Blog behavior normal again.

Hey, check it out:

The hide-post thingy seems to be working again.
Now I have to decide if I want to keep that bar.
Probably not.

Later,

St Patrick's Day in Boston

I'm in Boston this week.
I have a few things planned.

I'm visiting/staying with my cousin Jackie and her husband Kyle. Her parents and brother (Dan) are coming later today.

Yesterday was Pi Day, properly celebrated with the baking and consumption a mixed-berry pie.

Tonight is a concert at The House of Blues (Dropkick Murphys, WooHoo!).
Wednesday is corned-beef and cabbage then another concert (Enter the Haggis).

Everything else is unplanned.

Later,

UPDATE: Dropkick Murphys rocked! Too bad the opening acts were shite.

UPDATE2: Enter the Haggis also rocked. The opening band was tolerable.

Weird blog behavior

Did you notice the grey bar just above the fold in the last two posts?
Like this:

The hide post thingy is acting strange, and I have to put <blockquote></blockquote> above the fold to get it to work. Anywhere in the opening text will work, it's just convenient to put it immediately above the fold. Also, I could include text in the blockquote and it will still work, but I haven't had anything I wanted to highlight.

I kind of like it. I think I'll keep it, even if it becomes vestigial later.

Later,

Fundies really do say the darndest things.

I have been avoiding FSTDT lately. You know, blood pressure and all. I thought I'd take a look today, though. Below the fold are some recent gems.

Genetics was invented by Satan-induced "scientists" who wanted to "prove" evolution true by creating a whole new branch of lies that corroborated evolution. There is no such thing as DNA or chromosomes. Please, if you are a Christian, please stop believing in this lie; we must make this known.

I can't say anything funnier than this already is.

People think we evolved from monkeys...WHO DO YOU THINK MADE THE MONKEY?

That's the sound of someone drowning in the shallow end of the pool

people say that 'its a womens body' its 'her choice'. there is a 50% chance that the baby is a male....a male has a penis......a women has no penis. there for he is not a part of her body. there for it is no longer her 'choice'.

Your logic ran headfirst into a wall

Consider: the old, old use of the term "to know," for a man "to know a woman," for example, doesn't mean that he thought of her. No, when it says a man "knew" a woman, it's referring to sexual intercourse. That's a physical contact. You can't have intercourse with something that doesn't already exist, right? Right. So God knew us, because he saw us, because he had already created us. So, how old are you? Here's the kicker: You are over 6,000 years old.

God has a serious sex addiction? Could I have Bleu Cheese with that word salad, please?

Some things can not be explained by science. Take for example, rainbows. Rainbows are a mystery and you can not touch them, just like god. Despite this fact, they are still there even though there is no scientific explanation for them. So next time you find yourself doubting your faith, think of god as a rainbow. I know that this can be a difficult concept for some of you to grasp. It is just like air you can't see it but you know its there

Again, I have nothing to add.

And an apocalypse prediction:

Man does not face eternal? suffering. But, man does face up to 5 months of physical suffering on earth, between May 21, 2011 thru October 21, 2011. After the massive earthquake topples EVERY city on earth, on May 21, 2011, there will be No food, clean water, medical aide, sewer, gasoline, etc. There will be nuclear fallout, plagues, and disease. Every person left behind at the Rapture, on May 21, 2011, will face these living conditions..

The Lord will destroy this universe on 10/21/11

Wait, "Up to 5 months"? What happened to seven years? Do we get a reduced Tribulation for good behavior or something? How about we get the whole thing commuted to "time served"? That seems fair.

All together now:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Okay, that was cathartic, but then there are scary ones, like this:

My concern for level of pain of rape would be greater if it weren't for the fact that most American women deserve to raped because they oppose prostitution as a sexual outlet for men. Since they deserve to raped, I cannot concern myself with the pain rape causes them.

Wow, psychopath much?

Later,

Revisiting an old post

I was reading through some old posts (because I have that kind of time) and discovered a comment on the post Vast Ignorance. This comment was left almost a year later, so I cannnot be blamed for not responding 'til now.

So here it is:

Thumb Biter said...
You use the word "spontaneously" incorrectly. Scientists use spontaneity of a reaction or occurrence to mean that given enough time, it will eventually, inevitably happen with no outside trigger. Therefore, the statement that "life began spontaneously from non living matter" is true according to abiogenesis, whether or not the word "spontaneously" is included in.
Also, why is the statement that "everything in the universe came about by chance" not MET?

The bit about "spontaneously" refers to this:

Life began spontaneously from non living matter.

That's really abiogenesis, not MET. But that's a quibble; MET does sort of imply abiogenesis. However, "spontaneously" is bullplop. Get rid of that and the statement is true enough.

You are correct about how scientists use "spontaneously", but like "theory" the everyday use of the word is very different, and given the context, it seems clear to me that the author was not using the scientific definition. So the statement is deceptive. Maybe I should have said that, but I still stand by what I did write.

"Also, why is the statement that "everything in the universe came about by chance" not MET?" refers to:

Everything in the universe came about by chance.

Still not MET.

Because the question of "where everything in the universe" came from is cosmology, not biology. Because even if it were a question of biology, chance is only the beginning of the process.

Later,