And while he stands upon his feet his hands are free to use.
His tiny brain imagining the futures it could choose.
As he keeps making all the tools which will the world abuse.
He keeps evolving on.

Monkey, monkey cut banana (x3).
He keeps evolving on.

See now the world is full of monkeys spreading by the score.
Such crowding leads to conflict and the conflict leads to war.
And watch those tiny monkeys building bombs on ev'ry shore.
He keeps evolving on.

Monkey, monkey bomb banana (x3).
He keeps evolving on.

And now the war is over smoke is rising to the sky.
There stands a lonely monkey now and he is wondr'ng why.
Away he walks into the woods and heaves a mighty sigh.
He won't evolve no more.

Monkey, monkey no banana (x3).
He won't evolve no more.

======

In the category: Defining the sides of the bell curve

Why are evolutionists always so humble about a Chez Watt nomination
and creationists react with indignation over it?

Because in both cases, it highlights their intellectual capacity.

======

In the foot-shooting department.

I am talking about Newtons formula that the pull between two objects
are proportional to their distances squared. There is no confusion
about this. This is my pragmatics with the word "gravity" - simply
what Newton defined in a formula. Show us where in OriginSpecies did
Darwin write down the differential equations that needs to be solved in
real-time by our brain to keep us walking upright while at the same
time multitasking and thinking what it should write next. It took
Japanese engineers decades and hundreds of papers in control theory to
produce the first walking robot. Evolutionists are claiming that three
phrases NS, AS and SoF explains everything. The control algorithms that
makes the robot walk is IIC - Irreducibly Interdependently Complex. And
by the same logic the control algorithms that make the human gait
possible are IIC. Miller argues that the flagellum is not IC, would he
extend the same argument to the control algorithms that allow every
single creature to propel itself in a direction?

this bit

How did the control algorithms independently arose in each species -

Which would be better directed as an argument against independent
abiogenesis.

did the nature selection force natural the algorithms into existence?

Miller says Natural Selection is blind, well maybe it is stupid as
well, would this "stupid" natural selection force be able to invent the
algorithms.

One of the "laws" of biology is "evolution is cleverer than you are".
On
the other hand evolution is short-sighted.

======

From the "Pardon me, but you anachronism is showing" Dept.:

Eventualy Einstein was showered with awards but had he slipped under a bus
in 1906 his four papers as a single-degree dunce would have stood on their
own.

======

In the 'Well it made ME laugh' category

As a devoted Creationist, I find the whole of the 'sciences' of
geology and evolutionary biology pathetic. Everyone with half a brain
understands that God created the world in 6 days (don't forget the Big
Guy took a nap). 'Fossils' are just unfortunate creatures caught in
the flood, and these 'radiocarbon' dates are based on the fallacy of
steady radioactive decay and have no bearing on the question at hand.

*pant* *stumble* *pant* Trooooollll...! In the newsgroup! *pant* *pant*
Thought you might like to know. *faint* *thud!*

======

'By May 2006 the Discovery Institute, in a carefully calculated move, sought
to broaden the faltering "teach the controversy" strategy to include
examples of other supposed legitimate scientific controversies. In Ohio and
Michigan where school boards are again reviewing science curricula standards
the Discovery Institute and its allies proposed lesson plans that included
global warming, cloning and stem cell research as further examples of
controversies that are akin to the alleged scientific controversy over
evolution. All four topics are widely accepted by the majority of the
scientific community as legitimate science, and all four are areas where US
political conservatives have been known to be critical of the scientific
consensus.'

Of the four topics I can see why ID, cloning and stem cell research are
issues for the religious right but not global warming. It seems the odd one
out in that it has nothing (to me) to do with protestant religion, morality
or the literal authenticity of the bible.

Was this chosen by the RR just as an example similar to evolution vs
creationism, ie a widely held scientific consensus versus a vocal contrarian
minority?

Is it the case, as this article suggests, that the RR in USA also tend to be
global warming sceptics? If so why?

