Tag Archives: lies; damned lies; and creationism

Let’s keep piling on, shall we?

The Texas Freedom Network had a post about our dear creationist friend today as well. In the comments, someone who has spoken with Dr. Shormann previously had this to say:

I got into a comment exchange with Shormann when his fellow creationist and preacher pal, Marty, was running for [State Board of Education] (and won, dagnabbit!) and without a doubt Shormann is among the most dishonest creationists I’ve run across in decades of following these creeps.

I even pulled up a paper he wrote studying the Brazos river for his PhD because it conflicted with his childish false dichotomy of “historical versus experimental” science. I pointed out that a plot he published, pretty much a straight line, indicated that the river would have had a certain temperature even thought they didn’t have a measurement for that year and he replied, “We can never know because we can’t go back in time” or some such BS.

And Dr. Shormann continues to play innocent on his blog, pretending to be puzzled that I say he’s deceptive. Actually… you know what? I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he just isn’t rational enough to realize that he’s being deceptive.

The nitwit has responded…

So Dr. Shormann responded to my comment:

David,

Why did you delete the comment which pointed out that you were lying about being a published researcher, when in fact all you did was fund a study?

Evidence – this website, about 2 hours ago: http://i.imgur.com/mWIG2Mm.jpg

Here’s what he had to say:

Hi Mike,
I would encourage you to read the paper yourself, rather than base your conclusions on what somebody else said. The paper was received by Aquatic Geochemistry 8/23/11, accepted on 12/29/11, and published in 2012. It says this right at the top of the paper, read it here:http://hypoxia.tamu.edu/files/2012_dimarco.pdf

As far as funding, I payed for some of the gas and food for my boat, TAMU paid for the rest. About half of the data from the August 2007 trip to the Brazos River plume was collected off my boat. My crew consisted of a TAMU oceanographer and several homeschool students, who went on to present their research at the Science and Engineering Fair of Houston.

Here’s more info on the funding sources, copied directly from the acknowledgements: “This research was supported by a Rapid Response Award by Texas Sea Grant College Program (No. 404538). Partial funding was through a grant to S. DiMarco (NOAA-CSCOR NA06NOS4780198), contribution number NGOMEX-132, and the TAMU Department of Oceanography.Support for the stable isotope analyses was provided by a grant from Texas’ Norman Hackerman Advanced Research Program (No. 010366-0053-2007).”

Mike, please explain where I was lying. Also, do you have a science degree?

Oh, how cute.

Mike, please explain where I was lying.

That’s easy: right about where he said “my most recent work was in 2012 (Texas Coastal Hypoxia Linked to Brazos River Discharge as Revealed by Oxygen Isotopes).” The paper does not represent any research he did, but rather the work of a team. “The data was collected off my boat” and “my crew collected the data” does not equal “I did the research outlined in this paper.”

Note to Dr. Shormann: if you don’t want to be seen as dishonest, the proper way to respond to someone’s incorrect claims is to actually respond to them, not delete their post and make it look like it never existed.

And what do my scientific qualifications have anything to do with him being deceptive? Talk about a red herring. I don’t need to be a scientist to know that his only contribution to that paper was facilitation, not research.

Creationists lie. In other news, water is wet.

So there’s a creationist twit in Texas whining about how the Houston Atheists will be demonstrating at a creationist home schooling convention and at the Houston Museum of Natural Science. Continue reading

Ray Comfort pisses me right the hell off.

This is from an excerpt (PDF) from a book written by Crocoduck enthusiast and creationist troll Ray Comfort, entitled Evolution: A Fairy Tale for Grownups.

This book will no doubt be seen by some as “quote mining.” This is the practice of taking a quote (often out of its context), and using it in a way that was never intended by the author. However, every gold nugget is legitimately mined out of its context. No one seriously values the earth that encases the gold. So, when I uncover an evolutionary expert quietly admitting that he has no evidence to back up his theory, I don’t see any value in the soil of his surrounding words. I merely extract what I believe is of value for those who want to discover the truth about the theory of evolution.

That’s right, Ray, rationalize your deceptive behavior. After all, it’s okay to lie for Jesus, like when you introduce Charles Darwin as “a man who became disillusioned about God [and] formed a theory that all this amazing order and complexity came from nothing and randomly evolved over time.”

For a quick overview of the kind of idiocy Ray Comfort considers ‘evidence’ that evolution is a fairy tale, check out his blog post about the book. Skip right over mass of the nonsense and look for some comments by a user named ‘Carl’ where he shows precisely why Ray is such a fan of quote mining (or just making quotes up from whole cloth).

I almost wish there were a hell so that there could be special places reserved in it for people like Ray who fill other people’s heads with misinformation and who promote the “values” of gullibility and credulity.

Betraying the Lie

Advocates of the non-science of Intelligent Design often respond indignantly to the claim that ID is really nothing more than a religious claim dressed in a thin garment of scientific-looking language. We know, definitively, that this is the case, and the words of Michael Egnor of the Discovery Institute – the major pro-ID group – demonstrate this repeatedly. A recent post on the Discovery Institute’s “Evolution News and Views” blog offered a rebuttal to a blog post by Dr. Jeffrey Shallit. Dr. Shallit was reviewing

a piece by McGill philosopher Margaret Somerville in the OCUFA publication Academic Matters. (OCUFA is the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations.)

I haven’t bothered to read the whole piece yet; it seems to be the typical drivel about how universities are becoming “intolerant” of “alternative ideas” and that anyone the author doesn’t agree with or whose position the author doesn’t understand is a “fundamentalist” scientist. Continue reading