Witt in the Seattle Times

This is even more off the wall than the theocracy angle.

... As I said, none of this has thing one to do with competence and everything to do with protecting the dogma. Nearly every post in this thread is evidence of that. "Let me assure you, ve haf vays to make you teach the dogma!"....

This would appear to be a classic case of projection, i.e. the one making the allegation of dogma has the most to answer for on that count. Scientific truth is always considered provisional, and is subject to revision at any time, though as evidence accrues that task becomes less plausible as time goes by.

The only question I have for creationists who wish to be called 'scientific' is the most elemental scientific question of them all, and the one that delineates the line between knowledge obtained by intellectual rigor and wishful thinking is this: what evidence would you accept as refuting your position?

Any true scientist is constantly testing their assertions against this question. Ask a creationist what would dissuade them from their assertions and the answer is nothing.

Well it would be like if a flat earther accused us all of dogma because we wouldn't consider his position on the shape of the earth.

Guys (and gals).

"Unfortunately, I see this fight only getting tougher, as the Supreme Court (and other lower courts) are being stacked with like minded individuals who intend on creating a theocracy.{"

In hindsight, that was a rather brainless comment, and I apologise ... oh no, my tea's getting cold!

Oops, I already posted this in the wrong thread:

Gee, whenever I ask an IDer to tell me what the scientific theory of ID is, all I get is thundering silence. But give them chance to tell us all about their religious opinions, and the IDers can't seem to shut up.

Odd, if ID isn't really about religion.

Unless, of course, IDers are simply lying to us about that.

But hey, Heddle, Donald, and everyone else who wants to regale us with your religious opinions ---- I have a simple question for you. Why, exactly, are your particular religious opinions any better than anyoen else's? Why should anyone pay any more attention to your particualr religious opinions than they should to, say, mine or my next door neighbor's or my car mechanic's or my veterinarian's or the kid who delivers my pizzas? Other than your say-so?

(Note: this question doesn't really apply to Carol, since she's just here to shill for her employer's book.)

On the inside of the ID proponents' in-group.
-but if 3 people walked in, singing a bar of Alice's restaraunt, they might think it was a movement. and friends...

I mean, if you mean by dogma that I have examined the evidence and come to the only rational conclution that is available, that evolution is the mechanism for speciation, then I guess that dogma is what it is.

But if you mean that my dogma is trying to force out the ID argument purely because it doesn't jibe with my own then... Mmm. Well, refer to the previous paragraph. ID is junk science. Evolution is not a controversial theory in the scientific community because it is well tested and 100% of the evidence supports it. THat is why us scientists support it. That is why, oh hell, forget it. You know that ID doesn't work. Just like Witt. Yet you still support it. WHY?

The most militant of the Ayatollah-wanna-be's are the members of the "Reconstructionist" movement. The Reconstructionists were founded by Rouas J. Rushdoony, a militant fundamentalist who was instrumental in getting Henry Morris's book The Genesis Flood published in 1961. According to Rushdoony's view, the United States should be directly transformed into a theocracy in which the fundamentalists would rule directly according to the will of God. "There can be no separation of Church and State," Rushdoony declares. (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 51) "Christians," a Reconstructionist pamphlet declares, "are called upon by God to exercise dominion." (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 50) The Reconstructionists propose doing away with the US Constitution and laws, and instead ruling directly according to the laws of God as set out in the Bible---they advocate a return to judicial punishment for religious crimes such as blasphemy or violating the Sabbath, as well as a return to such Biblically-approved punishments as stoning. According to Rushdoony, the Second Coming of Christ can only happen after the "Godly" have taken over the earth and constructed the Kingdom of Heaven here: "The dominion that Adam first received and then lost by his Fall will be restored to redeemed Man. God's People will then have a long reign over the entire earth, after which, when all enemies have been put under Christ's feet, the end shall come." (cited in Diamond, 1989, p. 139) "Christian Reconstructionism," another pamphlet says, "is a call to the Church to awaken to its Biblical responsibility to subdue the earth for the glory of God . . . Christian Reconstructionism therefore looks for and works for the rebuilding of the institutions of society according to a Biblical blueprint." (cited in Diamond 1989, p. 136) In the Reconstructionist view, evolution is one of the "enemies" which must be "put under Christ's feet" if the godly are to subdue the earth for the glory of God. In effect, the Reconstructionists are the "Christian" equivilent of the Taliban. While some members of both the fundamentalist and creationist movements view the Reconstructionists as somewhat kooky, many of them have had nice things to say about Rushdoony and his followers. ICR has had close ties with Reconstructionists. Rushdoony was one of the financial backers for Henry Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", and Morris's son John was a co-signer of several documents produced by the Coalition On Revival, a reconstructionist coalition founded in 1984. ICR star debater Duane Gish was a member of COR's Steering Committee, as was Richard Bliss, who served as ICR's "curriculum director" until his death. Gish and Bliss were both co-signers of the COR documents "A Manifesto for the Christian Church" (COR, July 1986), and the "Forty-Two Articles of the Essentials of a Christian Worldview" (COR,1989), which declares, "We affirm that the laws of man must be based upon the laws of God. We deny that the laws of man have any inherent authority of their own or that their ultimate authority is rightly derived from or created by man." ("Forty-Two Essentials, 1989, p. 8). P>The Discovery Institute, the chief cheerleader for "intelligent design theory", is particularly cozy with the Reconstructionists. The single biggest source of money for the Discovery Institute is Howard Ahmanson, a California savings-and-loan bigwig. Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory" (other branches of Discovery Institute are focused on areas like urban transportation, Social Security "reform", and (anti) environmentalist organizing). Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist who was long associated with Rushdooney, and who sat with him on the board of directors of the Chalcedon Foundation -- a major Reconstructionist think-tank -- for over 20 years, and donated over $700,000 to the Reconstructionists. Just as Rushdooney was a prime moving force behind Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", intelligent design "theorist" Phillip Johnson dedicated his book "Defeating Darwinism" to "Howard and Roberta" -- Ahmanson and his wife. Ahmanson was quoted in newspaper accounts as saying, "My purpose is total integration of Biblical law into our lives." Ahmanson has given several million dollars over the past few years to anti-evolution groups (including Discovery Institute), as well as anti-gay groups, "Christian" political candidates, and funding efforts to split the Episcopalian Church over its willingness to ordain gay ministers and to other groups which oppose the minimum wage. He was also a major funder of the recent "recall" effort in California which led to the election of Terminator Arnie. Ahmanson is also a major funder of the effort for computerized voting, and he and several other prominent Reconstructionists have close ties with Diebold, the company that manufactures the computerized voting machines used. There has been some criticism of Diebold because it refuses to make the source code of its voting machine software available for scrutiny, and its software does not allow anyone to track voting after it is done (no way to confirm accuracy of the machine). Some of Ahmanson's donations are channeled through the Fieldstead Foundation, which is a subspecies of the Ahmanson foundation "Fieldstead" is Ahmanson's middle name). The Fieldstead Foundation funds many of the travelling and speaking expenses of the DI's shining stars. Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory". By his own reckoning, Ahmanson gives more of his money to the DI than to any other poilitically active group -- only a museum trust in his wife's hometown in Iowa and a Bible college in New Jersey get more. In 2004, he reportedly gave the Center another $2.8 million. Howard Ahamnson, Jr sits on the Board Directors of Discovery Institute. Since then, as his views have become more widely known, Ahmanson has tried to backpeddle and present a kinder, gentler image of himself. However, his views are still so extremist that politicians have returned campaign contributions from Ahmanson once they learned who he was. So it's no wonder that the Discovery Institute is reluctant to talk about the funding source for its Intelligent Design campaign. Apparently, they are not very anxious to have the public know that most of its money comes from just one whacko billionnaire who has long advocated a political program that is very similar to that of the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

Now wait a minute, True Origins has a page about their theory of creationism - I just haven't been able to find it yet.....lots of dictionary definitions and anger over "materialism" but I just can't see the theory....

