UNM Awards Genie Scott with Honorary Doctorate of Science

Well deserved

Congratulations, Dr. Scott!

Congratulations - it's lovely to see this recognition

Awesome!! :-)

A great day for science and an honour richly deserved. Eugenie Scott's long unbeaten innings, batting for science, has reduced the gaggle of quacks representing NeoCreo into mere stock bowlers, who are getting hit all over the park. Barely 6 years ago BillyD was making all sorts of threatening noises and could manage to debate real scientists. Today he is a mere footnote, and his threats to drive "Darwinism" into the stone age sound phoney. Reminds me of that priceless line from "Shark" about how Elvis reacted to The Beatles, supposedly telling Lennon that if should hurt a King kill him. The next thing we knew Elvis was reduced to wearing sequined suits and performing in Vegas!

How about a consolation prize for the neoCreos?

ABC/Larry,

Intelligent people who contribute positively and broadly are given honorary degrees. This is a well deserved honor for Eugene Scott.

Watching the trolls of Panda's thumb demonstrate there is no rational other side.

Perhaps you should read Thank God for Evolution to help you with your struggles.

ABC/Larry: IMO it is a bad idea to give honorary degrees to controversial people. Judge Jones is another example. Or at least such an honorary degree should be balanced by an honorary degree to the other side. How about an honorary degree for an ID'er?

rimpal: Reminds me of that priceless line from "Shark" about how Elvis reacted to The Beatles, supposedly telling Lennon that if should hurt a King kill him. The next thing we knew Elvis was reduced to wearing sequined suits and performing in Vegas!

Pardon my previous french.

"IMO it is a bad idea to give honorary degrees to controversial people. Judge Jones is another example. Or at least such an honorary degree should be balanced by an honorary degree to the other side. How about an honorary degree for an ID'er?"

Controversial? Who is she controversial with, other than those creationist quacks who seek to destroy science?

So let me get this straight: An institution that is sworn to the advancement of science should refuse to honor one of its most stalwart defenders because those who oppose their mission the most might be displeased?

As a display of logical argument, that was a singularly incompetent effort.

"Are you comparing BillyD to Elvis? That is quite a compliment.

The Beatles didn't overshadow Elvis. One of Elvis's problems was that he was old-hat when the Beatles came along. Elvis is still very popular -- for example, we have lots of Elvis impersonators today. I have never seen Beatles impersonators."

It only requires a single individual of low to moderate talent to be an Elvis impersonator. It requires four individuals interacting precisely to impersonate the Beatles. The difficulty is orders of magnitude greater. Nevertheless, a quick Google search reveals dozens of Beatles tribute bands.

So far you're 0 for 2.

...an honorary degree should be balanced by an honorary degree to the other side.

I bring evidence :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5URas0d1B7g

How about an honorary degree for an ID’er?

I have never seen Beatles impersonators.

Or at least such an honorary degree should be balanced by an honorary degree to the other side.

What did Judge Jones do to earn his honorary degrees?.

one of Eugenie Scott’s crimes is using religion to promote Darwinism in the public schools.

*sigh*

why the hell do you put up with this nutter?

when has he EVER done anything but spew idiocy in order to derail what otherwise would have been good threads?

It's become beyond tiresome.

Michael Behe is a household name

How about the Ig Nobel Prize?

-- one of Eugenie Scott's crimes is using religion to promote Darwinism in the public schools.

Also, Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe is a household name whereas relatively few people have heard of Eugenie Scott.

What did Judge Jones do to earn his honorary degrees?

I have sent a protest email to the Board of Regents and the President of UNM.

Remember, ABC/Larry, ID is not about a scientific controversy, it is about a political and religious controversy whipped up by people who believe in creationism, but don’t want to admit that in public.

— Dave Thomas

Mike Elzinga:

Or at least such an honorary degree should be balanced by an honorary degree to the other side.

How about the Ig Nobel Prize?

Congratulations Dr. Scott.

I trust you will appreciate that it is just my warped sense of humor that forces me to say that, honorary or not, you're still not a real doctor, like Michael Egnor. ;-)

ABC/Larry: IMO it is a bad idea to give honorary degrees to controversial people.

... Or at least such an honorary degree should be balanced by an honorary degree to the other side. How about an honorary degree for an ID'er?

rimpal: Reminds me of that priceless line from "Shark" about how Elvis reacted to The Beatles, supposedly telling Lennon that if should hurt a King kill him. The next thing we knew Elvis was reduced to wearing sequined suits and performing in Vegas!

Are you comparing BillyD to Elvis? That is quite a compliment.

The Beatles didn't overshadow Elvis. One of Elvis's problems was that he was old-hat when the Beatles came along.

Elvis is still very popular -- for example, we have lots of Elvis impersonators today.

I have never seen Beatles impersonators.

"spearheaded by Professor John Geissman, now Chair of Earth and Planetary Sciences, was enthusiastically endorsed by the faculty from Earth and Planetary Sciences, Biology, and Anthropology."

Congratulations to Dr. Scott and congratulations to the University of New Mexico. You have shown intellectual integrity and moral courage. Thank you.

"I have sent a protest email to the Board of Regents and the President of UNM."

I'm not acquainted with the members of the University of New Mexico Board of Regents, so I'm not sure how they'll view your protest, but the new President of UNM, Dr. Dave Schmidly, is a well respected biologist who has spent his career working on evolutionary issues. I suspect he'll get a laugh out of your protest.

ABC/Larry:

Dave Thomas: Remember, ABC/Larry, ID is not about a scientific controversy, it is about a political and religious controversy whipped up by people who believe in creationism, but don't want to admit that in public.

That is a hypocritical statement --

one of Eugenie Scott's crimes is using religion to promote Darwinism in the public schools.

The UNM's Board of Regents should not presume to speak for the entire university community in regard to the controversy over evolution.

