Not a German Piltdown

Sure, but don't you think that that's mostly just kind of deceptive?

— plunge

If you say "I don't believe in a god" then for most people, that's enough for them to call you an atheist. But that's only the weak, passive definition, not the strong one.

http://www.bookcase.com/library/faq/archive/atheism/introduction.html Atheism is characterized by a deliberate absence of belief in the existence of gods. Some atheists go further, and believe that particular gods do not exist. The former is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position, and the latter as "strong atheism". It is important to note the difference between these two positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is a positive belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

It would make more sense for atheism to be the logical negation of theism (~BG) rather than a positive counter claim (B~G), not to mention that it fits much better with the broadest use of the term (which is always the safer bet when defining groups of people), as well as the Latin derivation ("a" = "without" theism = "a god belief").

But of course, you can define words however you want in the end.

The real issue remains: if you are not a believer, then, even if you are an agnostic, you are still a non-believer. Like it or not, you cannot escape either believing in a god or not believing in one.

Knowledge is a different issue.

I didn’t serve four years of my young adulthood in the United States Marine Corps defending the constitution to see liberal retards like Judge Clarence Cooper make a mockery of it...

— DaveScot

A fair number of people have a problem with the usual definitions of atheism and agnosticism because of the implication that it has been settled just what or who it is whose existence is denied or doubted. The problem isn't so much that there is no definition of what God is, but that there are all too many definitions. God is variously described as an entity or as being qua being, as first cause, perfect being, being whose essence implies existance, spirit (whatever that is), cosmic consciousness, gaseous vertebrate, alien superanimal, old guy with a beard---a vast and heterogenous stew of concepts and images. Everybody knows the bit about the wise men and the elephant, but how do the wise men know they are feeling up the same animal?

Until somebody specifies what it is that I'm supposed to believe in, deny, or doubt, I have no idea how I'm supposed to answer. Maybe that doesn't matter. In the U.S. belief in God seems to be more an assertion of loyalty to society than a statement of fact. Truth is irrelevant to such loyalty oaths just as sacrificing to the emperor was about being a good Roman, not an endorsement of the actual divinity of some guy in a toga.

"But of course, you can define words however you want in the end.  The real issue remains: if you are not a believer, then, even if you are an agnostic, you are still a non-believer.  Like it or not, you cannot escape either believing in a god or not believing in one.  Knowledge is a different issue."

As a Buddhist I'd like to say I'm perfectly capable of considering both/either a theistic or atheistic POV. They are mere categories of grammatically defined knowledge, and therefore projections of the linguistically constrained human mind, not in any way accurate or complete comprehensions of the totality of reality. Spiritual wisdom lies beyond rhetoric in the still contemplation of one's own heart and ontological circumstance, just as the reality of scientific knowlege lies in the data of observable phenomena and their rigorous mathematical analyses, and not in the synthetic interpretation of predicate philosophy (not to say the effort is totally useless). I find innumeracy a greater obstacle to scientific understanding than illogic. Theists are just as logical or not as atheists, given the premises of their non-falsifiable beliefs, and given the predominance of exclusively dualistic logic in the Western Tradition. Anti-evolutionist belief, however, strikes me as pathological. Just what do these jokers think they have to defend?

"I have no idea what you mean by "deceptive", or who is being deceptive."

Because it basically dodges the question by rephrasing it to answer a different question. When someone asks you if you believe in something, that's a yes or no question, unavoidably. If someone asks you if you believe in life on Mars "No I don't: it's certainl possible, but it has yet to be proven to my satisfaction, so I remain agnostic about it." is a reasonable answer. "I neither believe it nor don't believe it" is incoherent (logic of the excluded middle, no less in natural language) and "I neither believe it nor believe that there is no life" is reasonable, yet confusingly dodges the question by answering a different question (do you believe that there is no life on Mars?) in the second part.

"No, the statement is ambiguous; see"

That's doesn't seem ambiguous at all: it agrees with me. Strong atheists are a SUBSET of atheists in general, but they aren't themselves the entire set. But then, there is a dispute over what the correct definition of atheism is, so one can define it any way they want, and my case remains the same.

"Natural language isn't logic. "I don't believe in Santa Claus" is generally taken to be strong disbelief, not weak absence of belief. Likewise, "I don't believe there has ever been life on Mars" is taken as strong disbelief. If someone asks you if you believe there has ever been life on Mars, "no" would indicate strong disbelief; to register weak lack of belief, you would have to say "I don't know"."

If you really would like words to mean what the don't mean, perhaps you'd enjoy making your own language? I'd prefer that we all keep speaking English. The plain meaning of "I don't believe in X" is is just that, not something else that was not said.