Ask a creationist what would dissuade them from their assertions and the answer is nothing.

I have no problem with criticism of evolution based on actual evidence but Creationism/ID comes down to the old arguement from ignorance fallacy "life is so complex it must have been designed - evolution cannot explain the complexities of life". That is not science, it is not legitament criticism it is a fallacy.

Now you might be correct that the teacher in question did not actually try to spread this illogical mindset to the students but you are completely wrong to suggest that a poorly reasoned arguement from ignorance should be considered legitament criticism of evolution.

Your dogma seems to be: "Atheism = competence; creationism = incompetence."

Hmmm ... I take that back. I think it was rather a brilliant comment. damn! My tea's gone cold again!

One hallmark of intelligent cause is specified complexity

Far from being an argument for ignorance, ID is an argument from evidence.

RIght, so why are they using lies and deception to promote their cause? Why? What do they gain? Television Shepherds with living room sheep? I didn't know it was the holy land but I believed from the minute the check left my hand? Has anyone been inside this place? Known one of the top dogs? Is it just simple fear or is there more to it?

— BWE

Materialism is a powerful philosophy of life today because it sets the boundaries for what is right and wrong in society. It explains the ''rules'' that govern our civilization. It goes to the very intellectual roots of society, the very foundation that our social and cultural institutions are built upon. Indeed, if materialism is right -- as most intellectuals propose -- then ''God'' is merely a figment of our imagination. Therefore, God didn't create man; man created God. Doestoyevsky once said that ''if God is dead then all things are lawful. '' Might makes right. The State is the ultimate enforcer of rules.

For all we know, this biology teacher teaches evolution more thoroughly and correctly than anyone in the school or even the school system, yet by virtue of holding a particular religious belief, he/she simply must be considered to suffer "intellectual incompetence".

— Donald M

Posted by Donald M on November 21, 2005 07:31 PM (e)(s) ... But, that is not what ID says at all. If you're going to discuss fallacies, put this one in the category of "straw man" fallacy. ID seeks to separate undirected, natural causes from intelligent causes. One hallmark of intelligent cause is specified complexity. Hence, if an artifact or phenomenon exhibits specified complexity, attributing it to intelligent cause is unproblematic...except when it comes to an artifact or phenomenon in biology. Then, it seems to create all sorts of problems. And the main reason seems to be that it just isn't possible (we somehow know this in advance) for there to be any actual design in biological systems...

In the ancient world people used to explain natural phenomenon by invoking the supernatural all the time. Lightning was caused by Zues, thunder by Thor, the Nile flooded annually because of the will of Osiris, the sun was the wheel of Apollo's Chariot.

Humans got rid of these explanations because they were useless. But now it seems like the DI wants to take us back to those times. Why? Science based on natural explanations for natural phenomenon has been the most successful human endevour - why discard it? Are there any real, legitament reasons why to abandon this fruitful way of look at the world other than the fact that certain people's pet theories can't be included?

There's a cliche that goes something like: any publicity is good whether it's bad publicity or good publicity. I'm not sure this applies in the case for ID.

These guys are on the right politically (yay!).

Moreover, a growing list of some 450 Ph.D. scientists are openly skeptical of Darwin's theory, and a recent poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute found that only 40 percent of medical doctors accept Darwinism's idea that humans evolved strictly through unguided, material processes.

To repeat: The process of science requires openness and honesty from scientists. Intelligent design creationism requires obfuscation about the intelligent designer...

If you make the mistake in assuming its proponents are actually being open and honest about it, which they are not, "specified complexity" is an extremely poorly defined attribute of things that is complex and hard to understand by people who do not have a good education in science. This attribute indicates that the intelligent designer designed the item, except when the intelligent designer let it evolve instead. People claim items with "specified complexity" are evidence for intelligent design creationism, even after a prefectly sound explanation for their evolution is offered.

Emma, could you elaborate on that? What do you mean by that? And why is that a "yay?"

— longhorn

Given what I think the author of the statement means by "random mutation and natural selection," those kinds of events did not cause the existence of, and differences among, all the organisms to live on earth. ... However, I obviously wouldn't have signed that Discovery Institute statement because I know it would be use to suggest that I support ideas that I don't.

— longhorn

1. ID is not science.
2. ID is not a scientific theory
3. ID is conjecture, at best
4. ID should not be taught in science class
5. ID should not be taught in any class (except as an example of flawed logic in philosophy class)
6. ID isn't even an issue outside the US

Just that the Discovery Institute is a conservative think tank. I'm an Objectivist, so we should in the same big tent. But their ID crusade only hurts conservatism.

ID seeks to separate undirected, natural causes from intelligent causes.

ANd when ID starts to do research that does so, that might be the time to take it more seriously.

CSI is NOT a valid, operationalized concept; it hasn't been successfully applied to real objects, and hasn't been proven useful as a research concept.

Right now, you're putting the cart before the horse and getting it all ass backwards. Do some research, get some results. THEN we can start talking.

ID seeks to separate undirected, natural causes from intelligent causes. ANd when ID starts to do research that does so, that might be the time to take it more seriously.

— tang

Dear Mr. Myers, It's correct to say that evolution is a scientific fact, in an analogous sense to saying gravity is a scientific fact. But if science took the same approach towards gravity as some of its practitioners have taken towards evolution, we would yet have feathers falling slower than cannon balls, in a perfect vacuum. Let me tell you, I struggle with that fact about feathers vs cannon balls, but I accept it because of empirical observation and physics. Perhaps it's about time certain practitioners of science did themselves the service of taking a similar, analytical approach to evolution.
This is your opportunity.
Go to my website, observe the Mainstream Science classification, recognize that anyone treating with this topic must take cognizance of Scripture - as did perhaps 75% of all venerated science figures - leave the Scripture aside and investigate the technical content. The world is waiting for the scientists to tell them a few things about nature. It is also waiting for intelligent Origins Education from the same source. Here and now, show the public the technical content of what you see as evolution, contrast it with other models, leave the religion and personality out, and support modern, technically accurate origins education. I look forward to a response from someone who understands and practices scientific principles. Yours etc., P.H..

groan

Go to my website

PBH ill bet you a $100 "Pascal's Wager" is wrong

As a marine biologist married to a middle school science teacher, I can assure you, Philip Bruce Heywood, that Intelligent Origins Education is only waiting for information from the same source.

If you've got proof of God, you'd be on the cover of newsweek. I can tell that you don't because you're not on the cover of newsweek.

However, I would be happy to discuss evolution on a point by point basis. As a matter of fact, I think I am going to post my thoughts with a trackback to this article on my blog tomorrow at
brainwashedgod.blogspot.com

I'll be glad to have a point by point discussion about the more subtle details of evolutionary theory, its implications and its boundaries. Please go to my blog anyway and post a comment. It would make me feel good. I am a sensitive artist and I need feedback to thrive. And y'know, Jesus said to make people feel good is a Christian's highest calling.

... if science took the same approach towards gravity as some of its practitioners have taken towards evolution, we would yet have feathers falling slower than cannon balls, in a perfect vacuum.

I struggle with that fact about feathers vs cannon balls,...

...but I accept it because of empirical observation and physics.

... I look forward to a response from someone who understands and practices scientific principles.

... And y'know, Jesus said to make people feel good is a Christian's highest calling.

From Dembski's blog:

'I preserve it here for the record books. Let the humiliation of ID proponents continue and intensify.'

Yes Dembski, let it.

