Steven Spielberg speaks out against Hollywood racism

From Fallout Central:

LOS ANGELES — In an effort to fend off accusations of hypocrisy, film producer and director Steven Spielberg has spoken out against the systemic racism and racial discrimination of Hollywood.

Spielberg, who resigned in February from his role as advisor to the 2008 Beijing Olympics over the Chinese government’s role in the Darfur genocide, asked his colleagues, “How can we expect the Chinese government to do its part to end human rights abuses in Darfur, while we perpetuate racist stereotypes through our own diversity-negligent productions?”

“We must lead by example and do our part to eliminate our own human rights abuses here in Hollywood. It’s the logical next step to take,” Spielberg said from his Pacific Palisades home.

The critically-acclaimed director called on his colleagues to step up to the challenge: “As a modern component of American culture, we have a responsibility to eliminate the psychosocial causes of bigotry and genocide here at home.” He continued to lash out at what he called “limousine liberals” who adopt African children, call for Tibetan liberation, drive hybrid vehicles, yet do nothing to provide solutions to the systemic racism in their own multi-billion dollar industry.

Spielberg cited the marginalization of Asian-Americans in the media as an example of his industry’s human rights abuses, since it does not honor the right to fully participate in culture. “The trans-racial whitewashing of the recently-released movie 21 is the most egregious example of our industry’s human rights abuses,” Spielberg declared. “And to think that such blatant racism could occur in our industry in the 21st Century makes me ashamed to call the producers my colleagues!”

“It doesn’t matter whether or not we are personally racist,” Spielberg continued, “because by being a part of the marginalizing process or being apathetic to discriminatory casting, we have been condoning racist acts all along.”

Spielberg even went on to criticize Asian filmmakers who, instead of pursuing the distribution of their films for the American market, allowed their works to be re-shot with white actors. One example of such a film was The Departed which won four Oscars last year, while the original Hong Kong film upon which it was based Infernal Affairs received no theatrical release in the U.S. “Why do we keep throwing out the egg yolks, and replacing them with whites? Is our cultural cholesterol really that bad?”

The director has vowed to go on the offensive to stamp out systemic racism in the film and television industry. “I know that this is a multi-billion-dollar industry,” Spielberg said, “but it is immoral for us to continue to profit from such blatant institutional racism. We are no better than slave-owning antebellum plantation owners or Nazi slave profiteers.”

He then unveiled a controversial initiative to eliminate systemic racism at the source. Details of his initiative include:

  • Organization of sit-ins at limited casting calls
  • Economic sabotage of diversity-negligent films
  • Donation to youth-oriented, diversity-empowerment causes

April Fools

JAG Season I

JAGTV series synopsis: US military imperialism, European masculinization, non-European feminization

S01E01: The Serbians are referred to as “camel jockeys”, as in they can’t fly jets as good as U.S. Europeans (righhht).

beater

My Thai husband regularly beats me and sexes the maid!

S01E05: European Harm (David Elliott) had a Vietnamese love interest killed by Laotian soldiers, Thai ambassador’s wife Angelique Sonsiri (Vivian Wu) seems romantically interested in Harm, she then asks a European male lieutenant to drop her home (not diplomatic protocol) and he ends up dead, Thai ambassador Sonsiri (Michael Paul Chan) regularly beats his wife who states that he and his chief of security Colonel Patano (Dom Magwili) are “used to doing what they want without any consequences,” ambassador Sonsiri sexes the maid, Harm kisses Angelique, Harm shoots Patano, Patano loves Angelique, Angelique is the love child of a Vietnamese woman and a run-away European lieutenant hence she killed three European lieutenants and her father. Angelique’s mother was savagely gang raped by Vietnamese soldiers after they learned that she had a European lover.

S01E07: European corporal David Parr (Scott Coffey) sexes a Peruvian female Tienna Escamilla (Marta Martin) who turns out to be a Shining Path terrorist pretending to be pregnant for him.

S01E08: The so-called Aryan Nation tries to get military weapons.

I feel like raping when I have my scimitar!

Having a scimitar in hand puts me in a raping good mood!