Two possible motivations. I suspect that both pertain ...

1) The credibility of the scientific viewpoint is being questioned
with respect to global warming. Any loss of credibility for the
scientific viewpoint strengthens the appropriateness of legitimately
doubting evolutionary theory.

The possibility that scientific experts are wobbling and waffling on
global warming directly transfers to lend credibility to the argument
that 'Science is fallible.' Science might also be fallible with
respect to evolutionary theory. It makes for good rhetoric and
deliberate logical fallacy.

2) High population growth. Contrary to popular opinion, the main cause
of a high birth rate is neither poverty, nor religious doctrine.
Rather, it is the emasculation of women. Concern about global warming

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In the 'Reproductive Biology 101 on the planet of the shemales'
category, perhaps?

invariably leads to a concern about high birth rates. The pressure
that demands women remain at home as full time nurse maids is
relieved.

======

How stupid are you?

I'm starting to think I'm stupid enough to argue delusions with a
psychotic, frankly.

Chez Watt

======

There is a ring. Creationism is standing in
another part of the ring.

A ring is a circle she wears on finger. Darwinist
say few could go when the moon be reached. If
evolution correct how come no home on moon for the
fish?

PotM or Chez Watt? I can't decide!

======

File under "employing the navel periscope perspective":

Success in my language universe...

And would that universe be brownish in color, have
a slightly puckered horizon, and be tightly
wrapped around your head?

Oh, yeah, it would.

======

Some evolutionists contend that some powerful cosmic force, such
as a bolt of lightning, acted upon a bunch of lifeless matter
and-- voila! we had now a primitive form of life, that over a
period of billions of years, evolved into Man. Now, my question is
this: where did the gases strong enough to precipitate the Big
Bang come from-- or the lightning?

That is so stupid it makes me cry. Can we Chez Watt real life people?

======

Under Peter-Paul-and-Mary-isms:

Why do I get the distinct impression that when you look at a bag of
hammers, you are envious of the intelligence they display?

======

In response to the topic question, "Why do human females paint their
faces?"

This is quite easy to explain. Due to the positioning of the man from
monkey theory and atheistic philosophies, desire takes primacy rather
than trust in God. Thus crass materialism and replaced trust in God.
Comprehendo?

right because makeup didnt exist until darwin hit the scene.

idiot.

Nominated in the "ignorance makes things easy to understand" category.

======

But that thread is going to be very labor intensive for me, since I
have to read all the papers you folks link to. So it is no simple
matter to take care of it. Nevertheless, I am still committed to
adding up all the speciation falsification attempts in a running
tally, assuming that you guys actually have some.

You needn't read all of them. After the first two or three
you should start writing your retraction.

LoL.

======

Mockery and passion, and insulting have nothing to do with science.
But with the attitude cultist attitudes.

What?

"And just think - for only $9.99 (not including shipping and
handling),
you can have the entire collection of _John McCoy's Greatest
Unintentional Comedy Hits_ on CD-ROM with the *added bonus* of an
*extra* disc explaining his strange attempts at conveying meaning
using combinations of words in English that MAKE NO SENSE!
Order TODAY!"

======

In the "They've got it covered either way" department:

If man CAN'T create life in a laboratory, that proves an Intelligent
Designer is required.

If man CAN create life in a laboratory, that proves an Intelligent
Designer is required.

======

More creationists with more money than sense...same lies

http://www.y-origins.com/?gclid=CObrq4m93o4CFReyEAodElRSLg

Sorry, redundant.

Any time you give a creationist a dollar,
You have created or enhanced a creationist with
more money than sense.

Pretty much by definition.

It's not right to compare, but a dollar doesn't buy much nowadays.
Actually, these people superficially seem intelligent, witty, maybe
even sincere.

Chez Watts:

"If you've ever watched Disney's Fantasia, you may recall a god
casting thunderbolts down from the clouds."
- Goes on to explain god-of-the-gaps "but intelligent design isn't
like that." But a halfway intelligent person, looking into it, will
find that it is, now that the idea was put into their head.