From Dembski's blog:

'I preserve it here for the record books. Let the humiliation of ID proponents continue and intensify.'

oh on come now....... defeat(of clay)ism ?

isn't that the opposite of .......triumphalism?

At least he could spin paridgm "reversal" to "re-fashioning" or "retrofitting" or ......just look the in postmodernist bible and find another way of mangling reality

And as for "Materialism" isn't that the BIGGEST bit of projecting you ever saw. Man talk about religion on VIAGRA

I see. So, even though no one, including PZ, has offered one shred of evidence that the teacher in question taught, promoted or otherwise attempted to "sneak" 'creationism' (whatever the definition du jour of that term is supposed to be) into his/her science classroom, he/she is incompetent by virture of his/her religious beliefs? For all we know, this biology teacher teaches evolution more thoroughly and correctly than anyone in the school or even the school system, yet by virtue of holding a particular religious belief, he/she simply must be considered to suffer "intellectual incompetence".

Hey that Donald guy never came back to answer questions about whether ID was testable for falsifiable. He didn't even bother to explain Specified Complexity any further.

Donald M said: But, that is not what ID says at all. If you're going to discuss fallacies, put this one in the category of "straw man" fallacy. ID seeks to separate undirected, natural causes from intelligent causes. One hallmark of intelligent cause is specified complexity. Hence, if an artifact or phenomenon exhibits specified complexity, attributing it to intelligent cause is unproblematic...except when it comes to an artifact or phenomenon in biology. Then, it seems to create all sorts of problems. And the main reason seems to be that it just isn't possible (we somehow know this in advance) for there to be any actual design in biological systems.

Donald M continued: Far from being an argument for ignorance, ID is an argument from evidence. Now you might be correct that the teacher in question did not actually try to spread this illogical mindset to the students but you are completely wrong to suggest that a poorly reasoned arguement from ignorance should be considered legitament criticism of evolution. I never suggested any such thing. However, an argument from evidence is another matter altogether. That is what ID actually focuses on, contrary to what many seem to think. This whole idea of 'religious agendas' or 'stealth creationism' or whatever is nothing but a red herring (another fallacy). No one has yet demonstrated how we know scientifically that the properties of the cosmos are such that any apparent design we observe in biological systems can not be actual design, even in principle.

$100 on Pascal being wrong

BWE wrote: ... And y'know, Jesus said to make people feel good is a Christian's highest calling. No he didn't. You're a liar.

BWE I don't want to give too much away but consider a few "moves" ahead.
And remember an ancient sage once said "All desire causes suffering -even thoughts of desire"

Bible passage of the day:

And out of the smoke locusts came down upon the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth. 4They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. 5They were not given power to kill them, but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes a man. 6During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.

7The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. 8Their hair was like women's hair, and their teeth were like lions' teeth. 9They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle. 10They had tails and stings like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months. 11They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon.[a]

13The sixth angel sounded his trumpet, and I heard a voice coming from the horns[b] of the golden altar that is before God. 14It said to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, "Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates." 15And the four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a third of mankind. 16The number of the mounted troops was two hundred million. I heard their number.

17The horses and riders I saw in my vision looked like this: Their breastplates were fiery red, dark blue, and yellow as sulfur. The heads of the horses resembled the heads of lions, and out of their mouths came fire, smoke and sulfur. 18A third of mankind was killed by the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulfur that came out of their mouths. 19The power of the horses was in their mouths and in their tails; for their tails were like snakes, having heads with which they inflict injury.

20The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood---idols that cannot see or hear or walk. 21Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts.

Hah!
MONSTERS?
I eat MONSTERS for BREAKFAST!!

But before that I like to have a Little appetizer......
a CHILDREN'S monster story

From the tales of Tripitaka

Donald M writes (comment 59230) writes: "Perhaps you could offer some actual evidence for this bold claim. Name names or something. Demonstrate that the goal is to establish a theocracy, otherwise this looks like so much vigorous handwaving with no substance behind it...which is all it really is. This isn't even remotely connected to reality...yet you seem to think it is the IDP's who are disconnected from reality...go figure!"

Well, try this on for size (but you'll have to read the whole article):

"Republican appointees control ten of the thirteen federal courts, a number that should increase to 12 in 2008. As of today, according to the "National Law Journal," close to 85% of Appeals Court judges will have been chosen by Republicans. The jackpot is obviously the Supreme Court, where, after John Roberts's confirmation as Chief Justice, hard-line Republicans are about to obtain a solid majority with the nomination of Samuel Alito, an eminent member ... of the Federalist Society."

and this:

"the fundamentalists' theoretical justification is defended at the Supreme Court by Judge Scalia, Judge Thomas, and, if he is confirmed by the Senate, Judge Alito. Their philosophy: in its interpretation by judges, the Constitution must mean exactly what it meant at the moment of its ratification. No more, no less. At first blush, the idea of ridding this admirable text of all posthumous political interpretation can only seduce, and one understands why Bush placed his judicial offensive under the sign of "objectivity." But in reality, the rigidity of the fundamentalists is a decoy - or rather, a convenient fig leaf for these ultra-reactionaries. In their style, fundamentalists such as Scalia are models of intolerance. They reduce their critics to the ranks of "cretins" and their hatred for evolutionists - those who think that the Constitution is a living organ the interpretation of which must necessarily evolve over the centuries - is equal only to "Creationists'" hostility to Darwin. Their stict reading of the Constitution "finds a parallel in the literal interpretation of the Koran or the Bible," remarks Cass Sunstein, author of the best book on this radical crusade. [2] And the consequences of their philosophy are potentially terrifying."

www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112105H.shtml
"America: the Fundamentalist Invasion

How's that for being disconnected from reality, Donald? I'm not advocating some kind of conspiracy, but this certainly does not bode well for the nation.

How do you know?

DId you ask Jesus?

Jesus said to make people feel good is a Christian's highest calling.

During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.

Hey that Donald guy never came back to answer questions about whether ID was testable for falsifiable. He didn't even bother to explain Specified Complexity any further.

...and then he scurries over to Uncommon Descent to repeat his comments and get praised and petted for them, rather than face the criticisms they get here.

RE Theocratic takeover. Don't forget that the beloved Pat Robertson has a major law school going at Regent U here in VA making "Christian" lawyers who become legislators, who become judges, who become the "Supreme Council". Yipes!

Hey that Donald guy never came back to answer questions about whether ID was testable for falsifiable. He didn't even bother to explain Specified Complexity any further.

— CBBB

Because it's not in the Bible. He does say things like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" which seems to mean if you like getting whipped by a dominatrix you should go around whipping people.

What Bible are you using, that it includes the Apocrypha? I'm confused by your numbering, too -- Saying 87 in the Gospel of Thomas is "Wretched be the body which depends upon (another) body, and wretched be the soul which depends upon their being together."

No corporate sponsors for Darwin exhibition The evolution vs. creationism debate in the US is now so contentious that the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York has been unable to find a sponsor for its new exhibition detailing the life and discoveries of Charles Darwin. With American companies apparently unwilling to be seen to be taking sides, the whole of the $3m bill for the exhibition has been met by donations, large and small, from private individuals, The Telegraph reports. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/22/corporate_sponsors_darwin/

Fancy that. I thought ID wasn't about a "particular religious belief". For your information, I mentioned that there is a creationist teacher in my local high school. I have not "gone after" that person, because they do not inject that fallacious belief into instruction. If they were teaching that nonsense, then I would be furious, and yes, they would be pushing their incompetence off onto impressionable kids.