S01E09: Iraqi Colonel Ahmad Al-Barzan (Nicholas Kadi) wants to rape Nordic female Lt. Meg Austin (Tracey Needham), five Arab males killed in the process. Pro-feminist theme where the female JAG officer is intellectually superior to the male JAG officer and is so dedicated to her work that she is willing to sacrifice her bodies to be raped. The Arab males are portrayed as violent, sadistic, patriarchal, proud, ethnocentric and rapists.

S01E10: Hebrew/European male Major Klein (John Finn) is married to a Latina female, Sgt. Gonzales (Jenny Gago).

S01E11: Latino drug dealers, with guns!gang

S01E12: Affirmative action Afropean medical doctor Lt. Sanford (Marjean Holden), African drug gang, only way for African gang males to be reformed is to join the marines. European Harm stares down African gang-banger leader, who calls Harm “Top Gun”.

cuban

I wish I were Cuban

S01E14: European female Commander Alison Krennick propositions Lt. Cmdr. Harm, after being denied entry into Cuba, Harm flies a non-military jet into their country even though they are threatened with being shot down [the masculine risk-taking non-conformist European 'Rambo' theme]. Captain Fuente (Bernard White, a Sri Lankan) wants to sex Lt. Austin (Tracey Needham). Iranians help Cubans steal US technology. Harm apparently sleeps with a Spaniard woman he met previously.

S01E17: Colombian drug peddlers.

tang

Don’t hate me, hate the system

S01E19: Chinese government use spending cuts to plant a mole in the US shuttle program. Includes the obvious token East Asian Captain Tang (Stan Egi).

S01E20: Harm goes to Hong Kong with his Spaniard sexmate and is kidnapped by the Chinese. He is interrogated by Captain Lishi (Page Leong), an agent who is tasked to find out if the US will react to the Chinese invasion of Quemoy and JAG 1-21Matsu. Colonel Yang Chee (Aki Aleong) defects to the US. Good, token Hong Kong inspector Chang (Tzi Ma).

S01E21: US European male insists that he needs to see a Japanese Okinawan female who he is in ‘love’ with … he ends up dead. Harms gets on a plane and

JAG 1-21-0

Me luv u long time!

instantly chats up Japanese female Kira (Saemi Nakamura) who is eager for his company. Lieutenant Commander Gino Campisano (Tim Lounibos), says his mother is Korean and father, Italian. Campisano is actually a North Korean spy who took the identity of the real Eurasian Campisano.

So in review …

Romantic Pairings

  • European male and East Asian girlfriend (S01E05)
  • European male and Eurasian female (S01E05)
  • European male and Eurasian female (S01E05)
  • European male and Eurasian female (S01E05)
  • European male (Harm) and Eurasian female (S01E05)
  • East Asian female and European serviceman (S01E05)
  • European male and Peruvian female (S01E07)
  • Euro/Hebrew male and Euro/American [Latina] (S01E10)
  • US serviceman and Japanese female (S01E21)
  • Eurasian male: Korean mother, European father (S01E21)
  • European male and Japanese female (S01E21)

Poor East Asian Male Portrayals

  • Murdering soldiers
  • A serial wife beater
  • An adulterer (with the maid)
  • Violent ex-soldiers turned diplomats
  • Gang rapists
  • Tokens to offset racism charges
  • Sadistic communist interrogators
  • Angry Okinawan protestors
  • Premeditated murderers
  • A North Korean spy/impersonator/murderer

Poor non-European Male Portrayals

  • Anti-American Peruvian terrorists
  • An (almost) Arab rapist
  • Sadistic and patriarchal Arab guards
  • Violent Latino drug dealers
  • Cocky (U.S.) African drug lord and his lackeys
  • Uptight high ranking (U.S.) African marine
  • Cuban pilot who desires to sex Nordic female
  • Iranians who steal U.S. technology
  • Cubans who aid Iranians in stealing U.S. technology
  • Colombian drug lords

Poor Female Portrayals

  • Crazed Eurasian serial murderer who baits European men with her sexuality
  • Vietnamese woman raped because she sexed a European male
  • Young Vietnamese woman killed by Laotian soldiers
  • Possibly gold-digging Thai maid
  • Conniving Peruvian terrorist pretending to be pregnant with a European man’s child
  • Intelligent, dragon-lady communist interrogator who gets shot
  • Japanese female who is easily infatuated with a European male

Book Review: The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning (Part II)

tfoftA ‘review’ of Victor Stenger’s 2011 book The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed For Us. Stenger is emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu and adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

CHAPTER ONE: SCIENCE & GOD

Section 1.1 NOMA

A widespread belief exists that science has nothing to say about God—one way or another. I must have heard it said a thousand times that “science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.”