Also, Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe is a household name whereas relatively few people have heard of Eugenie Scott.

What did Judge Jones do to earn his honorary degrees?

Copy from an ACLU brief and change a few words here and there?

...I have sent a protest email to the Board of Regents and the President of UNM.

Also, Beatle John Lennon said that he was inspired by Elvis. The Elvis v. Beatles analogy is stupid.

ABC / Larry, since you seem to consider Michael Behe a key figure in the fight against the teaching of evolution, perhaps you could tell us a few things about what you think about him...

(1) Do you agree with Behe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old?

(2) Do you agree with Behe that the evidence for universal common descent is overwhelming?

(3) Do you agree with Behe that most biological change is caused by mechanisms described in MET (he claims only that some biological change cannot be)?

(4) Additionally, given that the teaching of any form of creationism is clearly unconstitutional, and that the so-called "weaknesses" of MET are based on misrepresentations of the theory, what would you have taught instead of MET?

How is it that an anthropologist carries the water for biologists when your standard argument against any opponent of evolution is always, "the're not a biologist"? Well it's one way to get some sort of recognizable credential.

I see she left CU to assume her post as your arms bearer, why didn't she bring Ward Churchill along, he's an equally proficient intellect.

Being recommended by David Schmidly tells me a lot. A two time loser from Texas Tech and an Aggie Land OSU in Stillwater. Yeh! And New Mexico State a real Harvard on the Desert. Wonder how many schools they had to try before they found one with a big enough squid population to give a degree to high priestess of atheism.

Congratulations to E. Scott. Her book E vs C is one of my favorites.

Keith Eaton: Wonder how many schools they had to try before they found one with a big enough squid population to give a degree to high priestess of atheism.

The creationist coward hiding behind the username ABC/Larry joked: "...Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe is a household name whereas relatively few people have heard of Eugenie Scott."

Ravilyn Sanders: Looks like Christianity has not civilized you Keith. It is the boorish behavior of people like you that drives many people to atheism/agnostism and other tolerant religions like Buddhism. With friends like you Keith, Christianity does not need any enemies.

ABC / Larry:

Remember, if you still consider Nigel's questions in Comment 146,245 off topic - which would be quite curious since you don't consider Elvis and the Beatles off topic - you may answer them on the Bathroom Wall.

People like that don’t get honorary degrees from actual colleges and universities. Perhaps you could arrange for an honorary degree for Behe from Bob Jones University or Biola?

— Paul Burnett

It's due in no small measure to the tireless efforts of Dr. Scott and the N.C.S.E. that the creationists were soundly drubbed at Dover. Thanks and congratulations to her!

Keith Eaton: ... And New Mexico State a real Harvard on the Desert. Wonder how many schools they had to try before they found one with a big enough squid population to give a degree to high priestess of atheism.

Everyone has their own standards and so granting this award is as justifiable as UNM wants it to be.

That said, a set of higher standards would absolutely prohibit awarding such a distinction to a person that employs a deceptive name like the National Center for Science Education --- deceptively giving people the impression that 'science education' is their objective --- when in fact the NCSE is actually a propaganda machine with the objective of spreading and maintaining the monopoly of materialistic, Humanistic Naturalism within schools at all levels. In other words, the NCSE has *religious* objectives, namely, spreading a Naturalistic metaphysic. Where is the ACLU when you need them?

Go ahead, UNM, hand out your award. Just know that many conscientious people out here vehemently disapprove.

ABC/Larry:

Dave Thomas: Remember, ABC/Larry, ID is not about a scientific controversy, it is about a political and religious controversy whipped up by people who believe in creationism, but don't want to admit that in public.

That is a hypocritical statement -- one of Eugenie Scott's crimes is using religion to promote Darwinism in the public schools. The UNM's Board of Regents should not presume to speak for the entire university community in regard to the controversy over evolution. Also, Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe is a household name whereas relatively few people have heard of Eugenie Scott. What did Judge Jones do to earn his honorary degrees? Copy from an ACLU brief and change a few words here and there? Criss-cross the country lecturing about the virtues of "judicial independence"? I have sent a protest email to the Board of Regents and the President of UNM. Also, Beatle John Lennon said that he was inspired by Elvis. The Elvis v. Beatles analogy is stupid.

Dave. Please send this wide and far!!!! John -- John W. Geissman Professor and Chair Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To Board of Regents and President of the University of New Mexico: I protest the decision to award an honorary degree to Eugenie Scott, the controversial head of the National Center for Science Education. The Board of Regents should not presume to speak for the whole university community. IMO it is wrong to give honorary degrees to controversial people, but if such an honorary degree is given, it should at least be balanced by an honorary degree to the other side. One of Eugenie Scott's crimes is using religion to promote Darwinism in the public schools. Also, Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe is a household name, whereas relatively few people have heard of Eugenie Scott. Sincerely, Larry Fafarman Los Angeles http://imLarryFafarman.blogspot.com/

Readers might be interested to learn that Jorge Fernandez (comment 146265) wrote the following article at True Origin:

http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp

A reply can be viewed at Talk Origins:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/trueorigin/fernandez.html

Jorge can regularly be found talking crap (and being roundly refuted) at this messageboard:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/forumdisplay.php?f=12

Hi Keith, you should read more. Poor you, knowing the difference between diploma mill A and diploma mill B, you mixed up UNM with NMSU. NeoCreos not being biiologists is not a "standard" point in our criticism of dishonest snake oil salesmen. In fact there aren't any talking points at all, because there is no debate. It is simply a discussion of evidence, and since your side has none, and brings no evidence to the table, you have no argument. Genie Scott has silenced BillyD every time they have met at these "fatuous debates". And so has Barbara Forrest. BillyD is like an aged has been pop star with nothing left to peddle. The difference between Elvis and BillyD, is that the former wa[i]s a true talent who went into decline because of changing tastes. BillyD has been a phoney right from the time he got done with his math PhD, and that one paper he wrote. All he can do is whine and issue grandiose, overblown, and empty threats to Darwinism and Darwinists. And in this he is joined by fellow phoneys Behe, Wells, Johnson, and their factotums such as Keith and Larry/ABC/XYZ etc.