But you're the one who accused PZ of saying Athiesm = Competence. This isn't what PZ meant, he meant that a competent biology teacher should accept evolution. You're the one who linked evolution with atheism but apparently Evolution Vs. ID has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

Who said anything about ID. You were the one who called this teacher a creationist implying that her/his religious belief somehow was a problem in the classroom. Now you're telling us that the teacher in question doesn't present any of those views in the classroom. So, why would you bring it up in the first place? It was your contention, not mine, that somehow creation = incomptence. Apparently not, as you just admitted. I do wish you'd make up your mind.

How's that for being disconnected from reality, Donald? I'm not advocating some kind of conspiracy, but this certainly does not bode well for the nation.

Michael Behe, asked to tell how we can instruct our graduate students in what ID is so they can replicate experiments and dream up new ones, said simply "I know it when I see it."

Donald, you make a valid point. Of course, a person's religious beliefs do not inherently preclude them from teaching (or practicing) science thoroughly or accurately.

However, people who strongly hold beliefs tend to enjoy stating them. Combined with Christianity's directive to proselytize, this is more than enough reason to be suspicious of a creationist biology teacher in a public school. I think this is the cause of concern in most cases.

I don't think any reasonable person would "go after" such a teacher merely for being a creationist, since that would be a truly ideological act. But suspicion is warranted.

BWE wrote:

... And y'know, Jesus said to make people feel good is a Christian's highest calling.

No he didn't. You're a liar.

Thank you Paul C. They really put my feet to the fire there. I had to admit I made up the words bit. But you are right, I meant it in the spirit of Mathew 25:31-46.

Matthew 25:31-46 effectively says that we will be judged on whether we help those in need, specifically in need of food, drink, shelter, clothing, and companionship in illness or prison, but it can conceivably be extended to other basic needs. This is a large subset of making people "feel good"

... it's a mischaracterization to call BWE's comment a lie rather than sloppy theology.

Well, to finally come clean, Norman is right. I fabricated the jesus part from thin air. It was a bald-faced lie. The kind of lie that I was attributing to the ID camp just a few comments earlier. I would be more worried about going to h$$$ll for it but I just finished a fabulous interview with the antichrist who says not to worry about the end times. I posted in my blog, http://brainwashedgod.blogspot.com just a few minutes ago. I assure you that I did NOT make that one up.

But Paul is right too. I did intend it in the spirit of the Mathew bit.

Being fed and clothed will keep you alive, not make you feel good.

No, it's not [a mischaracterization to call BWE's comment a lie]

I guess my point is moot now. Normally I would say BWE's comment qualified in context as a joke rather than a lie, but it's a little hard to argue that his intent was other than what he said it was.

Finally, to make the obvious pun, it's clear that the ID position is to "sucker" those in need.

Sorry paul, the secular humanist in me made me do the honorable thing and come clean. I really did mean it in the sense of the mathew bit though so my intent, though i knew i was making it up, was that jesus message about doing unto etc. probably covered making others feel good and i don't know why else you would heal the hungry asnd feed the lepers.

OK, then what's the point of visiting the sick or imprisoned?

Donald said:
"You may not be advocating for some kind of conspiracy, but exactly how objective do you think the "Truthout.org" is being here? They clearly have a liberal agenda and thus selectively present only what suits their cause. Fine to do in public debate, but I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from it. But we're getting way OT here, so 'nuff said."

"Liberal", "conservative", up, down, right, left, ventral, dorsal, round and round - I'm not an advocate of labels. You asked me to support my comment and I did. Take it with a grain of salt. The thing about politics and religion is that everyone's got an opinion. Thanks for your contribution.

Donald has yet to address the Wedge Strategy, which is the manifesto of of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, which is the what drives the Discovery Institute, which is what drives the 'ID debate' these days (it used to be called 'creation science' in the pre-DI days).

The Wedge Strategy identifies *itself* as:

-- antimaterialist
-- Christian
-- a plan to gain total 'science and cultural' hegemony in the US

Just *read* the damn thing. This is what the 'ID' people really are aiming for. Bogus 'questioning' of evolution in science classes is just the thin edge of the *wedge*. The ID crowd is *completely* full of shit when it says it's interested in scientific debate. It wants to *redefine* what science is.

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

From the various comments by people like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell I also lean towards the belief that the religious right wishes to establish a kind of theocracy in the US. Now it might not be full fledge Iran/Saudi Arabia style Theocratic Dictatorship but it certainly is a desire to implement an array of laws based on fundementalist Christian beliefs.

The ID crowd is *completely* full of shit when it says it's interested in scientific debate. It wants to *redefine* what science is.

CBBB said:
"From the various comments by people like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell I also lean towards the belief that the religious right wishes to establish a kind of theocracy in the US. Now it might not be full fledge Iran/Saudi Arabia style Theocratic Dictatorship but it certainly is a desire to implement an array of laws based on fundementalist Christian beliefs."

Let's just say, this is probably their idea of the perfect society. On the bright side, look what recently happened in Dover to the ID supporters on their school board.

I guess my point is moot now. Normally I would say BWE's comment qualified in context as a joke rather than a lie, but it's a little hard to argue that his intent was other than what he said it was.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

I don't think the religious right is against democracy in the sense of having elections and that sort of thing. I doubt that they'd opt for a Saudi style religious monarchy. I do, however, believe that they would rather have it so non-fundementalists didn't vote or had a very small say in matters of government. Basically they want to use the state to increase their political power and give their specific beliefs a special place in US law.
Go visit a blog like Vox Day and you'll get an idea of how these people think. They have convinced themselves that Christians, and specifically the Fundementalist variety, are the victims of an atheist/secularist agenda. If you point out to them the fact that Christians represent the vast majority of people in the US while athiest represent a tiny minorty they suggest that most people who call themselves Christian are not "True Christians" and this is evident from the increased "secularism of American society". They seem to believe that the presence of anything which is Not-Christian is an infringement on their religious rights.

My personal take is that these people envision a perfect world as a world where everybody thinks alike, give or take small, ininfluent minutiae, like food preference or whether they like R&B more than classical music and so on.

Think about it: if only everybody were like that, democracy would work beautifully!

What they can't stand is the messy "distortion" of democracy that is only due to the existence of "libruls, pinkos, athiests" and in general people who stubbornly refuse to "see the light".

I'd hate to imagine what things would be like if Robertson had won the Republican nomination in 1988 and been elected.

Disclaimer: of course, moderate Republicans and non-Fundamentalist Christians are included in the number of "libruls, pinkos, athiests" and suchlike who make democracy so messy.

Posted by CBBB on November 22, 2005 03:37 PM (e) (s) I'd hate to imagine what things would be like if Robertson had won the Republican nomination in 1988 and been elected.

Well put, Aureola! Democracy is so hard. You have to marshall good arguments & then go out and convince other people, who may have their own set of well-researched arguments which you haven't even heard of before. Not to mention their unacknowledged agendas that color their perception of which facts are reasonable & which ones aren't. And then when it comes to the really big questions of how society or laws should be structured, it can take a generation or two for the full effects of the competing ideas to play themselves out. (You need to see what happens to the generation that is born & raised under the new regime, with no memory of how the world worked under the old system.)

It would be so much easier if everyone simply understood that God, the all-powerful supernatural Authority Figure, has already decided for us what the moral ground rules should be.

But that pesky biological theory keeps getting in the way - preventing the intelligentsia from taking our Supreme Authority Figure's well-crafted cover story seriously. It must be discredited!

Fine, but if it's about intent and mind reading then, as BWE noted, you can't go around calling ID proponents liars either.

I think all the passages that can be interpreted as about being nice and making people feel good are just bait in a bait and switch scam.

Christianity Toady

Fine, but if it's about intent and mind reading then, as BWE noted, you can't go around calling ID proponents liars either. You just have to say they're wrong. What BWE did was worse than quote mining.