"Only if "not believing in one" is the weak sense of lack of belief, but that's rarely how it is interpreted. Also, many people (mis)take "agnostic" to mean weak atheism."

It doesn't matter how it is interpreted: if you're an agnostic, you still either believe in a god, or you don't, end of story. There are plenty of theist agnostics. Many agnostics ARE weak atheists.

"As a Buddhist I'd like to say I'm perfectly capable of considering both/either a theistic or atheistic POV."

That's nice, and everyone should be able to consider every side of an issue (though I would argue that, at least as I define atheism, there IS no "atheist" POV. Atheism is the lack of a PARTICULAR POV, namely, theism.)

"They are mere categories of grammatically defined knowledge, and therefore projections of the linguistically constrained human mind, not in any way accurate or complete comprehensions of the totality of reality."

That may be. On the other hand, either you believe in a god, or you don't. Believing in a god is an ACTIVE move one makes. Saying that you don't know whether or not you believe in god is basically saying that you are ignorant of the contents of your own mind, which is a little bizarre (but, I suppose not impossible). You still either believe or you don't, though.

"The problem isn't so much that there is no definition of what God is, but that there are all too many definitions. God is variously described as an entity or as being qua being, as first cause, perfect being, being whose essence implies existance, spirit (whatever that is), cosmic consciousness, gaseous vertebrate, alien superanimal, old guy with a beard---a vast and heterogenous stew of concepts and images. Everybody knows the bit about the wise men and the elephant, but how do the wise men know they are feeling up the same animal?"

This is another reason the weak definition of atheism makes more sense as a useful term. Such questions are not important. One can merely survey their beliefs and note that there are NO god beliefs of any sort. That's a lot easier than going through and having a special term or separate consideration for not believing in each particular god.

"Maybe that doesn't matter. In the U.S. belief in God seems to be more an assertion of loyalty to society than a statement of fact. Truth is irrelevant to such loyalty oaths just as sacrificing to the emperor was about being a good Roman, not an endorsement of the actual divinity of some guy in a toga."

Dawkins has an amusing essay on this. Look everybody: check out what crazy things _I_ can believe in!

The "Answering Diepenbrock's Challenge" thread elsewhere on Panda's Thumb has already been derailed by a small set of creationists, and this one seems very near to suffering the same fate.

There is a place, even on this site, for those who wish to harangue and counter-harangue, but to allow this wrangling to spill over onto each and every attempt to discuss other specific topics pollutes the value of the whole project.

As a relative newcomer to Panda's Thumb, I've greatly enjoyed much of what I learn while here - but if current trends continue, I'll have to be counted as a relative newdeparter.

Reiner Protsch. Chris Stringer. Science journalism. That's what this discussion was about, no? Arguably Smijer's post # 18456 was the first to drift off-topic, but in a reasonable/relevant way, quickly & constructively handled. Davescot's # 18488 was clearly the banana peel on this stairway; why did none of the next four respondents, and nearly none who followed, remember to grab the railing and stay on track?

"I didn't serve four years of my young adulthood in the United States Marine Corps defending the constitution to see liberal retards like Judge Clarence Cooper make a mockery of it"

— DaveScot

Buridan - excellent post.

Davescot's # 18488 was clearly the banana peel on this stairway; why did none of the next four respondents, and nearly none who followed, remember to grab the railing and stay on track?

— Pierce R. Butler

Davescot's # 18488 was clearly the banana peel on this stairway; why did none of the next four respondents, and nearly none who followed, remember to grab the railing and stay on track?

If someone asks you if you believe in life on Mars "No I don't: it's certainl possible, but it has yet to be proven to my satisfaction, so I remain agnostic about it." is a reasonable answer.

"I neither believe it nor don't believe it" is incoherent (logic of the excluded middle, no less in natural language)

If you really would like words to mean what the don't mean, perhaps you'd enjoy making your own language? I'd prefer that we all keep speaking English. The plain meaning of "I don't believe in X" is is just that, not something else that was not said.

There are plenty of theist agnostics.

Saying that you don't know whether or not you believe in god is basically saying that you are ignorant of the contents of your own mind, which is a little bizarre (but, I suppose not impossible).