Not a single NeoCreo merits the IgNobel. That prize is for insignificant scientific studies or trivial observations and conclusions made scientifically. Creationism neo or old, isn't science - that's it.

Jorge Fernandez: ...the NCSE is actually a propaganda machine...

Ig Nobel prizes are given for peer reviewed research.
That rules out any Iggies for ID creationists.

Go ahead, UNM, hand out your award. Just know that many conscientious people out here vehemently disapprove.

— Jorge Fernandez

(1) Do you agree with Behe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old? (2) Do you agree with Behe that the evidence for universal common descent is overwhelming? (3) Do you agree with Behe that most biological change is caused by mechanisms described in MET (he claims only that some biological change cannot be)? (4) Additionally, given that the teaching of any form of creationism is clearly unconstitutional, and that the so-called “weaknesses” of MET are based on misrepresentations of the theory, what would you have taught instead of MET?

at least such an honorary degree should be balanced by an honorary degree to the other side.

Propaganda [n] information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.

Such a negative connotation for such a simple word. Of course, we all know the real definition is "information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause that the speaker personally disagrees with."

How about an honorary degree for an ID’er?

— ABC/Larry

Jorge Fernandez: …the NCSE is actually a propaganda machine…

If spreading scientific fact is propaganda then I am sure the NCSE would gladly accept such a description. Unlike the DI’s wedge, the NCSE has no goals to replace science with God.

— PvM

If spreading scientific fact is propaganda then I am sure the NCSE would gladly accept such a description.

Jorge Fernandez: Everyone has their own standards and so granting this award is as justifiable as UNM wants it to be. That said, a set of higher standards would absolutely prohibit awarding such a distinction to a person that employs a deceptive name like the National Center for Science Education --- deceptively giving people the impression that 'science education' is their objective ---

when in fact the NCSE is actually a propaganda machine with the objective of spreading and maintaining the monopoly of materialistic, Humanistic Naturalism within schools at all levels.

In other words, the NCSE has *religious* objectives, namely, spreading a Naturalistic metaphysic.

Where is the ACLU when you need them?

Go ahead, UNM, hand out your award. Just know that many conscientious people out here vehemently disapprove.

Bill Gascoyne:

If spreading scientific fact is propaganda then I am sure the NCSE would gladly accept such a description.

Actually, spreading scientific fact in the promotion of a cause (in this case, to combat pseudoscience in the classroom) is rightly labeled "propaganda" as I noted above. By the dictionary definition, there's nothing wrong with that. By itself, the word "propaganda" makes no judgment as to the quality of the information.

Well deserved Dr. Scott, congratulations.
TO jorge and Larry. Go to a cave and lick your wounds you TROLLS

I have never seen Beatles impersonators

Rimpal,

This is how stupid you and your peers are. You suppose my reference to aggies was to the universities in New Mexico.

You ignorant moron, the reference was to the new president of UNM Schmidly, who came from Oklahoma State University (the OSU Aggies) and before that from Texas Tech.

You dumbos can't even read for comprehension, no wonder you believe in evolution writ large...pitiful.

ID intellects ..we wear out legs out kicking you butts.

I have never seen Beatles impersonators

Y’know, like, only science to be taught in science classes.

Nigel D: I think that it doesn't really count as propaganda if your agenda is public (i.e. available for all to see). I equate propaganda with the promotion of a hidden agenda, whatever the dictionary may say. Thus, the DI uses propaganda because, before their wedge was leaked, their actual agenda was different from what they claimed publicly.

As long as the science doesn’t conflict with the religion of evolution. :)

You ignorant moron, the reference was to the new president of UNM Schmidly, who came from Oklahoma State University (the OSU Aggies) and before that from Texas Tech. You dumbos can’t even read for comprehension, no wonder you believe in evolution writ large…pitiful. ID intellects ..we wear out legs out kicking you butts.

— Keith Eaton

ID intellects ..we wear out legs out kicking you butts.

Keith Eaton: ... And New Mexico State a real Harvard on the Desert. Wonder how many schools they had to try before they found one with a big enough squid population to give a degree to high priestess of atheism.

OT - I have something to tell you all, but I'll have to wait a couple of hours first :-)

Dave Schmidly was chair of the marine biology program at Texas A&M University at Galveston in the 1980s and 1990s. I think it was Schmidly who organized the Marine Mammal Program there and helped recruit the faculty. I saw no evidence that he would be deserving of the abuse that Eaton has chosen to fling at him.

Schmidly also gave me the world's best Aggie joke, one with himself as the subject. I used it to open my debate with Bill Dembski in 2001 at the Haverford College CTNS "Interpreting Evolution" conference. There are links to the video.

Paul Burnett:

Jorge Fernandez: ...the NCSE is actually a propaganda machine...

And how would you describe the Discovery Institute, Jorge?

FL:

Y’know, like, only science to be taught in science classes.

As long as the science doesn't conflict with the religion of evolution. :)

Frank J: About all they (the Dishonesty Institute) have to replace science is an unnamed, possibly unembodied, possibly designed, possibly deceased designer that many theologians reject as a pathetic caricature of God.

Well, this thread proves once more that you cannot promote any form of Creationism without lying, about either evolution itself or about those who defend evolution from Creationist zealots.

Dale Husband: Well, this thread proves once more that you cannot promote any form of Creationism without lying, about either evolution itself or about those who defend evolution from Creationist zealots.

Nigel D: The NCSE supports good science education, and tries to prevent the lunatic fringe from passing off creationist drivel as science. Religion is left where it should be - in churches and at home. It has no place in public schools.