Interesting discussion.... Someone linked to Dembski's site, which I posted in for kicks... and had both my reasonable-but-unsycophantic posts deleted. [rolling eyes]

The discussion about democracy is fine and dandy, but the US isn't a Democracy: it's a Constitutionally-Limited Republic. Imagine three wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner. A Democracy would have the wolves eating the sheep. A Constitutionally-Limited Republic would have a sheep touting an M5 telling the wolves that it's unlawful to eat him/her for dinner and they should find something else.

Donald M, you keep neglecting to answer the questions people have posed regarding ID (that's a banning offense on some forums I frequent). What testable predictions does ID make; how can ID be falsified; what is "specified complexity," and how is it quantified; and what is the evidenciary support for ID (since it's a "argument from evidence," as you say)?

Best regards!

I wouldn't hold up any hopes for a real answer from Donald. He might come around claiming that "testing" and "falsification" are merely "materialistic dogmas".

Translation: "How dare anyone question the established paradigm

Wow stefan. THat is it in a nutshell. A really good nutshell. Major props.

If their game is as deceptively simple as the reactionary fear of the challenge science has presented to their dogma, why do the MSP give them the time of day? I mean, here they are, proclaiming that volcanoes don't erupt and magnets point east and the Seattle times prints competing op ed pieces do debate the subject.

Like many posters here I also do not understand WHY the ID people even WANT to have their opinions established this way, by decree and by stealth. OK so ID is forced onto people so ... why? What's accomplished? Why bother "establishing" ID as a science without data and research to back it up? All I can think is that the target is not evolution at all. Instead, I suspect, they want to capture "mind share" for religion. Which then implies that religion isn't good enough to sway people on its own, so they work to use The State to push their dogma for them. This whole ID thing, to me, says less about evolutionary science and more about the insufficiency and vacuousness of their beliefs.

There is a lot of science to cover but the places to look begin with physical sciences (Geology, Oceanography, Physical Geography, etc.) to learn the mechanics of natural forces here on Earth. This is critically important for a few reasons: One, to understand how scientists date things; two, to understand how fossils are created and what physical conditions must be met for their formation; three, to understand how research into the physical properties of our world is conducted; four, to understand the processes that are at work on the world- notably Plate tectonics, the Coriolis effect, Erosion (wind, water, ice), sedimentation, the carbon cycle, glaciation and the earth's polarity; and five, why there are gaps in the fossil record where there are gaps. The second place we go is to the life sciences (Biology, marine biology, medicine, and the field of genetics. Here is where we learn the mechanisms life uses to occupy niches and utilize resources. This is the part where we learn that the flagellum is, in fact, reducible and the bubonic plague bacterium uses it in a reduced form to inject its toxins into cells. It is also where we learn that the eye is reducible and simple light detecting nodes provide a distinct advantage for certain organisms. It is where we learn that each and every irreducible complexity is actually reducible. It is also where we discover the thousands and thousands of "intermediary species" that show the gradual (sometimes quick) transitions between species. So, if you are seriously open-minded, I can send you published, peer reviewed research to demonstrate these effects, organisms and mechanisms for any individual issue that might make ID look appealing. It is true that discoveries in many fields of science have discredited a number of Bible stories as being not "literal". But you have to remember that they didn't have what we call science. They had stories, handed down through Sumerian and Egyptian writing but mostly they relied on the oral tradition. The writers of the bible might have met some resistance if they had mentioned that the speed of light was a constant and that the Earth had undergone several distinct ages. No one would have believed them because they had no evidence. They had to communicate in the language and comprehension of the day. That language used the power of allegory as its mainstay. The power of allegory is still just as good today as it was. Even though we have made refinements to our understanding of the physical world, we have not been able to make refinements to our understanding of our moral sense, the power of love, the mystery of consciousness or communion with God. I would posit that that is because the people who wrote the bibles could experience the Holy Spirit and that Jesus preached to absolve us of the sins of arrogance and pride. How can you doubt those things when you can experience them? When you commune with God, there are unshakable truths that you can experience and those truths are expressed in the New Testament. Anyway, religion aside, the science is solid and I would be happy to help you discover it if you want.

Thank you so much for your irenic, informative explanation. I probably think that more of the Bible is "literal" than you do, but you might be surprised at how much I believe to be non-literal, or at least, questionable as to its literalness. Yet, like you (apparently), I believe it is all 'God-breathed,' in the original Greek 'theopneustos,' with a divine purpose for every section. (For example, I believe the main purpose of Gen. 1-11 is polemical.) If all the ID theorists' examples have been shown to be fallacious, why don't they acknowledge that? Aren't they honest? Let' suppose for the sake of argument, that it's true that all the ID theorists' examples have been refuted. Isn't there still an awfully lot of natural phenomena with the appearance of intelligent design?

They clearly have a liberal agenda and thus selectively present only what suits their cause.

It was your contention, not mine, that somehow creation = incomptence.

I also lean towards the belief that the religious right wishes to establish a kind of theocracy in the US. Now it might not be full fledge Iran/Saudi Arabia style Theocratic Dictatorship

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 22, 2005 07:08 PM (e) (s) Yes, anyone who thinks the earth is only 6,000 years old and that life does not evolve, is incompetent.

Yes, it is. The Christian Reconstructionists are already on record as declaring that only Christians should have the right to vote, and Pat Robertson is on record as saying that only Christians should have the right to run for public office.

anyone who thinks the earth is only 6,000 years old and that life does not evolve, is incompetent.

Non-Christains could still vote of course, but the Fundies would have free reign to try to convert you anywhere at any time. The Fundies would like to make it so that resisting conversion was an infringement on religious rights. That's what I really get the feeling of when I read right-wing blogs, the Fundies seem most upset that Jesus isn't smiling down from every billboard and that every movie and television show is chock full of positive Christain references and God-Talk.

I'm aware of this but I don't think that these are goals that these people/groups are actually attempting to attain.

It isn't so much that you couldn't vote or run for office or whatever, it's that you couldn't tell them anything new. Their hard disk is full. Did you read that guy's response in my last post? He has a phD in philosophy. He runs a mennonite school and he has really good intentions. He just can't challenge his paradigms.

On another note: You guys post good blogs.
Rev Dr Lenny-great info, good quotes,a bit dry but all the rightous indignation you could want and I found myself shaking my head over and over. Ditch the gray background.

Philip Bruce Heywood-Creation theory. Hmmm. need more expletives.

BWE- Funny yet tending toward juvenile. Definitely liked the one about the woman who converted just before skydiving.

Ron Zeno- Very intellectually stimulating. Interesting subject matter, well linked. Surprisingly unweird for someone who posts here.

PZ Myers- Very good graphics. Is that a pharangula? Good opinion.

I wish lenny the pizza guy would do one from point of veiw of the pizza guy.

BWE mentioned that the sensitive artists needed validation so there you are.

Posted by Lenny's Pizza Guy on November 22, 2005 07:58 PM I've put up with being called a pizza deliverry "kid" for more years than some of you (like BlastFromThePast, I suspect) have been around. I've put up with Lenny's cheapskate "tips." I've put up with being trotted out every time Lenny wants to make the point that no one's religious opinions are entitled to any more respect than anyone else's. So long as it helps: ---unmask the IDiot charlatans ---injects a little humor into a sometimes contentious wrangle ---and sells a few of the boss's excellent pizza pies, I'll put up with quite a lot. But up with this I will not put: anyone who thinks the earth is only 6,000 years old and that life does not evolve, is incompetent. Not necessarily... They might be a very competent deliverer of pizza;) Yeah, yeah. I see the little ";)" indicating the humorous intent. But some things just aren't ALL THAT DARN funny!...

thanks tally-ho. It's hard to get that juvenile bit in there. I put in extra hours to make it juvenile. I appreciate that you liked one of my posts but I would appreciate it if you could tell the truth and say it was Very juvenile. What kind of a name is tally ho?