1) Your basic argument is this. If you want to be taken seriosly pointing out the holes in evolution then you need to do MORE footwork and show examples. Each of those examples being only a single example will be easily discredit by the fact that they are single examples and it is only after a large number is presented that you will respond. When you put the burden of proof on the other guy its usually a sign that you have nothing constructive to support you and rely on destructive arguments. 2) For an example of a demolishing of a text book see the stupid text book argument thread on this website. 3) The Carl Sagan types claim that because there is 10^21 stars that there MUST be live on other planets. This sounds very convincing until you read a book like "RARE EARTH" that breaks down all the aspects that make up life as we know it and is able to say that although there may be simple life on other planets the odds are there is no complex life on any other planet in our galaxy. So while you can hand wave about how there MUST be life on other planets because there are 10^21 stars that is obviously BS if the odds of evolving complex life are 10^(-30+) which is a number I made up cause I can't be bothered pulling down my copy of RARE EARTH and getting their estimate. Oh and I didn't get his name but there was a clip of a PHd. saying the 10^21 on Jon Forgothislast name's comedy central news program when they covered Peter Jennings and the UFO report he will be doing.

Quick — do you believe that 45955783 is prime?

— ts

mdr@lusz ~ $ ispr 45955783 6143 7481

I'll add that "DonkeyKong" displayed laughable ignorance about Carl Sagan and what he said about Venus. Sagan explicitley argued AGAINST there being life on Venus, as he was one of the people who deduced that the atmosphere of that planet was far too inhospitable for life. That's an entirely seperate issue from that of the abundance of life elsewhere in the universe.

If you're going to flail about desperately looking for material to discredit evolution, at least do some basic research before shouting out things about which you know little. Your foolishness just compounds every day.

1)  Your basic argument is this.  If you want to be taken seriosly pointing out the holes in evolution then you need to do MORE footwork and show examples.  Each of those examples being only a single example will be easily discredit by the fact that they are single examples and it is only after a large number is presented that you will respond.  When you put the burden of proof on the other guy its usually a sign that you have nothing constructive to support you and rely on destructive arguments.

2)  For an example of a demolishing of a text book see the stupid text book argument thread on this website.

3)  The Carl Sagan types claim that because there is 10^21 stars that there MUST be live on other planets.  This sounds very convincing until you read a book like "RARE EARTH" that breaks down all the aspects that make up life as we know it and is able to say that although there may be simple life on other planets the odds are there is no complex life on any other planet in our galaxy.  So while you can hand wave about how there MUST be life on other planets because there are 10^21 stars that is obviously BS if the odds of evolving complex life are 10^(-30+) which is a number I made up cause I can't be bothered pulling down my copy of RARE EARTH and getting their estimate.  Oh and I didn't get his name but there was a clip of a PHd. saying the 10^21 on Jon Forgothislast name's comedy central news program when they covered Peter Jennings and the UFO report he will be doing.

"Not in English, wherein "no, I don't" means "I believe that to be false"."

Not, it doesn't. Look at the words. Do you believe that there is a giant teacup orbiting Mars? No, I don't. What does that mean? It means: that belief? No, I don't have it.

"Also, "agnostic" means "not knowable", not "I'm not sure"."

That used to be the usage, but its no longer common. In part because claiming that something is by nature unknowable is a laughably silly self-contradiction, since knowability is a characteristic in itself, and indeed a secondary one.

"That's because natural language is idiomatic, and belief statements are propositions about propositions, and either the inner or outer proposition (or both) can be negated. You can deny all this, but you'll be wrong."

Oh, ok. Good to know you can invent your own idioms without consulting common usage.

"It's logically possible for someone to be one, but you'll have trouble finding anyone who self-identifies that way, because believers hold faith to have epistemological status --- they know their God, they will claim."

That's precisely the point: they claim that they BELIEVE there is a God, but that God by nature is not knowable and not known. Good old Martin G. and most fidelists are theist agnostics. Pantheists are as well (since it is belief and not knowledge that defines their god).

"Minds aren't containers, and beliefs aren't mental objects."

Look, do you believe that I have an apple in my left hand right now, or not? Either you actively believe that I do, or you don't believe it. There is no alternative. You can go on about minds and containers all you want: the fact is, if someone asks me whether I hold a god belief, the honest answer is no. And yet that doesn't preclude me from also not holding a "no god belief" either. Anyone who thinks about this for two seconds will realize that it is so. Believing in something is a positive act. Either you've stepped off the cliff towards belief, or you haven't.

"Quick --- do you believe that 45955783 is prime?"

No. Until now, I'd never even considered it so HOW COULD IT BE HONEST TO DENY THAT I HAD NOT BELIEVED IT??! I'm also agnostic (weak sense) about whether or not is. Show me some evidence first, and maybe I'll believe it.

"Quick --- do you believe that 45955783 is prime?"

I neither believe nor disbelieve. I simply don't know. If I were to spend a few minutes checking then I would "know" weather it is or not.. "Believe" implies faith, math is about the last place faith belongs.

Fundies are just there to be stroked for their vote at election time. Stroke and Vote Xians!

No one is asked to justify their atheism about Santa. I don't see why anyone should be asked to justify their atheism about any other magic man in the sky.