M. Night Shyamalan's _Signs_: "At the end Mel Gibson returns to the
priesthood and makes a blockbuster called The Passion of the Christ.
Well, not exactly, ..."

"In fact, until the 1500s, most people believed in the ancient
astronomer Ptolemy's teaching, that Earth was the center of the
universe." You've gotta read what comes next... well, actually, it
is
pretty lame, since after airbrushing the Catholic Church's relations
with astronomers, it gets onto how special this planet and this
unierse are regardless, at tedious length.

Oh - "Last update: 01/17/07". It looks like someone's quickly
abandoned project.. I hope it isn't one of those sites that got
infected with malicious software, that being the reason to promote it
now??? (Note - the virus probably would not be January 2007 vintage.)

======

In the "if true then not false" category

there must be a point,
otherwise there is no point

======

In what parallel universe do these people live? It seems like that
mirror universe from the Star Trek episode "Mirror, Mirror".
Does Darwin have a beard in that universe?

======

A nomination for Chez Watt, for promoting international relations:

Yes, indeed. And if all the toolbox has in it is a hammer, you treat
everything as a nail, even if it's a screw (I have *seen* this. We call
it "bush carpentry" in Australia).

In America, almost the same. We call it "Bush carpentry".

======

In the "evolution's arrow is so smart it can paint a target around
whatever it hits" category

But...but if monkeys devolved from people, how come there's still people?

======

Nominated in the "omne vivum ex ovo, and don't you forget it, buster"
category:

The resources invested in a human egg are quite trivial

An answer that could _only_ come from someone who is
biologically ineligible to use tampons.

======

In the "turn it all the way around" category:

In Australia the moon is exactly 360 degrees out of phase with
the northern hemisphere, which is why both sides are visible
from the equator.

======

First of all, natural selection (= God not involved) could not have
produced human beings. Selection is a ***concept*** that enjoys
massive support only because Genesis is not an option and because
nobody can now deny the Emperors new clothes. Persons who do not care
what the Emperor thinks know that NS, as defined by evolutionists,
could never produce the human brain or eye or ear or IC systems. That
is objective reality.

My comment that you responded to presupposes that human evolution is
gross fraud on its face. It is not science, it is wholly illegitimate,
the lengths Atheists will go to spit in the face of God. I understand
that you do not understand what I am saying so let me say it another
way.

Human evolution is comparable to astrology, believing Criss Angel
actually walked on water or can levitate, P.T. Barnum's famous saying,
"threre's a sucker born every minute," tarot cards or palm reading,
the conversations of a group of men drinking in an alley. In other
words, it is false on its face self-evidently. The only issue is how
and why could any intelligent person who is not an Atheist even
consider it?

When the "evidence" is examined it is literally a paucity compared to
the enormity of the claim, and the "evidence" only exists within the
presuppositions of Materialism. The volume of "evidence" and its
subjective nature, having its existence within the assumptions of
Materialism, justifies the previous paragraph.

Evolutionists say chimp and human DNA are 97 to 98 percent similar. If
it is true then it was always true and this is not a discovery per se.
What is not explained objectively is the fact that the single digit of
disparity equals several million years at least. In other words, the
DNA is not similar since the disparity equals several million years.
If the time involved is ***3 to 10 million years of differences***
then the best and most objective description of the data is
dissimilarity. So when the evolutionist says "97 to 98 percent
similar" this is a massive equivocation. Nobody that I know has ever
disputed the similarity between ape bones and human bones; again, the
interpretation that this indicates evolution only exists within the
presuppositions of Materialism; and since the physical fossil evidence
is highly disputed and subjective, and since the inventory is, like I
said, a paucity, P.T Barnum is right, there is a "sucker born every
minute."

Can there be a Chez Watt award for most best example of a word salad?
If so, the post above is a definite contender.

======

.