In addition, 99.99+ percent of all the species “designed” by their pitifully inefficient “designer” have become extinct. That’s a pretty high reject rate by anybody’s standards.

Stacy

The reference was to Aggie and that's the facts. I already knew you couldn't read for understanding, why insist on amplifying your ignorance?

Wesley, was that the dabate where, afterwards you were on oxygen for an hour after getting drubbed into the floor.

I understand you refused to debate BD again on two different venues.

Can't blame you for self preservation.

How much does Pravda West pay the great honored NMU "grad" to promulgate the evotripe?

Jorge the Death Cult kook: The NCSE fights with fanatical passion – the type exhibited by the most fervent religious folk

It's one thing for you to be the boorish, ignorant slob that you are,
but at least get the University of New Mexico's Initials right. It's UNM, you dolt.

Keith Eaton: And New Mexico State a real Harvard on the Desert.

Jorge Fernandez: The NCSE has a stated purpose on their website to keep Creationism (a religious position) from science classrooms. On the surface this sounds okay. Yet, they're hypocrites! Read on ... "The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) defends the teaching of evolution in public schools. We are a nationally-recognized clearinghouse for information and advice to keep evolution in the science classroom and "scientific creationism" out." No 'religion' in the classroom, right? Yet, what they do want to be taught is equally a religion -- materialistic Naturalism. This includes the Goo-to-Zoo fairytale and everything else that goes with it.

Yet, what they do want to be taught is equally a religion, materialistic Naturalism.

Gosh Eaton, too bad you couldn't save dembski from the humiliation he suffered in Norman. He couldn't even answer questions from Undergrads. We especially enjoyed the pirated video from Harvard. Guess he thought that church was a safe venue. Were your legs too worn out to get down there? It is just down the road from you. But it is really difficult to answer questions in person, when you don't have a web site to refer to.

Yet, what they do want to be taught is equally a religion, materialistic Naturalism.

The idea that Michael Behe is a household name is utter bullshit.

If you'd do a name recognition survey he'd wind up between the actress who used to play Mary Ann on Gilligans Island who just got busted for pot and the third-to-last person voted off the island in Survivor in Season 3.

And "ID intellects" needs its own new category of oxymoron-ness.

Jorge,

Please explain why you think that methodological naturalism should be designated as a religion. If you cannot, then you are wrong. Remember, you don't have to believe in philisophical naturalism in order to perform methodological naturalism. Just ask any judge.

Actually, even if you can manage to somehow define a method as a religion, all that will prove is that it is the most successful religion in the history of religion and still deserves to be taught in preference to any other religion. So, I guess you just can't win here.

By the way, if the NCSE fights so fanatically to keep "Christianity out of the running", why aren't they trying to ban it from tax-free churches?

Jorge Fernandez: The NCSE has a stated purpose on their website to keep Creationism (a religious position) from science classrooms. On the surface this sounds okay. Yet, they're hypocrites! Read on ... "The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) defends the teaching of evolution in public schools. We are a nationally-recognized clearinghouse for information and advice to keep evolution in the science classroom and "scientific creationism" out." No 'religion' in the classroom, right? Yet, what they do want to be taught is equally a religion -- materialistic Naturalism. This includes the Goo-to-Zoo fairytale and everything else that goes with it. The NCSE fights with fanatical passion -- the type exhibited by the most fervent religious folk -- to maintain the monopoly that they presently have in the classroom. IOW, it's okay to teach the religious position that "a goo somehow appeared and that goo became a zoo" but it's NOT okay to teach that "a Creator created everything", a competing religious position. In a way one can't blame the NCSE -- they don't want the competition because they know they can't win. So their only strategy is to keep all competitors, especially Christianity, out of the running. That's why they fight as fiercely as they do to maintain that (religious) monopoly.

Jorge Fernandez: Why do you wish to obfuscate the point that I brought up? Whether the DI is or is not a "propaganda machine" is irrelevant towards the fact that the NCSE is precisely that. Yet they deceptively promote themselves under the guise of 'science education'.

Jorge Fernandez: No 'religion' in the classroom, right? Yet, what they do want to be taught is equally a religion -- materialistic Naturalism. This includes the Goo-to-Zoo fairytale and everything else that goes with it.

The NCSE fights with fanatical passion -- the type exhibited by the most fervent religious folk -- to maintain the monopoly that they presently have in the classroom. IOW, it's okay to teach the religious position that "a goo somehow appeared and that goo became a zoo" but it's NOT okay to teach that "a Creator created everything", a competing religious position.

In a way one can't blame the NCSE -- they don't want the competition because they know they can't win. So their only strategy is to keep all competitors, especially Christianity, out of the running. That's why they fight as fiercely as they do to maintain that (religious) monopoly.

Yet [NCSE] deceptively promote themselves under the guise of ‘science education’.

— Jorge Fernandez

Just dropping in because I wish Dr, Scott the best for this recognition of her tireless work.

The rest might be best moved to BW, but I may needlessly note that the new-to-me troll JF needlessly proves that creationists are ugly, mean, and uselessly stupid assholes willing to lie and cheat - and seemingly glorying in doing so - in the hope of bullying or benighting some innocent passer-by.
Jorge, if you aren't simply another sockpuppet of FL or LF, you are a scumbag liar and coward

Jorge Making Stuff Up: when in fact the NCSE is actually a propaganda machine with the objective of spreading and maintaining the monopoly of materialistic, Humanistic Naturalism within schools at all levels.

wikipedia: Many modern philosophers of science[1][2] use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method, which makes the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by natural causes. This is often contrasted with the approach known as ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that the natural world (including the universe) is all that exists, and therefore nothing supernatural exists.

Jorge Making More Stuff Up: Go ahead, UNM, hand out your award. Just know that many conscientious people out here vehemently disapprove.