The key word for atheists and theists is BELIEVE, not "know." Whether or not one is an agnostic, one is still either an atheist or a theist: they either believe in a god or they don't (you'd have to be pretty messed up in the head to not know whether or not you believe there is a god, same as whether or not you have an apple in your left hand right now). There are plenty of agnostic atheists, agnostic theists (indeed, all agnostics are either one or the other).

"Well, not exactly. There are two flavors of atheism --- positive and passive. Positive atheism asserts (positively) that there are no gods. Passive atheism is a lack of belief in gods."

I suppose that's as good as any other way to define it (all I really care is that people be consistent and clear about what they mean), though I still don't see why we don't just call the whole shebang atheism, or which anti-theist claims are just a subject (all anti-theists are atheists, but nto all atheists are anti-theists)

"An agnostic may be in philosophical limbo, but he is usually a practical atheist (i.e. behaving as if there are no gods)."

And, indeed, not believing in any gods either.

45955783 is not a prime.

Next!

For people who want to know something about reality, both atheism and theism are pointless obsessions since neither the existence of God nor the nonexistence of God explains a damn thing about how the world works. "God" is a counter in the culture war game. There is no "God" in the science game just as there aren't any rooks or knights in a game of checkers.

"For people who want to know something about reality, both atheism and theism are pointless obsessions since neither the existence of God nor the nonexistence of God explains a damn thing about how the world works."

At least atheism doesn't purport to explain anything, other than to note that one is not a god believer.

Mark D

Ha Ha he who laughs last laughs longest...

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,902127,00.html

Oh ya he also said Moon and Jupiter.

But like evolution he had the sense to stop claiming the parts of his theory proven wrong...

But no one wants to talk about what he proved that is now laughable......

THAT is ignorance...

PS

www.anb.org/articles/13/13-02612-print
.html

perhaps it is foolish of me to jump into this already entrenched debate, but I have a few points to make.

I do not get worked up when I hear about evolution or some new find; I am not threatened by it. You see I am a born-again Christian who believes that God created the universe, the laws of physics and all that lives. I believe that he did this just a little while ago, when compared to the amount of time involved in old universe and evolution theories.

I admit that I do not have a formal education, but I am still pretty bright and score highly on all intelligence tests. My IQ is 143 according to the WAIS test, which is not five minute, 30 question mouse clicking session on some obscure web site. In fact, that score puts me in the top 99.7 percentile. That means that on average only one out of 400 people are as intelligent as I.

I take the time in my personal life to study various subjects. One of those subjects was evolution, a subject which fascinated me for some time. At first I gobbled it up, thinking if scientists say it, then it must be true! Thankfully, my creationist cousin, whose IQ is also up there, revealed to me the many flaws and impossibilities of the evolution theory. At the time I was really into the BBC's prehistoric earth videos. Did you know that in video one of prehistoric Earth which takes place about 49 million years ago depicts a prehistoric mammal called Ambulocetus, from which whales supposedly evolved. Now the fossil remains that scientists have found of this animal are slight, in fact one set of fossils of a mammal in this chain of descent only contained a skull and a few ribs! How on earth can a scientist determine what features an animal had from such few bones, much less that it evolved into a whale!

That was just one example that helped convince me of the fallacies of this so-called theory.

The next and biggest joke of evolution and cosmology is the big bang theory. How on Earth can all of the matter in the universe be compressed into a space the size of an atom. How on earth did that hydrogen turn into all of the other elements? Did the laws of physics simply come into existence on their own? Did you know that if the pull of gravity were any weaker that the universe would fall apart and that if were any stronger it would compress; both situations making life completely impossible.

The evolution of non-organic matter into organic matter. There a few theories out there on the origins of life that scientist entertain. The two that I am familiar with are

1) That four billion yeas ago on primordial Earth puddles of chemicals were struck by lightening and formed into amino acids, which arranged themselves into the first unicellular organism. I know that there have been laboratory tests in which less than half of necessary proteins were created in a very optimal environment consisting of chemicals being cycled through tubes and repeatedly charged with electricity. The problem with those experiments is experiments they excluded oxygen, which was present on primordial earth. Life cannot form in the presence of oxygen, that is why it was excluded from the experiments. But how then did life form on the oxygen filled primordial earth?

2) The comet theory that states amino acid proteins may have been deposited on Earth by ancient comets. That is so ridiculous, it almost sounds a cult. How on Earth could any organic matter form in such a harsh environment?

I have read and seen many evidences presented by creationists that totally debunk the theory of evolution. Look it up on the web if you care to see them. Try calling Robert V Gentry a dumb ass.