Strawman and non-sequitur. [This is the first sentence of the first chapter of his book].

Atheists look at the world around them, with their naked eyes and with the instruments of science, and see no sign of God.

This is a lie, atheists do not interpret the same data available to everyone as indicative of a God. [Recall, this guy is a philosophy professor at a major secular US university].

Even the most devout theist must admit that the existence of God is not an accepted scientific fact in the same way as, for example, the existence of quarks or black holes.

Because they would be making the category error that you are making Prof. Stenger. Also, there are no accepted scientific facts, there is provisional scientific consensus, liable to change with additional information.

As is the case with God, no one has directly observed these objects.

Someone has not been reading his bible.

Now, the theist will retort that this does not prove that God does not exist. If she is a Christian, she will of course be thinking of the Christian God. But the argument also does not prove that Zeus and Vishnu do not exist, nor Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Bad theology squared.

Still, one can easily imagine scientific experiments to test for the existence of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Just post lookouts on rooftops around the world on Christmas Eve, and at the bedsides of children who just lost baby teeth.

Category error. The existence of Santa and the tooth fairy is not solely predicated on their stereotypical actions.

… but the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is surprisingly easy to test for by virtue of his assumed participation in every event in the universe, from atomic transitions in distant galaxies to keeping watch that evolution on Earth does not stray from his divine plan.

Bad theology straw-man. Who exactly assumes that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God participates in every event?

While the majority of scientists in Western and non-Islamic nations do not believe in God, …

Argumentum ad populum, argumentum ab auctoritat and how does he know that?

Gould, an avowed atheist,…

Gould was a self-described agnostic.

Section 1.2 Natural Theology

This was important because every one of the endless series of “proofs” of the existence of God that has been proposed, from antiquity to the present day, is automatically a failure because, as I have mentioned, a logical deduction tells you nothing that is not already embedded in its premises.

A proof is not supposed to offer more than its logical deduction. [Recall yet again, this guy is a philosophy professor at a major secular US university].

There is only one reliable way that humans have discovered so far to obtain knowledge they do not already possess—observation.

Paging all education ministries, throw away all teachers! Only observation is reliable. [This from a teacher himself].

And science is the methodical collecting of observations and the building and testing of models to describe those observation.

That’s what is called a simplification if there ever was one.

In 1859, he published On the Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, which demonstrated how, over great lengths of time, complex life-forms evolve by a combination of random mutations and natural selection.

Assuming the conclusion. Stenger also runs from explaining Darwin’s obvious European based racism.

Section 1.3 Darwinism

Living organisms not only develop without the need for the intervention of an intelligent designer but also provide ample evidence for the lack of such divine action.

Non-sequitur and bad theology.

While heroic attempts have been made by theists and atheists alike to show that evolution need not conflict with traditional beliefs, the fact remains that the majority of believers in the United States refuse to accept a scientific theory that is as well established as the theory of gravity because of its gross conflict with the biblical account of the creation of life.

Source? Bait and switch, special pleading and extrapolation beyond the evidence.

Only the 14 percent of Americans who accept that God had no part in the process can be said to believe in the theory of evolution as the vast majority of biologists and other scientists understand it today.

Argumentum ab auctoritat. [No definition of who exactly is a scientist].

That opinion sharply disagrees with that of the vast majority of biologists.

Argumentum ab auctoritat. [I doubt he can help himself].

In the theory of evolution accepted by an almost unanimous consensus of scientists, humans with fully material bodies evolved by accident and natural selection only, with no further mechanisms or agents involved, and simply were not designed by God or natural law.

Argumentum ab auctoritat. [He definitely can't help himself]. This is also a lie. We have never had a census of ALL scientists on their view of evolution. We have problematic data from some science subsets from certain countries. [Hint: the USA is not the world].

The evolution of mind is currently more contentious, but the evidence piles up daily that mind is also purely the product of the same natural processes with no need to introduce anything beyond matter.

Where does this evidence pile up daily?

Section 1.4 Intelligent Design

Evolutionary biologists, of whom Behe is not one, easily demonstrated the flaw in this argument.