I want to complement Keith Eaton. He is one of the more articulate creationists to have graced Panda's Thumb. His arguments are devastating. So devastating, in fact, that I've gone over to his side. I now acknowledge that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that each of the several million species were individually created by God, and that our world is flat.

I want to complement Keith Eaton. He is one of the more articulate creationists to have graced Panda’s Thumb. His arguments are devastating. So devastating, in fact, that I’ve gone over to his side. I now acknowledge that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that each of the several million species were individually created by God, and that our world is flat.

They fight this fight because they want a basic science education to teach science and not a religious philosophy.

— J. Biggs

Gee JJ,

The lecture I went to was on campus, standing room only, and the last time I looked the student union has never been a church.

If someone illegally took a video phone into a church lecture it must have been one of you sewer people because we decent, intellectual ID types don't have to resort to such.

I do recall a few rude evo types, the ones that stink, unshaven, tatooed, and generally ignorant.

Most people were interested, polite, and impressed by having a true intellectual giant like Dembski on canpus.

Looks like you have your head up your rear, as usual.

Mike and Ward,

I don't think you can be on my team because there are certain requirements: MENSA like intellectual gifts, insightfulness, charity toward lesser intellects, compassion for the ignorant, generousity of spirit, penetrating insight, Aristotelian debate skills, multi-discilipinary education, and a wide and deep work experience.

I would stick with your side where the lesser lights are boosted by group backslapping, network of other wanabes, backup support groups to whine with, and feeling at home with nonperformers.

Oh and then there's the matter of ethics, values, and virtues that are a little late to grasp.

Oh and on thermo, Maxwell's demon is not really P Z Myers in drag.

Keith,

In the first paragraph you nicely list the gifts of Eugene Scott.

In the second, I see a little self revelation on your part. Good job.

I think this Keith Eaton is some kind of mindless bot. No ideas, no intellect, no rationality, nothing but boorish and mindless drivel.
We have a potential mental case on our hands here. Amazing.

Also, Ward, don't forget . . .in the small and very young world of this Keith Eaton bot, not only is the world flat, but his Wholly Babble teaches us that the sun goes around the world, Pi is 3, and there are witches to not suffer to live and . . . . . . . . . . .

Wesley, was that the dabate where, afterwards you were on oxygen for an hour after getting drubbed into the floor.

I understand you refused to debate BD again on two different venues.

Hey Keith, still insisting on making us Christians look foolish?

I think this Keith Eaton is some kind of mindless bot. No ideas, no intellect, no rationality, nothing but boorish and mindless drivel. We have a potential mental case on our hands here. Amazing. Also, Ward, don’t forget …in the small and very young world of this Keith Eaton bot, not only is the world flat, but his Wholly Babble teaches us that the sun goes around the world, Pi is 3, and there are witches to not suffer to live and …. …… . .

"It makes one wonder what his church is like."

Yes. Indeed.

Keith, do your church friends know what kind of postings you put up here? Do they approve?

I do recall a few rude evo types, the ones that stink, unshaven, tatooed, and generally ignorant.

And New Mexico State a real Harvard on the Desert.

How much does Pravda West pay the great honored NMU “grad” to promulgate the evotripe?

FYI

Larry Fafarman, aka ABC/Larry in a recent incarnation, has gotten himself banned from PT for numerous blatant violations of the Panda’s Thumb Comment Integrity Policy.

That's why his "contributions" to this discussion are no longer posted here, except via responses to his screeds by other commenters, including myself (before I got proof that ABC/Larry was indeed Fafarman).

That being the case, challenges such as this one by Nigel, reasonable as they are, are pointless, because ABC/XYZ isn't going to be able to respond to them here, having been caught red-handed.

Please don't feed the trolls. (Actually, I hear Shrek is considering a class action suit against such trolls, who give ogres a bad name).

Sorry, Nigel. Not that he would ever respond rationally, anyway.

I'll keep comments open for a while, anyway, since Genie's getting a kick out of most of them.

Dave

FL:

Y’know, like, only science to be taught in science classes.

As long as the science doesn't conflict with the religion of evolution. :)

Dave Thomas: FYI Larry Fafarman, aka ABC/Larry in a recent incarnation, has gotten himself banned from PT for numerous blatant violations of the Panda’s Thumb Comment Integrity Policy. That's why his "contributions" to this discussion are no longer posted here, except via responses to his screeds by other commenters, including myself (before I got proof that ABC/Larry was indeed Fafarman). That being the case, challenges such as this one by Nigel, reasonable as they are, are pointless, because ABC/XYZ isn't going to be able to respond to them here, having been caught red-handed. Please don't feed the trolls. (Actually, I hear Shrek is considering a class action suit against such trolls, who give ogres a bad name). Sorry, Nigel. Not that he would ever respond rationally, anyway. I'll keep comments open for a while, anyway, since Genie's getting a kick out of most of them. Dave

No ‘religion’ in the classroom, right? Yet, what they do want to be taught is equally a religion – materialistic Naturalism. This includes the Goo-to-Zoo fairytale and everything else that goes with it.

— Jorge Fernandez

Short version of the trolls' points: "2 + 2 = 5!"
(Repeat ad nauseum)

James F: Short version of the trolls' points: "2 + 2 = 5!" (Repeat ad nauseum)

Nigel D:

James F: Short version of the trolls' points: "2 + 2 = 5!" (Repeat ad nauseum)

5 factorial?

Whwn I read the weak kneed responses of Wesley, Cedric, and

Jake it reminds me of the kids in school who banded together to muster enough intellect, courage, and mutual support to have a little gang related sense of importance.

The engineers, physicists, and mathmaticians responsible for the hardware and software that enabled the internet and most things useful to mankind are owed a deep debt of gratitude by the lesser lights, biologists, who apart from such private channels would have to make do with those countertop brownbag lunch arguments among yourselves over say Lucy's aboreal characteristics.

