Commentary on the so-called Creation/Evolution/Intelligent Design Debate and Right-Wing nuttery in general - and please ignore the typos (I make lots!)

Thursday, November 04, 2010

Patrick Adkins - Ignorant, Hypocritical, Right-Wing Coward

So, I'm back from hiatus, if only for this post.

I came across a Tweet (man, I HATE this 'communication' medium) from a person named Patrick Adkins, who posts on this blog here.

The Tweet states:



In response to this, he rightfully received a couple of angry emails. His response?

Why, it was classic right-wing hiding-behind-mommy style nonsense:

Hey, I make zero apologies for how I feel about the far socialist left. I would like to think that not all Democrats are like this; but I am really beginning to wonder.



I am no longer wondering what most right-wing Tea Bagger types I like - I think it is pretty clear. They want to be able to make Holocaust allusions about what they'd like to see happen to Democrats, and when people respond angrily, they want to accuse THEM of being 'unhinged.'

Typical.


Anyhow, I thought you all would like to see the venom that the left spews, when someone speaks their mind about the far left in this Country.




Ah yes, 'venom' in response to just a little old conservative doing nothing but speaking his mind - about how liberals should be treated like the Jews were by the Nazis.

If that is Adkins speaking his mind, then I don't think much more needs to be said about this pathetic waste of atoms. But I will...

Now, before some idiot liberal says it or asks — do I consider what I said to be hate speech? Nope. I reject that term “Hate Speech” entirely. That is a method by the liberal left in this control freedom of speech.


OK, great - anybody can make a complete ass of himself - Adkins just proved that. And hate speech? Nah - alluding to the burning to death of people simply because of their political views is not hatedful, it is just one cowardly right-wingers FREE SPEECH! But here is where it gets surreal:

I believe that ALL AMERICANS, should be free to say what they want. As long as that speech does not cause mass hysteria or panic. Example: Yelling fire in a theater. However, expressing one’s feelings about a group of political fiends — is not hate speech in my book.

So, put that in your pipe and SMOKE IT liberals! HA! Because you will be waiting a LONG time before you’ll be getting an apology out of me.


So you see, to the conservative Tea Bagger type nutcase, writing about putting liberals in ovens like the Nazis did to the Jews is not hate speech, it is FREE speech! And thinking that way is no biggie - heck, he didn't yell 'Fire!' in a movie theater - so it is no big deal. And he will make no apology for writing what he did - it is a free country! But hey - someone gets angry and responds with THEIR free speech rights, and they are spewing 'venom' and becoming 'unhinged' and making threats.

And that is the way of the world with Tea Bagger types - they perceive themselves as capable of doing no wrong; their opinions are facts; their views are pro-America.

Even when they are not.

Adkins received an email from a retired Army sergeant who did not like his allusions, and poor Patty felt that it was "borderline" threatening -

Secondly, I refuse to renounce my position. Feel free to come and get me. I’m a retirted Airboren Ranger, and will happily meet you with the welcome my grandfahters gave to the Nazis back in World War II: A hail of lead and an unmarked grave.

Not that an internet blowhard like you would ever actually do anything.

Get out of my country.

Douglas E. Berry
SSG, USA(ret)


OOOOO - So threatening!
Poor Patty - doesn't like to reap what he sows.
So much for that right-wing love of the military, eh?


I agree with SSG Berry - I will not renounce my views, and I dare right-wing fruit loops like Patty Adkins to come and get me. If he or his like-minded compatriots ever grew a pair enough to actually try it, they'd find that 'liberals' are not the pantywaists the right fantasizes them to be.

Hey, thats just me exercising my right to free speech.

Thursday, July 08, 2010

John Sanford, PhD. Young Earth Creationist

"At first glance, the above calculation seems to suggest that one might at least be able to select for the creation of one small gene (of up to 1,000 nucleotides) in the time since we reputedly diverged from champanzee. There are two reasons why this is not true. 1. Haldane's calculation were only for independent, unlinked mutations. Selection for 1,000 specific and adjacent muations could not happen in 6 million yrs because that specific sequence of adjacent mutations would never arise, not even in 6 billion yrs."
-pp 128-9

That quote is from a book written by a retired Cornell research associate (horticulture) who went through a religious conversion and became a Young Earth Creationist.

His name is John Sanford.
The book is called Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.

The quote explains why I will not be wasting my time reading, nor my money buying, this book. If the reader needs an explanation, please ask. But if you support Sanford's claims as laid out in his book and you need an explanation, that may explain why you support Sanford's claims.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

R. David Pogge, Christian Creationist Charlatan

Over on one of the many cesspools of ignorance and disinformation, 'scienceagainstevolution.org', Ol' Do-While himself, David Pogge, software engineer and 'expert' on all things having to do with evolution, is up to his old tricks.

An associate emailed him the following:

I was amazed at how readily you demolished the decades of work by Robert Hazen by merely showing how it is all faith, and how software technicians, like yourself, have been "measuring complexity for 30 years."

I was wondering then if you can tell me how to measure the complexity of, say, a dogfish?



Pogge's response - remember, this is the response of a fellow with dozens of essays attacking the 'hoax' of evolution, who presents himself as an expert on complexity and information theory:

Engineers have a method for measuring complexity. It may not be perfect, but it is reasonable and rational.

As far as I know, biologists don't have any way of measuring complexity (other than, "Gee, this looks more complex than that.").

One will note that he does not even attempt a reasoned resply.

If you take the time to actually read some of his essays - or better yet, read some of the exposes of his crap that are on here - you will see why he did not answer the question.

He can't.

Oh well - back on hiatus....