It is irrelevant if Behe is a biochemist or an evolutionary biologist. Evolution (and all of science) is more about chemistry than about biology.

In 1999, theologian William Dembski published a book called …

Dembski is not (foremost and only) a theologian, he is more accurately described as a mathematician/philosopher. Dembski has a PhD in both fields but only an MDiv in theology. This is akin to describing Stenger as an electrical engineer from his undergraduate training.

On the empirical side, many examples can be given of physical systems creating information. A spinning compass needle provides no information on direction. When it slows to a stop, it “creates” the information of the direction North.

That is not information creation or even information “creation”. Rather it is information deduction from a device designed for a specific type of information detection.

Book Review: The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning (Part I)

tfoftA ‘review’ of Victor Stenger’s 2011 book The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed For Us. Stenger is emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu and adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

PREFACE:

Carry the story back in time, generation by generation, species by species, until we reach that primordial accident that resulted in the origin of life, and you will realize how lucky each of us is to be here.

Assuming the conclusion.

Our current understanding of physics and cosmology allows us to describe the fundamental physical properties of our universe back to as early as a trillionth of a second after it began.

Describe fully?

Clearly, according to the proponents, it has to be an entity outside the universe, and such an entity is what most people identify as the creator God.

Bad theology, at least for Christianity.

As a physicist, I cannot go wherever I want to but wherever the data take me.

How does being a physicist absolutely prevent him from being biased?

… the observations of science and our naked senses not only show no evidence for God but also provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a God that plays such an important, everyday role in the universe such as the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God does not exist.

Category error and bad theology.

I will devote most of this book to showing why the evidence does not require the existence of a creator of the universe who has designed it specifically for humanity.

Non-sequitur, possible conflation of necessity and contingency.

… that shows it to be very likely that some form of life would have occurred in most universes that could be described by the same physical models as ours, with parameters whose values vary over ranges consistent with those models.

Irrelevant to the fine-tuning of the present universe.

Plausible natural explanations can be found for those parameters that are the most crucial for life.

Irrelevant to the fine-tuning of the present universe.

I will show that the universe looks just like it should if it were not fine-tuned for humanity.

Stenger will try to show… and even then it is still irrelevant to the fine-tuning of the present universe.

Their [cosmologists] current models strongly suggest that ours is not the only universe but part of a multiverse containing an unlimited number of individual universes extending an unlimited distance in all directions and for an unlimited time in the past and future.

A strong suggestion from theoretical cosmology that an infinity of infinities exist and that there is negative infinite time is even more miraculous that a talking snake.

If that’s the case, we just happen to live in that universe which is suited for our kind of life.

Non-sequitur.

In fact, a multiverse is more scientific and parsimonious than hypothesizing an unobservable creating spirit and a single universe.

Infinity is not scientific (experimentally) nor is it in any form, parsimonious.

… major misinterpretations of science by theologians, Christian apologists, and the many layperson authors who are part of the great, richly financed Christian media machine in the United States that promulgates much misinformation about science to the masses.

Isn’t your salary paid by taxing those said people Prof. Stenger?

I regard my task as a devil’s advocate to simply find a plausible explanation within existing knowledge for the parameters having the values they do.

Plausible != probable, you need to combine the two.

I will refute this by showing that some form of life would be possible for a wide range of parameters inside a finite volume of phase space.

Some form of life? Is that the fine-tuning argument?

… I think he still exhibits some of the misunderstandings and narrow vision that we will see are common among the proponents of fine-tuning.

Like your repeated muddling of theology, history and philosophy?

Having spent a lifetime looking at observational data, you can expect my arguments to be based on science and not philosophical disputation.

Observational data like big-bangs, abiogenesis and macro-evolution? And science is a form of philosophy, you know, like that doctorate in philosophy you have.

On the other hand, it is possible to logically disprove the existence of gods with certain attributes, by showing an inconsistency between those attributes and either the definition of the god or other established facts.

Non-sequitur. Even if all the present god formulations can be philosophically dismissed (and they can’t despite Stenger’s assertion to the contrary), that does not affect fine-tuning by some yet unknown god/God/designer/force or combination thereof.

Ham v Nye Debate

Here is my (severely biased) take on the Ken Ham v. Bill Nye debate. There were multiple streaming issues so some stuff might have been missed.