And again I note no response to the challenge to demonstrate a modicum of credibility by describing in molecular detail the first replicator, the common ancestor maximus, the progenitor of all biologic diveristy.

Maybe you can start by listing from among the some dozen biological universals those posessed by the magical organism.

I really don't give a whit about your opinion of my education, background, or experience because your approval is unnecessary, to be avoided, of miniscule importance, and would cast an aspersion on my reputation.

But your silence has falsified your hypothesis in any logical sense anyway.

"Wolf to whale, feather from scale, what a lovely fairytale."

Keith,

Open your eyes. Have you looked at the transition from scales to feathers on a chickens foot?

Also, you may enjoy:

The morphogenesis of feathers, Mingke Yu, Ping Wu, Randall B. Widelitz and Cheng-Ming Chuong, Nature 420, 308-312 (21 November 2002) | doi:10.1038/nature01196; Received 5 June 2002; Accepted 10 October 2002; Published online 30 October 2002

Keith Eaton is as obnoxious, arrogant, and ignorant as Fafarman. He should have been banned a long time ago. For years his stinking diatribes inundate various websites, poisoning any reasonable debate. Dave Thomas, as the thread's initiator, why do you tolerate that dirty troll?

Keith,

Your logic is so compelling, I'm just sure that all of the incompetent playground bullies you are so envious of will be convinced by the mountains of evidence that you have presented. In fact, we can pretty much sum up your hypothesis quite nicely:

Tit for tit and tat for tat, God said she did it and that is that.

Keith Eaton wrote: Mike and Ward, I don't think you can be on my team because there are certain requirements: MENSA like intellectual gifts, insightfulness, charity toward lesser intellects, compassion for the ignorant, generousity of spirit, penetrating insight, Aristotelian debate skills, multi-discilipinary education, and a wide and deep work experience.

Buster Keaton: And again I note no response to the challenge to demonstrate a modicum of credibility by describing in molecular detail the first replicator, the common ancestor maximus, the progenitor of all biologic diveristy.

"Wolf to whale, feather from scale, what a lovely fairytale."

It's more and more apparent that the raw nerve being punctured concerning the achilles heel of evolands fairytale arouses the lesser lights baser elements.

The comment moon on silver platter tells it all. Evos cannot respond rationally to the central challenge of their own hypothesis and its critical proposition, that there was in deep time a first replicator that was capable of evolving every diverse lifeform ever on the planet via RM and NS writ large.

You cannot provide any evidence, any theoretical description in sufficient detail to permit analysis as to the possibility, particularly any detailed molecular description.

Evoland: Believe me , it happened, there was such an entity, have faith brothers, give us a few more decades, fund our Quixotic search, listen to us lecture the tides. Evolution is a falsified dogma.

Your aspersions mean nothing, your whistleing past the grave yard, your threats,your attempted and failed intimidations..all such vulgarities point to a great psychological uncertainly and innate fear of truth and investigation of ultimate realities.

Ban me, you intellectual cowards, flaks, and quislings;but, for sure don't answer the challenge.

The engineers, physicists, and mathmaticians responsible for the hardware and software that enabled the internet and most things useful to mankind are owed a deep debt of gratitude by the lesser lights, biologists, who apart from such private channels would have to make do with those countertop brownbag lunch arguments among yourselves over say Lucy’s aboreal characteristics.

And again I note no response to the challenge to demonstrate a modicum of credibility by describing in molecular detail the first replicator, the common ancestor maximus, the progenitor of all biologic diveristy.

I really don’t give a whit about your opinion of my education, background, or experience because your approval is unnecessary, to be avoided, of miniscule importance, and would cast an aspersion on my reputation.

I don’t think you can be on my team because there are certain requirements: MENSA like intellectual gifts,

No I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to pursue Keith Eaton any further as I think he is getting too silly.

Keaton wrote "“Wolf to whale, feather from scale, what a lovely fairytale.”

ID mantra, "Mud to man,Rib to woman,that's the creationists
AMEN"

it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

Ban me, you intellectual cowards, flaks, and quislings;but, for sure don’t answer the challenge.

You cannot provide any evidence, any theoretical description in sufficient detail to permit analysis as to the possibility, particularly any detailed molecular description.

I don’t think you can be on my team because there are certain requirements: MENSA like intellectual gifts, insightfulness, charity toward lesser intellects, compassion for the ignorant, generousity of spirit, penetrating insight, Aristotelian debate skills, multi-discilipinary education, and a wide and deep work experience.

She travels lots to promote the Darwin's theory of evolution.
Sad thing is that the theory is a pseudoscience.
Why? see link below:

http://jianyi.zhang66.googlepages.com/pseudoscience

Jianyi Zhang

Oh, look, a new creationist spammer who thinks he can disprove Evolutionary Biology with just his faith-shackled ignorance.

How wonderful, just like the time I got my thumb caught in a locked cardoor.

1. Bravo and congratulations, Dr. Scott.

2. KE=JAD.

Dave,

Thanks Dave. This is the best fun we have had in a long time since ID-Creo imploded at Dover. With Keith Eaton and FL/LF/ABC/XYZ/Larry providing the fun, our cup of joy runneth over.

Keith,

"ID intellects" That's an oxymoron.

All that jibberish and not a syllable of response to the challenge to your now assumed to be falsified theory.

One would think that a person you decry in every post would never be able to propose a challenge to the combined intellects that inhabit these environs and yet in summary the response to the challenge to your most critical and cherished presumptive proposition is a flood of meaningless diatribes and petty insults.

In one of my management positions I recall JAD as an accelerated design methodology, Joint Application Design where, in the process of developing a software system, all stakeholding disciplines were represented in the process to affirm the approach, etc.