Evolution is science fiction and the complex explanations and rationale for them are as sound as the techno babble uttered on an episode of Star Trek. Geordi could give you an hour long detailed tutorial on the warp drive engine and it would all be mere fiction. That is what evolution is, nothing more than a complex work of science fiction.

Many scientists, unable to explain how the complex laws of physics and life came into being by chance, concede that the universe may have been designed. Yet the still refuse to acknowledge the God of the Bible; their loss.

I believe that evolution is the refuge of those who rebel from God. I have been mocked and ridiculed for being believing in God and creation. "That's impossible" they say, how can you believe that "God" created everything? I ask them how can you believe that everything as created by nothing and by chance?

I also reject the evolutionists who arrogantly throw bones to those who believe in creationism, by saying that God may have started the universe and let develop on its own, or some other garbage. You can make fun of us all you like, I and hopefully other creationists do not seek the approval of evolutionists. All we want is for you to stop lying to children and students and crushing their faith in God. If you want to believe that everything in the universe exists as a result of cosmic coincidence, fine but do not tell our children that there is no God!

I have read and seen many evidences presented by creationists that totally debunk the theory of evolution.

Try calling Robert V Gentry a dumb ass.

Life cannot form in the presence of oxygen, that is why it was excluded

— thegaryson

non-organic matter into organic matter

— thegaryson

Earth which takes place about 49 million years ago depicts a prehistoric mammal called Ambulocetus, from which whales supposedly evolved. Now the fossil remains that scientists have found of this animal are slight, in fact one set of fossils of a mammal in this chain of descent only contained a skull and a few ribs!

— thegaryson

How on Earth could any organic matter form in such a harsh environment?

— thegaryson

LOL, you mock me and call me ignorant, yet you're the ones who believe it is possible to compress all matter into a space 1/10,000th of the period at the end of this sentence.

You're the ones who believe that Big Bangs and big crunches are regular occurences.

You also believe that life evolved from a puddle of chemicals that were struck by lightening.

You believe that unicelluar organism was created by chance and that somehow that unciellular organism had the potential to grow into mega-complex creatures composing of trillions of cells. How cansomethig becoem more than what it is? How can new information suddenly emerge and change the structure of a life life form?

As far as the wahle intermeidates are concerned. I I took a housecat, bobcat, lynx, cougar and a tiger and buried them all ontop of each other inthe strata. A million years from now, a scientist might conclude that the order of descent was teh way i buried them. Lots of speices exist that are similar to others that doesn't mean that one evolved from another.

How many speciemens have been found of these whale "intermediates?"

1, 2, 5, 10, 100?

What percentage of the orignal skeleton are intact? You'd be surprised at how well scientist can reconstruct an extinct lifeform from only a few fossils.............

Evolution is a religion written in scientific language. It's gods are the atom and the amoeba. Geordi La Forge could explain the functions of the warp drive engine all day long in a way that would sound scientifically sound and yet it would all be false. That is the saem case with macro-evolution and spontaneous generation. Such fantastic claims are unprovable and unsecientific.

Micro-evolution is true, it is why I have a pet chihuahua instead of a wolf or coyote. Micro-evolution is not naturally selection it is manipulated by humans.

linguistic evololution is another fact of science. Diese zwei Sätze waren einmal dieselbe. these two sentences were once the same.

There's little question that oxygen was not a significant component of the early atmosphere.

While life exists in hostile environments today, the key is stability of those environments. The early earth was not a stable environment It was getting creamed by huge meteor impacts at a high rate. Nothing can evolve or survive in molten rock as far as I know.

The second thing to consider about life in hostile enviroments today is that it's all based on DNA and DNA chemistry cannot proceed in those hostile environments without the protected environment provided by and contained within a cell wall. There's a chicken/egg paradox once again. What came first - the cell wall that provides protection for protein chemistry or the protein chemistry that creates cell walls?

Current thinking is that the protected environment may have been provided by clay substrates. That means that science has come full circle and is back to the ancient belief that living cells spontaneously arise from mud!

Dave,

Again your argument is essentially the same as "the ether must exist because all known waves need a medium in which to travel." That is, "Because all life that we know exists in a stable environment then it could not have formed in an unstable one. What is a stable environment? One that supports life." Oddly, though, you probably believe that life exists in Hell - after all, where else do atheists burn?

What do you mean by "early Earth?". The Late Heavy Meteorite Bombardment happened roughly 3.8 to 4 billion years ago. No one argues that life orginated under impossible conditions which seems to be the basis of your "argument." By using imprecise terms such as "early Earth" you - intentionally or otherwise - produce an argument that is one of semantics rather than substance. All your arguments are basically circular and, if used in other fields of study, would have stunted all progress. We would still believe in the ether and quantum theory would not exist.