Scoring: 0 (bomb), 1 (ok), 2 (success) [on rhetoric and applicability, remember it is Ham's responsibility to adequately explain the creation model and how it is scientific, all Nye needs to do is show how things don't make 'common sense', he does not have to necessarily appeal to complex science concepts so the bias here is severely against Ham]

HAM [opening]

  • Takes on the claim that creationists can’t be scientists by showing clips of Stuart Burgess and Raymond Damadian [should have used some historical YECs as well] 2
  • We need a definition of terms: creation, evolution, science [why?] 0
  • Makes a point about experimental vs. historical science [but are those terms used widely or are those concepts generally accepted? why or why not?] 1
  • The word “science” has been hijacked by secularists [yes but don't we all do that?] 0
  • Creation is the only viable model [based on what axioms?] 0
  • SCORE: 3

NYE [opening]

  • CSI (the TV show) does not make a distinction between experimental and historical science [so what?] 1
  • Natural laws apply in the past as it does now [still does not mean uniformitarianism can be assumed] 0
  • [Ham looks fidgety]
  • Geological layers do not support a global flood [based on what axioms?] 1
  • Science and technology makes the US cutting edge [simplistic and irrelevant] 0
  • SCORE: 2

HAM [30 min]

  • Raymond Damadian video clip to drive home the point that there are creationist scientists 1
  • Danny Faulkner video clip: ‘nothing in observational astronomy conflicts with creation’ [but does anything in astronomy exclusively confirm creation?] 1
  • Stuart Burgess video clip: postulates that his colleagues who are sympathetic to creation are in fear of persecution [if you can't stand up for yourself, don't whisper about the fear of scientific persecution] 0
  • Secularists borrow the Christian worldview to perform observational science: e.g. laws of logic, laws of nature [good point] 2
  • Geology: physical vs historical [good move to show that there is this distinction in geology] 2
  • Darwin’s finches: creationists would agree that all finch species come from a common ancestor 1
  • Creationist ‘kind’ = evolutionary ‘family’ [why does the bible use 'kinds'?] 1
  • Contrasts the evolutionary ‘tree’ model with the creationist ‘orchard’ 1
  • Limits to variability in kinds [but how much and how do we determine that?] 1
  • Compares the creation ‘orchard’ model to the 2014 PLoS Genetics paper: “Genetic sequences highlights the dynamic early history of dogs” [another good move though I doubt the authors of the paper will agree] 2
  • Evolution highjacked by secularists with a bait and switch: observable changes vs unobservable changes 0
  • Observational science confirms the biblical model of the creationist orchard and evolution imposes a naturalistic religion on students 0
  • Uses Richard Lenski’s E. coli citrate experiment followed by a creation scientist’s take on it [perhaps Ham's best move]
  • Andrew Fabich [microbiologist, seems this is a meet creationist PhDs], ‘does research from a creation perspective, no new information evolved [in Lenski's e. coli experiment], just a switch that is turned on and off, there is nothing new’ 2
  • Mentions an evolutionary book in the public school that claims that so-called Caucasians are the highest human race 1
  • Claims that Venter’s work agrees with the creation model, uses clips from Nye 1
  • 3rd mention of observational vs experimental science 0
  • Jesus took Genesis as literal history 0
  • Most Christian doctrines are founded or associated with the book of Genesis 0
  • Swipes at homosexuality, dissects a newspaper article contrasting creationists with academics, evolutionists impose the religion of naturalism/atheism in public schools, battle is about authority, abortion is murder as life begins at fertilization [shaky as life is not defined but left up to the imagination] 0
  • End with a super-condensed gospel message [off topic!] 0
  • SCORE: 16

NYE [30 min]