What I note is the ever shrinking circle of disciplines that support evolution writ large...there's biology, followed by biologists, ..then of course the ever resplendent biology.

I suppose that's why the extraordinary intellects in the ID camp from math, physics, medical science, chemistry, engineering and well yes, biology are so distained by the shrinking population of true believers.

Oh, I forgot the H.S. graduate Leakeys and fellow bone polishers.

The sound of circling wagons is rather loud.

The sound of circling wagons is rather loud.

I think you are mistaking that for the screaming sound of projection.

Congrats to Dr. Scott! She has my deep appreciation both as a biologist and as a Christian.

Keith is the funniest of the bunch. Here's laughing at you Keith.

Congratulations Dr. Dr. Scott.

Keith Eaton: All that jibberish and not a syllable of response to the challenge to your now assumed to be falsified theory.

Dave Thomas: In particular, please stop feeding the troll calling himself or herself “Keith Eaton.” This person has no clue where the degree even came from (New Mexico State? NMU?), thinks that personal insults are like “evidence,” and insists that evolution (e.g. “descent with modification,” which certainly DOES explain how a marvelous variety of life-forms can descend from creatures as simple as single-celled bacteria) is somehow falsified because science is still learning about the “first replicator.”

Keith Eaton: One would think that a person you decry in every post would never be able to propose a challenge to the combined intellects that inhabit these environs and yet in summary the response to the challenge to your most critical and cherished presumptive proposition is a flood of meaningless diatribes and petty insults.

Keith Eaton: This is how stupid you and your peers are. ... You ignorant moron... You dumbos ... I do recall a few rude evo types, the ones that stink, unshaven, tatooed, and generally ignorant. ...

In one of my management positions I recall JAD as an accelerated design methodology, Joint Application Design where, in the process of developing a software system, all stakeholding disciplines were represented in the process to affirm the approach, etc.

What I note is the ever shrinking circle of disciplines that support evolution writ large...there's biology, followed by biologists, ..then of course the ever resplendent biology.

spearheaded by Professor John Geissman, now Chair of Earth and Planetary Sciences, [and] was enthusiastically endorsed by the faculty from Earth and Planetary Sciences, Biology, and Anthropology.

Keith Eaton: I suppose that's why the extraordinary intellects in the ID camp from math, physics, medical science, chemistry, engineering and well yes, biology are so distained by the shrinking population of true believers. Oh, I forgot the H.S. graduate Leakeys and fellow bone polishers.

Congratulations to Genie Scott!

Keith Eaton wrote: What I note is the ever shrinking circle of disciplines that support evolution writ large...there's biology, followed by biologists, ..then of course the ever resplendent biology. I suppose that's why the extraordinary intellects in the ID camp from math, physics, medical science, chemistry, engineering and well yes, biology are so disdained by the shrinking population of true believers. ... The engineers, physicists, and mathematicians responsible for the hardware and software that enabled the internet and most things useful to mankind are owed a deep debt of gratitude by the lesser lights, biologists, who apart from such private channels would have to make do with those countertop brownbag lunch arguments among yourselves over say Lucy’s aboreal characteristics.

Jianyi Zhang: She travels lots to promote the Darwin's theory of evolution. Sad thing is that the theory is a pseudoscience. Why? see link below: http://jianyi.zhang66.googlepages.com/pseudoscience Jianyi Zhang

Isn’t an honorary degree a lot like a degree from a diploma mill, except free?

Isn’t an honorary degree a lot like a degree from a diploma mill, except free? Well, in that case, congratulations Dr. Scott, you earned it. Wouldn’t it be more impressive to just award her the Humanist Medal of Honor™

Kieth Eaton, please do continue to pop in here and shine the light of logic on the PT-mafia. I’d love to see somebody like you toast these guys in a debate (if they did not avoid, the bright light of debating intellectual giants).

Intellectual giants indeed :-) Keith quoted an interesting Biblical statement. “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

— William Wallace

But evolutionists have taken a vow to discount Karl Popper’s falsifiability criteria that distinguishes science from non-science. It’s part of the initiation ceremony.

"But evolutionists have taken a vow to discount Karl Popper's falsifiability criteria that distinguishes science from non-science." .

Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.

Dave, William is aware of Popper's conversion but somehow believes that Popper's original argument still should count against natural selection. After all, even Ann Coulter knows that natural selection is a tautology...

Um, Wallace, Zhang, may I interrupt your mutual admiration fest long enough to point out that Karl Popper changed his mind about his earlier statements once he learned more about evolution:

Good grief. Mike said you people are well-versed in design theory, in which case I’ll leave it to Mike to provide you with the correct definition of specified complexity.

Jianyi Zhang:

Um, Wallace, Zhang, may I interrupt your mutual admiration fest long enough to point out that Karl Popper changed his mind about his earlier statements once he learned more about evolution:

Dave: 1. Galileo might recant, but the earth still moves around the sun.

Oops! Wrong thread.

Wow Dave, 5 creotards on one thread. That's impressive.

Congratulations to Dr. Scott on the well deserved accolade and please keep up the good work.

talkorigins the world resource on creo lies: According to philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper, a theory must be falsifiable to qualify as scientific. Popper (1976, 151) said, "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme." Source: Kranz, Russell. n.d. Karl Popper's challenge. http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v02n4p20.htm Response: Popper's statement of nonfalsifiability was pretty mild, not as extensive as it is often taken. He applied it only to natural selection, not evolution as a whole, and he allowed that some testing of natural selection was possible, just not a significant amount. Moreover, he said that natural selection is a useful theory. A "metaphysical research programme" was to him not a bad thing; it is an essential part of science, as it guides productive research by suggesting predictions. He said of Darwinism, And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that. (Popper 1976, 171-172) Finally, Popper notes that theism as an explanation of adaptation "was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached" (Popper 1976, 172). Popper later changed his mind and recognized that natural selection is testable. Here is an excerpt from a later writing on "Natural Selection and Its Scientific Status" (Miller 1985, 241-243; see also Popper 1978): When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism. However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry. The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology [see CA500]. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here. Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others. I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems. I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.