As for your comment at the end regarding science having come full circle, it is incorrect to imply that some sort of consensus exists as to how cells originated. For example;

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=17260

Of course, looked at one way the idea that life came from clay would only go to show that an honest reading of the Bible - as opposed to one blinded by fundamentalist dogma - shows that the Bible is not inconsistent with evolution.

"Of all the senseless babble I have ever had occasion to read, the demonstrations of these philosophers who undertake to tell us all about the nature of God would be the worst, if they were not surpassed by the still greater absurdities of the philosophers who try to prove that there is no God."

Thomas Henry Huxley, who also coined the term agnostic, was "Darwin's Bulldog" and was author of the pithy little adage:

"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."

Atheist Darwinism illustrates the slowest known form of intellectual suicide. However, I am happy to report that it has finally managed to do itself in. Only some that hang around forums like this one don't yet realize it.

Incidentally, Huxley's formula for scientific suicide is the only frontispiece for Leo Berg's "Nomogenesis or Evolution Determined by Law."

John A. Davison

I hope the rest of you are having as much fun as I am. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

John A. Davison

2) The comet theory that states amino acid proteins may have been deposited on Earth by ancient comets. That is so ridiculous, it almost sounds a cult. How on Earth could any organic matter form in such a harsh environment?

I've never found shooting fish in a barrel to be fun -- it's rather unsporting. I prefer dry fly fishing, myself.

The patience to test one's fishing acumen against a fish, or one's claims against reality, don't seem to be the creationist forte.

http://www.halos.com/

here is Gentry's website describing his polonium studies. Keep in mind that Gentry began his research as an evolutionist and became a creationist upon the results of his studies.

His conclusions have yet to be proven wrong and he welcomes any challenge to his claims.

polystrates, overthrusts, paraconformities, quick forming staligmites, quick fossilizations, quick petrifications all of these things and more leave many doubts to the evolutionist's age of the earth.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel

— JAD

thegaryson so easily refuted. You see creationist constantly say "HA! proof of a 6000 year old earth!" and when they are shown to be false they still say "HA! proof of 6000 year old earth and no one has refuted this evidence it must be so!" despite the fact they where once agian proven wrong.

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

Gentry's scientific article was retracted by the journal that published it, wasn't it, thegaryson?

What counts as "disproof" to you, if not disproof?

"In fact, the place has become markedly less appealing lately due to the Ignorant Deluge.

PT has many purposes. It's a place where the contributors write fantastic posts about biology, evolution, and the creationist cretins. Love that. It's a place where science oriented people who are not delusional talk about evolution, which is a fascinating and awesome collection of phenomena. Love that. It's also a place where bright people argue endlessly with creationists, who are committed to fantasy, and will endlessly object to the truth."

You are forgetting that evolutionists say that they are not looking for the "truth." No, they are only looking for naturalistic explanations. Although they fail to look for the naturalistic explanation for their own text, written here. I have one though, their text is like an emergent property of their own bodies. It's rather like a piece of excrement in that respect.

That's why their arguments look a little like this, "We're not looking for the truth. We only look for naturalistic explanations. I mean, just look at how useful it is! So that's how we know that naturalistic explanation is true, because it is useful."

This overlooks the fact that technology relies on creativity, ingenuity, intelligence and design. But a lot will be overlooked by those who maintain myopic beliefs that emerge from them rather like a piece of excrement does, naturally enough. Maybe Mother Nature selects what emerges from these passive fellows, as it seems that evolutionists have quite an urge to merge.

"So far as anyone has determined, the rules of chemistry work in all environments, "harsh" or not."

So far as anyone has determined, there is a sharp break between the inaminate and the animate, organic and inorganic. It is an element of the typology of Nature that those with the urge to merge seem to try to blindly deny. Note that Dean Kenyon began to study the issue and then came to a conclusion that did not match the proto-Nazi urge to merge, and then he was censored. This is the typical pattern for Darwinists. Yes, typical, a type, a type that probably cannot be blurred, merged or done away with. Yikes! Run for your lives, there are some fellows that will say that admitting to any sort of typology must be like the Taliban, fundamentalists or somethin'.

Kenyon,
http://right2leftists.blogspot.com/2005/01/left-and-censorship (add .html)

It is also important to note that most of these evolutionist and Leftist blogs also rely on censorship, including the PTs. All of the most vociferous attacks seem to be censored and the like, perhaps they are too defined, to creative or contain too much intelligent design for some fellows who have an urge to merge.

Evolutionists should not be complaining about the Old Press, not at all. If there was ever a staunch ally it has been the Old Press and its socialist tendencies, from eugenics to modern forms of Darwinism.