  • Shows a piece of rock with a fossil 1
  • We are standing on millions of layers of fossil life thus how does this make sense with a flood 4000 yrs ago? 1
  • 680,000 winter cycles in ice cores, old tree in Sweden is 9550 years old, Grand Canyon: we can see it takes a ‘long, long time’ for sediments to turn into stone, why not a Grand Canyon on every continent? [doesn't understand flood geology but Ham doesn't take him to task] 2
  • We have never found a lower animal mixed with a higher animal due to flood turbulence [again, doesn't understand flood geology but Ham doesn't take him to task] 1
  • Fossil skulls: where would you put us given the diversity of skull shapes? 2
  • Kangaroo fossils should be found along an Middle East-Australian axis 2
  • Formula showing species formation from creation kinds per year: 11 new species/day [too complex, people are too simple for that] 1
  • The best shipbuilders could not build a boat as big or resilient as Noah’s ark, is it reasonable that 14k animals could have been fed and housed? 2
  • Why the trouble to have sex? Fewer parasites so that the new genetic material is able to live longer [point may have been lost but is good nonetheless] 1
  • “We in science want the ability to predict” [yes, explain more] 1
  • [Nye's presentation is not as polished or fluid, his examples are too complex and do not flow naturally into each other, he should have had a practice session and reformatted according to the reaction, too much focus on explanations and not on a rebuttal of Ham's view, he should have short clean examples flowing into each other, accumulating as a mass that Ham would have to counter, he needs to be a polemicist and not a science educator, he clearly does not understand how to work this audience and most likely will lose badly.]
  • Distant starlight problem [explain] 1
  • Innovation will keep the US in its place in the world [please leave your nationalism at home] 0
  • SCORE: 15

HAM [rebuttal]

  • Age of the earth is historical science, radioactive decay has problems 0
  • Problem: 45k dated wood and 45M dated basaltic rock at the same site 1
  • Problems with dating methods, assumptions (constant decay, parent/daughter ratio) 1
  • 90% of a long list of dating methods give dates less than a billion years [give some quick examples] 2
  • SCORE: 4

NYE [rebuttal]

  • To Ham’s example: rocks slid on top [can think on his feet] 2
  • Asteroids seem to be of the same general age, are the fish sinners to become diseased? [why should they be differently aged in a creation framework and not understanding theology] 1
  • Astronomy can only look at the past and presently we are seeing the past [time for light to bounce off of an object for a person to view said object creates a delay] 1
  • Lion teeth are not set up for broccoli [play to common sense] 2
  • A ‘telephone’ game could have caused scripture to become corrupted [play to atheist audience] 1
  • SCORE: 7

HAM [counter-rebuttal]

  • In Ham’s example, the wood was encased in the basalt [was Ham baiting Nye?] 2
  • Plenty of room on the ark, there are dating assumptions, other animals have sharp teeth and are not meat eaters [bazinga!] 2
  • Three interlocking layers for the ark caused a better built ark [image or call for people to come see a replica required] 0
  • Even secularists have a CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation) problem so distant starlight is a universal problem but we have some models [should have mentioned that there are 3 creation models which may be complementary] 2
  • SCORE: 6

NYE [counter-rebuttal]

  • Noah had super powers and could build a boat that others later than he could not have [same example again! can Nye explain Stonehenge and oop-art?] 0
  • Pyramids and human populations are older than 4k, not reasonable that everything changed quickly (by a flood) 2
  • There are other Christians who do not accept a young earth, so what is to become of them? [atheist theology but good rhetoric] 1
  • What I can see with my own eyes is better than an Americanized translation of an old book [appeal to self and a hint of corruption of the scripture, arguments for his  atheist faithful] 1
  • SCORE: 4

Q&A [See Adam Laat's review for questions and responses]

  1. Ham: 1 | Nye: 1 [astronomy]
  2. Nye: 2 | Ham: 1 [big bang]
  3. Ham: 1 | Nye: 1 [non-biblical evidence]
  4. Nye: 2 | Ham: 0 [consciousness]
  5. Ham: 0 | Nye: 0 [what would change mind]
  6. Nye: 1 | Ham: 2 [no absolute age dating method]
  7. Ham: 2 | Nye: 1 [plate tectonics]
  8. Nye: 2 | Ham: 1 [2nd law of thermodynamics]
  9. Ham: 1 | Nye: 1 [would ancient earth change belief]
  10. Nye: 1 | Ham: 2 [room for God in science]
  11. Ham: 1 | Nye: 0 [bible literalism]
  12. Nye: 0 | Ham: 2 [complexity development]
  13. Ham: 2 | Nye: 0 [organizations that use creationism]
  14. Nye: 2 | Ham: 2 [human intellect]
  15. Ham: 2 | Nye: 2 [worldview basis]