So teh sole reply is "something as SIMPLE as a bacteris" gave birth to all biological diversty extinct and extant.

Shapiro will be so surprised to find the hyper-complex bacteria he has been studing and elucidating for decades was actually created somehow de neuvo, to be the firstr replicator.

Let's submit this proposal to detailed analysis..unless there is more a specific alternative to be advanced.

Perhaps we can even test the coping skills of the dogmatists.

So teh sole reply is “something as SIMPLE as a bacteris” gave birth to all biological diversty extinct and extant.

PvM:

Isn’t an honorary degree a lot like a degree from a diploma mill, except free? Well, in that case, congratulations Dr. Scott, you earned it. Wouldn’t it be more impressive to just award her the Humanist Medal of Honor™

Honors include the Bruce Alberts Award of the American Society for Cell Biology, the Isaac Asimov Science Award from the American Humanist Association, the First Amendment Award from the Playboy Foundation, the James Randi Award from the Skeptic Society, and the Distinguished Alumna Award from the University of Missouri College of Arts and Sciences.

Kieth Eaton, please do continue to pop in here and shine the light of logic on the PT-mafia. I’d love to see somebody like you toast these guys in a debate (if they did not avoid, the bright light of debating intellectual giants).

Sad to see how William is joining Keith in making Christianity look foolish. William is still confused about science and doing proper research and seems to hold Ann Coulter as a shining light in evolutionary theory...

The survival of the fittest is a tautology. As Ann Coulter points out: “Who are the ‘fittest’? The ones who survive! Why look—it happens every time.”

— William Wallace

Intellectual giants indeed :-) Keith quoted an interesting Biblical statement.

“But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

Causing others to sin, especially if the others include God's children is not something He takes gladly. Now assume that evolutionary theory is correct, and that creationists are wrong in rejecting God's chosen method, or worse deny science when it shows that the earth is not 6000-10,000 years old? What effect would such have on God's children? St Augustine already pointed how Christians who sound foolish about issues of science, run the risk of making Christianity look foolish. Worse, it may cause Christians to turn their backs on religious faith. The cost of ignorance, from a Christian perspective, can be quite costly. So why do some Christians continue to deny science?

IF the Popper’s criterion of pseudoscience is correct and used in the case, the Neo-Darwinism is a pseudoscience.

— Zhang

Popper changed his mind about evolution upon further thought and evidence. He wasn’t a biologist, he was a philosopher.

Evolution has been attacked unmercifully for 150 years. By other scientists, religious fanatics, morons, schizophrenics, assorted crackpots and so on. Evolutionary biologists were killed by Stalin under the Lysenkoist pseudoscience regime and today they occasionally get beat up, fired, or threatened with death in the USA.

The result after 150 years of criticism, persecution, lies, and occasional violence, is that 99% of the world’s scientists in relevant fields accept evolution the fact and the modern synthesis the theory. The few who don’t freely admit they don’t for religious reasons, fundie Xians and fundie Moslems.

Much of modern medical and agricultural research depends heavily on evolutionary thought.

A “metaphysical research programme” was to him not a bad thing; it is an essential part of science, as it guides productive research by suggesting predictions. He said of Darwinism, And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin.

Popper later changed his mind and recognized that natural selection is testable.

However, Darwin’s own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test.

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as ‘almost tautological’, and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

The ex-scientist Behe is a “household name” primarily because he is widely known as the buffoon who helped the intelligent design creationists lose the Dover trial by (among many other gaffes) admitting that astrology should be a “science” under the creationists’ definition of science.

[WG] Would it be correct to say that you feel we share a common ancestor, and through guided mutations and natural selections, humans arose? [MB] Yes, that's right.

my assumption is that Popper’s criterion of pseudoscience correct. From that, my conclusion is that Neo-Darwinism a pseudoscience

As almost 100% the world’s scientists has brain-washed by their textbooks written by Darwinian biologists,

How do you get the number 99%? What is the sample size? How was the survey conducted? What are the selection criteria? What is the mean and standard deviation? We are talking of science, not fabricating of data.

Are antibiotics-resistant bacteria a new species?

Even the answer is yes, why can it not arise by an instantaneous process? Antibiotics-resistant bacteria could be generated by random mutation thousand years before any antibiotics are available. Bacteria do not know penicillin or streptomycin available in the world, and do not wait to mutate.

从 前 ， 有 一 位 妇 人 去 拾 材 禾 。 她 看 到 雪 地 上 有 一 条 冻 僵 了 的 毒 蛇 。 於 是 ， 她 把 毒 蛇 带 回 家 去 治 疗 。 有 一 天 ， 这 条 蛇 在 她 的 脸 上 咬 了 一 口 。 妇 人 临 死 前 问 毒 蛇 ： “你 怎 么 能 咬 我 呢 ？ ”毒 蛇 回 答 说 ： “婊 子 ， 你 该 知 道 我 是 条 蛇 嘛 。 ”

Don Smith : Wow Dave, 5 creotards on one thread. That’s impressive. Congratulations to Dr. Scott on the well deserved accolade and please keep up the good work.

You want the tongue to debate the group evil spirit. That really is in vain time-consuming. Or comes the coincidence theory to reach Kang to write the card. The panda thumb attitude may describe with the under fable: Formerly, some woman ascended the material standing grain. She saw in the snowy area had a frozen stiff poisonous snake. Thereupon, she goes home the poisonous snake belt treats. One day, this snake has nipped on hers face. The woman front asks the poisonous snake at the point of death: "How can you nip me? "The poisonous snake replied: "The whore, you should know I am the strip snake. "