This post is devolving and I fear I may carry some of the blame. Entropy. Intelligent entropy.

To suggest that it is all part of one preordained scam ignores the way that Christian practice has changed over time.

Still no reply from Donald?! I Came back here to find out. I still don't fully understand what Specified Complexity means.

I'm not holding my breath either, CBBB. I admit to just wanting to pidgeon-hole him, but I do also have a desire to know the answers to the questions I listed earlier today.

People ask why "they" push ID despite the overwhelming opposition.... They want what all people with power want: more power. ID is means to organize, to control, to obtain and retain power (and therefore wealth), and to feed one's ego. That's all organized religion has ever been, aside from a superficial attempt to explain the unexplainable. But those superficial explanations regarding the meanings of life and death are what makes religion so infectious, IMO.

Best regards!

We may take it then that the "science" contributors to this page are quite pleased to push onto a thinking public an idea based on dogs giving birth to cats, ape-like creatures in our ancestory yet not being born as offspring - thus negating systematic Biology - species struggling slowly into existence through incremental change - which if true destroys both Biology and Geology - all the while refusing to acknowledge any evolutionary theory except Darwinism - thus negating History - and refusing even to update Darwinism - thus making Darwin a perpetual laughing-stock.
Owen, of course, never existed (although he was a far greater systematic anatomist than Darwin or perhaps any Darwinist) and his idea which even Professor Dawkins might possibly accept - namely, pre-programming, which through information technology built into nature actually begins to tell us something about species actuation - must at all costs be buried forever.
The only reasonable conclusion to draw from pages such as the one above, appears to be that a proportion of 21st Century academics have departed from orthodoxy, abandoned the scientific method, hide behind a "snow" cloud created by religious nuts - whom they actively cultivate - and are dead scared of certain findings of science, especially quantum communication theory and information technology as an aspect of nature. They refuse point blank to consider any theory but the one in which they have been indoctrinated, and insist that the Public join them in obscurantist HarryPotterisms rather than cold hard fact. Yes, the species were evolved (sequentially revealed) just as modern technology suggests - through information technology processes. Information input probably can "trip" the species "lock".
Each species receives discreet new (pre-existent) information, re-programming its DNA. It would be easy to be over-simplistic, and misleading, hence the invitation to view my internet publication which investigates these concepts. One can even teach the topic without overtly mentioning the Bible - so no-one need concern themselves about nauseating input such as we see illustrated above. Most of the above is what will be AVOIDABLE. Science was always like that - it can be divided from religious controversy.
Care to add anything, PageProvider? Or is Science outside the interests of this publication?

and refusing even to update Darwinism

especially quantum communication theory and information technology as an aspect of nature

Michael Behe, asked to tell how we can instruct our graduate students in what ID is so they can replicate experiments and dream up new ones, said simply "I know it when I see it." Otherwise, he can't tell you what ID is.

Hey Phil, can you find me any legitimate, recognized Information Theory scientists who say Dembski's ideas are worth anything?

Because I can find you a few who say they aren't.

What is it with crackpots and the constant invoking of quantum mechanics and information theory?

— CBBB

Posted by Julie on November 23, 2005 10:09 AM (e) (s) Michael Behe, asked to tell how we can instruct our graduate students in what ID is so they can replicate experiments and dream up new ones, said simply "I know it when I see it." Otherwise, he can't tell you what ID is.... If I had to sum up the scientific process in one sentence, it would be the question, "How will you know it when you see it?" If you can't or won't ask that question, you're not doing scientific research; the best you can do is relate anecdotes.

I just read this http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/papers/eandsdembski.pdf

By Jeffrey Shallit who is a REAL mathematician, and Wessley Elsberry. I STILL don't understand what Specification means in Dembskian terms but the article is a pretty damning criticism of Dembski's whole ideology - the parts that didn't deal with Specification any way. I don't really understand what Specification means so I don't understand the criticisms of it either.

I'd like it if these IDiots stopped coming around here and throwing up vague references to Quantum physics and information theory and complexity and chaos theory or whatever else they harp about now - as if these words are some sort of great evidence against evolution.

Does Specified just mean an object looks like something else? Is that it? So a Flagellum looks like a motor so it is specified?

CBBB: I just read this http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/papers/e... By Jeffrey Shallit who is a REAL mathematician, and Wessley Elsberry. I STILL don't understand what Specification means in Dembskian terms but the article is a pretty damning criticism of Dembski's whole ideology - the parts that didn't deal with Specification any way. I don't really understand what Specification means so I don't understand the criticisms of it either. I'd like it if these IDiots stopped coming around here and throwing up vague references to Quantum physics and information theory and complexity and chaos theory or whatever else they harp about now - as if these words are some sort of great evidence against evolution.

Dembski isn't a real mathematician. Having a Phd in Math doesn't make you a mathematician any more than having a degree in Law makes you a lawyer. Dembski doesn't actually do any real math - where's his list of peer reviewed mathematical research? All he does is ID related stuff which is bogus.

In fact, there is great benefit from this work by Elsberry and Shallit as some of the objections in the paper, when properly addressed, will clarify definitions in common use within the research community of Intelligent Design, and help design theorist to better formulate their hypotheses.

Also what attempts have been made to test and falsify CSI in the real world? Is there anything more to CSI than poorly done mathematical masturbation?

The Bible's pretty clear on food preferences too.

Philip, there's only one laughing stock around here, and it's not Darwin. Besides your near incomprehensible syntax (try using shorter sentences), you creationists really need to get your stories straight. Half the time you say "you cheating evilutionists keep changing your theory" and half the time it's "you refuse to update Darwinism". It can't be both. In case you're wondering, it's option a). All scientific theories change.

We may take it then that the "science" contributors to this page are quite pleased to push onto a thinking public an idea based on dogs giving birth to cats,...

...ape-like creatures in our ancestory yet not being born as offspring - thus negating systematic Biology - species struggling slowly into existence through incremental change - which if true destroys both Biology and Geology ...

... and refusing even to update Darwinism

... especially quantum communication theory and information technology as an aspect of nature.

Each species receives discreet new (pre-existent) information, re-programming its DNA.

I see no evidence of Dembski taking these major flaws in his reasoning into account.

I do not see any refutation of the Shallit/Elsberry paper in your spiel Sal. Their paper still stands as a damning criticism of ID.

I don't see where your spiel addresses:

- The fact that Dembski is inconsistent at assigning "complexity"(improbability) to an event. If the cause of the event is unknown he assumes that the probabiliy distribution is uniform and shows that there is a low probablity for the event thus labelling it as "complex" - Dembski does not take into account non-uniform probability distributions and he does not compare the probability of generation by random event to probability of generation through an intelligence. If an event is deemed "unlikely" by the uniform distribution approach he attributes the event to "design". If the event has a known natural cause but would be determined improbable by his uniform distribution detection method than he switches to a different method which takes into account the history of the event in order that his idea of "complexity" not look foolish. Dembski wishes to apply his concept of Complexity to cases where the history of an event is unknown.

- Dembski demands an insanely unreasonable level of proof. Design is essentially assumed true by default and an unreasonable burden of proof is placed on critics. Note the implications listed by Shallit.

- Can Dembski's system actually seperate things that are actually "designed" from those which really look designed but are not? I doubt it. SCI seems to be based almost entirely on opinion and perception rather than objective evidence.

Also your quote showing that Dembski was taught by Shallit is rather lame and hardly justification to call Shallit Dembski's "Mentor". So he was in Shallit's class at Chicago - big deal, so if I take Shallit's CS 360 class at Waterloo is he now my mentor too?