ANALYSIS

  • Disappointing in quality and quantity of information (from both speakers)
  • Too much theology from Ham to make an impact with non-creationists
  • Too many disjointed explanation from Nye to keep creationist interest
  • Still not sure about the creation model of science beyond an orchard and even that is vague
  • Still trying to understand how incredulously harping on an ark and that the bible is a translation of different languages constitutes a sound argument
  • Ham answers the last three questions well but also needed to have a test run of his presentation to keep him on point
  • Nye was scattered and only performed well because Ham was defending a creation model
  • Ham’s correlation of the creation orchard model with that which was found in a 2014 peer-reviewed secular paper was an excellent tactic (Dr. Purdom’s idea?)
  • Nye’s passion for science is clearly seen in his answers while Ham was more mechanical and jittery. Nye facial expression was one of careful analysis of Ham’s words, Ham’s face was wooden.
  • The beginning (or Genesis) of Ham’s presentation was quite good, then it fizzled and burped.
  • Nye seemed to not have had any help (if he did, hopefully he didn’t pay them) but relied on his personal information store which did not work out well though he made some good rhetorical points which Ham did not address (due to time constraints)
  • Ham needs to add value to his Q&A responses. For example, he should have answered his first question by stating rightly that the bible mentions the stretching of the heavens and further correlate this with why cosmic stretching is required or perhaps explain why it was a necessity from a creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing)
  • Nye needs to do the opposite and tone down the frilly explanations and get more to the point. Assuming he could, Nye should have shown that one (or more) aspect(s) of the creation model could only make incorrect predictions and then use this as his chief rhetorical device(s) instead of atheist fluff theology
  • FINAL SCORE: Ham: 49 Nye: 44

Ken Ham and Dr. Georgia Purdom will discuss the debate at debatelive.org on Wednesday 2/5/14 at 8:00 PM (ET).

Lost Girl (2010)

S01E01

  • African male fae (faerie) Hale (KC Collins) is the cop buddy [tokenism, African male effeminization #1] to the male European fae wolf protagonist Dyson (Kris Holden-Ried) [European male masculinization #1]. Hale does what Dyson asks i.e. asymetrical workload [African male effeminization #2].
  • Bisexual European fae Bo (Anna Silk) is the female protagonist.
  • African male fae has an active (hetero)sex life and is attracted to an African/European fae waitress [African male masculinization #1].
  • Bo finds Dyson sexually appealing [European male masculinization #2]
  • African male fae Ash (Clé Bennett) is the leader of the white fae clan [African male masculinization #2].
  • European female fae Morrigan (Emanuelle Vaugier) is the leader of the black fae clan. She has an African male bodyguard and an African/European male bodyguard [African male effeminization #3].
  • Dyson is an aggressive alpha male unlike his passive African cop buddy [European male masculinization #3, African male effeminization #4].
  • European Morrigan asks African male Ash: “Tell me, was your neutering ceremonial or a birth defect?” [African male effeminization #5].

S01E02

  • Bo finds a random European male sexy [European male masculinization #4].
  • Hale states that he had sex with a gemini (one female who can make herself into two) and that he has sung the way into many women pants over the years [African male masculinization #3 and #4].
  • Bo and Dyson have sex [European male masculinization #5].
Lost.Girl.S01E03

East Asian representation at its best

  • Bo and Dyson have sex again [European male masculinization #6].
  • A menacing ugly, chained, Japanese fae called a Kappa (Alan Tang) is trying to eat Bo and an African/European female college student [East Asian male effeminization #1, East Asian males as threats #1].
  • Dyson turns into a wolf and mauls a bad security guard [European male masculinization #8].
  • The “Kappa creature” (actual imdb credit: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1688561/fullcredits#cast) is killed by the semi-nude Dyson [European male masculinization #7].
  • Dyson refers to the Kappa as an “it” [East Asian male effeminization #2] even though they are both fae.
  • Female character describes Dyson as a “sexy, sexy wolf man” and “awesome.” She states that she saw Dyson’s “wolf junk” and implies that it is large [European male masculinization #9].
  • Dyson is shown kissing another female European fae [European male masculinization #10].

East Asians and Testosterone II

This is the final update to testosterone levels in different ethnic groups. Updated data and sources are HERE.

t-diff-1From the results, if one considers only the so-called macro races, compared to European males, African and East Asian males have about 11% more testosterone on average. This is the result of some 199 peer-reviewed articles.