Lest they forget other frauds and their play in the Old Press,
"LONDON. Dec.19.
Extraordinary interest has been aroused among anthropologists by Dr. A. S. Woodward's paper on the Piltdown skull read at a meeting of the Geological Society yesterday. No other event in the annals of the society has created such a profound sensation among the members.

In some quarters it is even believed that the skull, from certain apelike characteristics may prove the existence of the "missing link" or the most important of several missing links in the chain of the evolution man."
(The New York Times;
Dec 20, 1912, pg. 6)

Note the mythological narratives of naturalism that can be written based these HUMAN fossils. So it is little wonder that the same can be written for things are now extinct, unverifiable claims, untestable, so another mythological narrative of naturalism in anthropology is safe.

But note,
"....one of the highest authorities on the human brain....finds that while it bears a similarity to the brain-cases of Gibraltar and La Quina, both paleolithic and supposedly feminine, the Piltdown brain-case is smaller and more primitive in form than these. The most striking feature is the "pronounced gorilla-like drooping of the temporal region, due to the extreme narrowing of its posterior part, which causes a deep excavation of its under surface." This feeble development of that portion of the brain which is known to control the power of articulate speech is most significant. To Professor Smith the association of a simian jaw with a cranium more distinctly human is not surprising. The evolution of the human brain from the simian type involves a tripling of the superficial area of the cerebral cortex; and "this expansion was not like the mere growth of a muscle with exercise, but the gradual building-up of the most complex mechanism in existence. The growth of the brain preceded the refinement of the features and the somatic characters in general."
(Ancestor Hunting: The Significance of the Piltdown Skull
By George Grant MacCurdy
American Anthropologist, New Series,
Vol. 15, No. 2. (Apr. - Jun., 1913), pp. 248-256)
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2005/01/new-york-times-dec-20-1912-pg (add .html for link)

Note on the front page of PTs, on the brain of Homo floresiensis, one cannot help but wonder if some people may be writing mythological narratives of naturalism for bone fragments and the like again. Unfortunately, there is no way to really test so many of the claims made and narratives written. Perhaps what is needed is people placing false fossils around, like Piltdown, to have some actual tests on the interpretive abilities of the writers of the narratives of naturalism. It would also be interesting to see what rippled out from this instance of fraud, as far as what narratives were written.

Darwinists rely on censorship, they censor the opposition that actually knows something about their ignorant and stupid ideas and then proclaim that their censorship makes their case. They do the same on their blogs. And one suspects they would continue this pattern in so far as they could get away with it. The internet is making things difficult.

"When Oak Ridge National Laboratories terminated Gentry's connection with them as a visiting professor (shortly after it became nationally known he is a creationist) the number of his articles slowed down, but he continues to publish."
http://www.trueorigin.org/creatpub.asp

I don't know about Gentry's conclusions and so on. I do know that evolutionists have a consistent pattern of relying on censorship, both now and historically. These great defenders of the purity of science, supposedly that is their excuse. Yet there are things published in peer reviewed journals of various types that are clearly fallacious and wrong. If the issue was really one of scientific purity then how does this situation come to be? It is the same with the textbooks that evolutionists want to keep pure from the "unholy" sticky stickers. There are various known frauds and distortions in those textbooks that are supposedly to be kept pure by evolutionist censors.

The dread sticker....it seems to illustrate how far evolutionists have come towards a proto-Nazi state.

Fundies are just there to be stroked for their vote at election time. Stroke and Vote Xians!

If I were a minority I would be a Democrat. I wouldn't have enough self-loathing to be a Republican. Ann Coulter says women are stupid, Alan Keyes says affirmative action is bad, Michele Malkin says interning people like her was fine and dandy. Fine with me if Republicans treat conservative christians like useful idiots. Better than doing what they want. Like Bush privately said, "They want me to kick the gays, and I won't do it."

I really cannot take anything that talkorigins says. Gentry was censored not because he was a quack, but because what he said puts a lucy-rench into the theory of evolution and the age of the Earth. Talkorigins is a website, but is it accredited by the scientific community? Has their refutation of Polonium halos been approved y a peer review? Or is it just some xplanation they came up with that hasn't beeen proven? I don't know, but I don't trust talk.origins. I have a hard time trusting nayone who beleives that they evolved from a puddle of chemcials that was struck by lightening 4 billion years ago.

You evolutionists can write a billion pages of bio-babble but it will never make evoltuion true. YOu can explain your theory in six-syllable words but it still doesn't make a lie become truth.

It's all one big joke.

Hey Everybody! I came from an atom the size of a sperm 15 billion years ago!

How can any believe such bullsht!

I feel sorry for you!