You continually claim that the Shallit/Elsberry paper will help move ID forward but where has Dembski attempted to add author's suggestions to ID? Has Dembski retracted any of his flawed arguments?

I Can't STAND reading ID spiels like yours Sal - always so chock full of jargon. The Shallit/Elsberry piece was fairly easy to follow for me (except in certain sections)but when the IDers go on about Specifications and what not, it just seems like a lot of rambling and hand waving to me. I still do not really understand what "Specified" means with respect to ID. My guess is that it means "if X looks like Y than X is a type of Y" but I haven't been able to come across a clear definition.

Sal hasn't responding yet? Do you just post something and then vanish without response? You should stay a while to defend your own assertions.

Sal hasn't responding yet

And I should learn to start previewing my posts.

CBBB:
"...I still don't fully understand what Specified Complexity means."

Specified complexity is the scientific proof that God created life, the universe and everything. That's your answer and that is all you need to know. Now shut up, stop questioning, and convert! (or move to Kansas)

The Fundies would like to make it so that resisting conversion was an infringement on religious rights. That's what I really get the feeling of when I read right-wing blogs, the Fundies seem most upset that Jesus isn't smiling down from every billboard and that every movie and television show is chock full of positive Christain references and God-Talk.

— CBBB

"The sad thing is that the less pernicious among them, heads full of that image of Jesus smiling down on the world, simply do not understand why anyone would not welcome that image. They do not understand why a person would prefer life lived on his own terms to submission to a god-image, however benevolent."

When I was growing up, I absolutely could not comprehend how anyone could be an atheist (atheist = non Christian). The word was meaningless to me. After all God was real and the absolute reason for existence. This was so obvious that I *knew* everybody else *had* to know it. Therefore if somebody was an atheist, they had to be stupid, deluded and evil. There was no middle ground.

I also knew as a fact that America was God's favorite country and that to be patriotic, was to be Christian. To be unpatriotic was to be unchristian, deluded and evil. This was an absolute FACT!

It was not until my early 20's, with a great deal of exposure to other people and ideas, that I eventually "got better".

It is this kind of exposure to other ideas that many Christians want to eliminate. They want to be able to isolate themselves within the flock so as not to risk exposure to the infection of external ideas. IMO this is the reason they want to ruin science education in the US; to them science really is a competing ideology.

Hello Mr. Doering. CarefulL there, you're starting to think. For a moment, you almost applied analytical reasoning. I am almost in a mood to congratulate you.
Dogs giving birth to cats is the Neo-Darwinist/H.Potter "miracle". Genetic engineering is the testable mechanism by which it happened. We are of course painting with a broad brush. Now discern how the genetic engineering happened - it did, it wasn't H.Potter - and you will do a service to the world. "Science is honour-bound to investigate every question fairly put to it" (W. Thompson, not an exact quote). Some modern scientists are of the opinion that they are honour-bound to put their heads in religio-philosophical pickle jars. They have a following here on this page. But whilst there is free speech, there is hope.

For the record, (speaking to contributors in general); I don't know what people are talking about when they serve up the names of various players in the modern I.D. field; I have no specific connections to I.D as a movement; if you wish to communicate with myself and the Public, talk fact or discuss realistic policy. Yours etc, P.H..

PBH: if you wish to communicate with anyone else, even those of us with our heads in religio-philosophical pickle jars, you first need to learn to express yourself in English.

Thanks ever so.

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on November 23, 2005 06:47 PM (e) (s) Hello Mr. Doering. CarefulL there, you're starting to think. For a moment, you almost applied analytical reasoning. I am almost in a mood to congratulate you. Dogs giving birth to cats is the Neo-Darwinist/H.Potter "miracle". Genetic engineering is the testable mechanism by which it happened. We are of course painting with a broad brush. Now discern how the genetic engineering happened - it did, it wasn't H.Potter - and you will do a service to the world. "Science is honour-bound to investigate every question fairly put to it" (W. Thompson, not an exact quote). Some modern scientists are of the opinion that they are honour-bound to put their heads in religio-philosophical pickle jars. They have a following here on this page. But whilst there is free speech, there is hope. For the record, (speaking to contributors in general); I don't know what people are talking about when they serve up the names of various players in the modern I.D. field; I have no specific connections to I.D as a movement; if you wish to communicate with myself and the Public, talk fact or discuss realistic policy. Yours etc, P.H..

It is this kind of exposure to other ideas that many Christians want to eliminate. They want to be able to isolate themselves within the flock so as not to risk exposure to the infection of external ideas. IMO this is the reason they want to ruin science education in the US; to them science really is a competing ideology.

Dogs giving birth to cats is the Neo-Darwinist/H.Potter "miracle". Genetic engineering is the testable mechanism by which it happened. We are of course painting with a broad brush. Now discern how the genetic engineering happened - it did, it wasn't H.Potter - and you will do a service to the world. "Science is honour-bound to investigate every question fairly put to it" (W. Thompson, not an exact quote). Some modern scientists are of the opinion that they are honour-bound to put their heads in religio-philosophical pickle jars. They have a following here on this page. But whilst there is free speech, there is hope.

Jeffrey Outlaw Shallit (man I love that middle name, that should be the middle name of every IDist) and Elsberry did not successfully refute Dembski in my opinion.

Jeffrey Outlaw Shallit (man I love that middle name, that should be the middle name of every IDist)

Are you deliberately making your posts difficult to understand? If so, then why?

I have no specific connections to I.D as a movement

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 23, 2005 07:31 PM (e) (s) Jeffrey Outlaw Shallit (man I love that middle name, that should be the middle name of every IDist

Dogs giving birth to cats is the Neo-Darwinist/H.Potter "miracle". Genetic engineering is the testable mechanism by which it happened.

We are of course painting with a broad brush.

Now discern how the genetic engineering happened -

For the record, (speaking to contributors in general); I don't know what people are talking about...

Dogs giving birth to cats is the Neo-Darwinist/H.Potter "miracle". Genetic engineering is the testable mechanism by which it happened.

Posted by CBBB on November 23, 2005 08:08 PM (e) (s) Dogs giving birth to cats is the Neo-Darwinist/H.Potter "miracle". Genetic engineering is the testable mechanism by which it happened.

Jeffrey Outlaw Shallit (man I love that middle name, that should be the middle name of every IDist) and Elsberry did not successfully refute Dembski in my opinion. See: Response to Elsberry and Shallit 2003 TSPGRID miscount of bits And by the way Jeff the real mathematician was teacher and mentor to another real mathematician, Bill Dembski. We in the ID world salute Jeff for training and teaching one ID's leading lights. Salvador Cordova

Not at all, it distorts and mischaractersizes, and even fails by equivocating the concept of bits in TSPGRID. That critique with it's mathematical theatrics would be persuasive to gullible PandaThumbites (of which there are many here at PT), but not to serious students of those topics such as found in the electrical engineering and camputer science disciplines.... A basic outline of the flaws in that critique is here: Response to Elsberry and Shallit 2003 and I point out some of the miscalculation through equivocation that the critique flaunts as a refutation at: TSPGRID Miscounts I look forward to the opportunity for Dembski's work and Shallit/Elsberry to be compared by knowledgeble students in math, computer science, and electrical engineering, even physics..... I'm not even insisting in my comments that Dembski is right (though I believe he is), I only merely had to point out that his work was not appropriately characterized by the Elsberry and Shallit critique, and the supposed counter example of TSGRID was fatally flawed. Salvador

Sal then ran over to the Intelligent Myths thread, where at 7:07 pm, he posted this

Whack-a-Troll!!

I love it!