I get it now, he doesn't like big words.

Careful thegaryson, your ignorance is showing.

What is a stable environment?

— FredMcX

"So far as anyone has determined, the rules of chemistry work in all environments, "harsh" or not.

— Ed Darrell

Proteins can be picky about the environment in which they are found. They may only exist in their active, or native state, in a small range of pH values and under solution conditions with a minimum quantity of electrolytes, as many proteins will not remain in solution in distilled water.

To favor cytosine formation, reactant concentrations are required that are implausible in a natural setting. Furthermore, cytosine is consumed by deamination (the half-life for deamination at 25°C is 340 yr) and other reactions. No reactions have been described thus far that would produce cytosine, even in a specialized local setting, at a rate sufficient to compensate for its decomposition. On the basis of this evidence, it appears quite unlikely that cytosine played a role in the origin of life.

thegaryson

A million different bits of data from virtually every area of scientific inquiry puts the earth's age far beyond 6,000 years. Even tree rings go back farther than that. Ice cores in the antarctic go back over half a million years. Sedimentation, radioisotope decay, glaciation, plate tectonics, star evolution, you name it and the data all lines up in favor of a very old earth.

Some really interesting stuff in astronomy I just read about. At the galactic scale there are jets of matter spewing out, falling back, small galaxies and gas clouds colliding with the Milky Way, and the trails of these things can be seen and the speed at which they're proceeding can be measured. The trails are far longer than 6,000 years of travel to say the least. On the scale of hundreds of millions of years as I recall.

The polonium halos mystery is interesting but the vast preponderance of evidence makes it almost a certainty that the halo interpretation is somehow incorrect.

thegaryson

The big bang didn't start from a central point. That's a common misconception. This month's Scientific American outlined 8 different common misconceptions about the big bang. Here's one of them - the "explosion"

http://tinyurl.com/4uzz5

The rest of the article is here

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147&pageNumber=1&catID=2

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The doctrine of an impenetrable wall of separation between church and states is an absurd, tortured interpretation of the establishment clause.

— DaveScot

First leap: how do you turn "congress" into a "school board"? Second leap: what law (provide federal or state statute number please) requires the sticker in the biology text? Third leap: which religious establishment is respected by a sticker that doesn't even mention religion? Fourth leap: where does it say that no part of gov't may mention any religion in any way? Fifth leap: how do you turn "make no law" into "make no mention"

Further undermining the notion of the impenetrable wall of separation extending from law to mere speech is 1) the preamble of every state constitution contains a reference to a supernatural deity of some sort 2) for 200 years all oaths of public office were sworn before God 3) congress opens with a blessing 4) federal court opens with a blessing 5) chaplain is military occupation funded by taxpayers to cater to religious beliefs of service members

GCT, when he mentions court opening 'with a blessing,' I think he's referring to the Supreme Court. Advocates of mixing church and state like to point out that the Court traditionally opens with a formulaic recitation that ends, "God save this honorable court," or something to that effect. I'm not sure who says it, but I'm reasonably sure it's a court functionary.

As far as I know, it's the only federal court that opens with any mention of God.

GCT, when he mentions court opening 'with a blessing,' I think he's referring to the Supreme Court. Advocates of mixing church and state like to point out that the Court traditionally opens with a formulaic recitation that ends, "God save this honorable court," or something to that effect. I'm not sure who says it, but I'm reasonably sure it's a court functionary. As far as I know, it's the only federal court that opens with any mention of God.

— Colin

He did say "federal court" but that doesn't make it right, in my opinion. I guess when I said "definitely wrong" I should have specified that I was still speaking of my own opinion as in I feel it violates the First Amendment.

I agree completely, on both counts. It's worth mentioning that in the recent 10 Commandments argument, at least one Justice indicated that the opening recitation is not a prayer. Scalia disagreed, obviously. I'm increasingly surprised by both the irresponsibility and the frankness of his position on church and state.

As for the oaths question, it may be that DaveScot is pegging his timeline on the cases that prohibited states from mandating religious oaths from public officers. If that is what he is referring to, it would be more accurate to say that for X number of years, states were allowed to extract religious oaths from public officials. How many did so, and how much importance was placed on the oaths, would be a question for a better historian than me.

Colin, perhaps this should go to the Bathroom Wall? I'm posting there on this topic from now on, since I think we have gone afoul of the original topic.

I agree -- I've taken my response to DaveScot's First Amendment questions to the Bathroom Wall.

Comment #19184 Proteins can be picky about the environment in which they are found. They may only exist in their active, or native state, in a small range of pH values and under solution conditions with a minimum quantity of electrolytes, as many proteins will not remain in solution in distilled water.

— DaveScot