I almost think people like this should be banned. It's extremely irritating when someone constantly makes the same assertion and fails to stick around to back it up every time. He won't even address BASIC questions. His article seems like BS to me, I admit I have no background in information theory but it seems like a very muddled and unclear article based heavily on quotes from Dembski.

Sal actually responded on the other thread.

Hey. If Sal - bless him, whoever he is - isn't answering, it could be because he's a wise man. "The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools." "Even a fool, when he holds his peace, is counted a wise man."

The idea that species were transformed through gradual change under environmental pressure,is worthy of consideration. Now explain exactly what happens, especially in relation to DNA, immune system, birth and rearing of new species, and attainment of more complex information. The pageprovider can't tell us; let's hear it from the minders. Or have we suddenly decided to become wise men?

Yeah I'm sure it's because Sal is very wise indeed.

The fact is that Sal didn't "hold his peace" he made a comment and then ran away.
Also are you implying once again that dogs give birth to cats? That through evolution one generation is radically different from another generation? This seems like quite the straw-man.

I have to wonder what the fundies plan to replace "Secular Humanism" with in schools? I can only conclude that any point of view that is non-sectarian would have to be replaced by fundy dogma. I have to conclude that anything that 'contradicts' the bible would be replaced. I can just imagine history text books being replaced by the bible (I love history and find this possibility repugnant.) or by history text books that concur with there point of view. Lets replace are lit classes with bible friendly view points while we are at it. Lets stop the reactionary fundies on the subject of intelligent design to prevent this tide of religiosity from infecting are classrooms. Subjects such as biology, history, or even literature are not religions or dogmas, they hopefully open the minds of young people to a wider world of ideas. (Speaking of ideas, I think that Pepperoni and sausage pizza would be great right now.)

The idea that species were transformed through gradual change under environmental pressure, is worthy of consideration.

Now explain exactly what happens, especially in relation to DNA,

...immune system

...birth and rearing of new species,

... and attainment of more complex information.

Hello, CBBB, I take your question a couple back to perhaps have a note of genuine enquiry in it. Speciies are reproductively separate from each other, Sure, there are qualifications to that, but as a rational person, you don't wish to be identified as someone who insists that, say, dogs give birth to cats. Further, if you were to say that a genetically transmissible feature that was present in your ancestors, will not appear at some time in your descendants, you would need a rather good story to convince a geneticist. No matter how many generations; something that's in the blood-line, stays in the blood line. Again, there are probably riders, but the principle holds true.
Every amateur knows these things to be factual.
Since you are a rational person you will immediately see that any coherent theory of evolution must account for these facts (as well as others, such as adaptation to environment).
As we have seen amply demonstrated above, the way Neo-Darwinists explain these observations is to avoid facing them, whilst perhaps falling back on slow, incremental change. But change can take as long as you wish: the laws of heredity stand regardless of time. Time is not a mechanism.
Thanks to the advance of technology, the mechanisms (such as that which causes one species to transform to another without being a genetic product of the other) are just beginning to be perceived.
These developments leave some room for Darwin, but vindicate Owen, Darwin's contemporary. Owen's evolutionary idea leaves space for the new technologies.
The current bun-fight is to be expected, given the way the world works. Some people are feeling uncomfortable: the thing to watch is a reaction that carries it too far the other way. P.H..

There may have been a question directed at myself regarding mathematicians/information technologists who support "I.D." Likewise one asking whether Darwinism hadn't in fact been updated?
Adressing the second, first: natural selection and survival of the fittest are timeless, but by failing to build a practical mathematically-based model showing how environmental pressure actually interacts with the information in the cell, Darwinism was left to wither on the vine. All processes of nature ultimately can be modelled and described in a mathematical sense. Crick may have understood this, and after discerning the structure of DNA, turned to Panspermia rather than acknowledge that what he had seen could be the product solely of natural selection and survival of the fittest.
Thus to the first question. I am a geologist with mediocre mathematics and no links with "I.D." The question of the Source of intelligence need no more concern nor confuse the capable biologist than need the question of the Source of the Universe confuse the physicist. Species transformation, like the Big Bang, is ultimately a mathematical phenomenon. All natural processes follow energy paths that can be described in terms of mathematics. Although I don't know of any specific "I.D." theories in this regard, I think Einstein and Lord Kelvin have some useful information about math/physics and nature.
Darwinism fell short because its proponents did not insist on rigorous, practical, math-based modelling. We all know the species were evolved: what were the individual steps, expressed in hard, verifiable fact? I don't believe we need to be particularly bright to see that a computer code implies a computer. A computer code that materializes out of the aether, is magic: a code that results from transmission from a computer is a verifiable, mathematicaL fact. This could be all the info.technology we require to understand species transformation. The computer, incidentally, is natural - but we are being misleadingly simplistic. Species evolution was influenced by many interacting factors and processes. My site goes into this at more depth. P.H..

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on November 21, 2005 09:24 PM (e) (s) Dear Mr. Myers, It's correct to say that evolution is a scientific fact, in an analogous sense to saying gravity is a scientific fact. But if science took the same approach towards gravity as some of its practitioners have taken towards evolution, we would yet have feathers falling slower than cannon balls, in a perfect vacuum. Let me tell you, I struggle with that fact about feathers vs cannon balls, but I accept it because of empirical observation and physics. Perhaps it's about time certain practitioners of science did themselves the service of taking a similar, analytical approach to evolution. This is your opportunity. Go to my website, observe the Mainstream Science classification, recognize that anyone treating with this topic must take cognizance of Scripture - as did perhaps 75% of all venerated science figures - leave the Scripture aside and investigate the technical content. The world is waiting for the scientists to tell them a few things about nature. It is also waiting for intelligent Origins Education from the same source. Here and now, show the public the technical content of what you see as evolution, contrast it with other models, leave the religion and personality out, and support modern, technically accurate origins education. I look forward to a response from someone who understands and practices scientific principles. Yours etc., P.H.. Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on November 23, 2005 08:07 AM (e) (s) We may take it then that the "science" contributors to this page are quite pleased to push onto a thinking public an idea based on dogs giving birth to cats, ape-like creatures in our ancestory yet not being born as offspring - thus negating systematic Biology - species struggling slowly into existence through incremental change - which if true destroys both Biology and Geology - all the while refusing to acknowledge any evolutionary theory except Darwinism - thus negating History - and refusing even to update Darwinism - thus making Darwin a perpetual laughing-stock. Owen, of course, never existed (although he was a far greater systematic anatomist than Darwin or perhaps any Darwinist) and his idea which even Professor Dawkins might possibly accept - namely, pre-programming, which through information technology built into nature actually begins to tell us something about species actuation - must at all costs be buried forever. The only reasonable conclusion to draw from pages such as the one above, appears to be that a proportion of 21st Century academics have departed from orthodoxy, abandoned the scientific method, hide behind a "snow" cloud created by religious nuts - whom they actively cultivate - and are dead scared of certain findings of science, especially quantum communication theory and information technology as an aspect of nature. They refuse point blank to consider any theory but the one in which they have been indoctrinated, and insist that the Public join them in obscurantist HarryPotterisms rather than cold hard fact. Yes, the species were evolved (sequentially revealed) just as modern technology suggests - through information technology processes. Information input probably can "trip" the species "lock". Each species receives discreet new (pre-existent) information, re-programming its DNA. It would be easy to be over-simplistic, and misleading, hence the invitation to view my internet publication which investigates these concepts. One can even teach the topic without overtly mentioning the Bible - so no-one need concern themselves about nauseating input such as we see illustrated above. Most of the above is what will be AVOIDABLE. Science was always like that - it can be divided from religious controversy. Care to add anything, PageProvider? Or is Science outside the interests of this publication?

Heywood, you're babbling again.

by failing to build a practical mathematically-based model showing how environmental pressure actually interacts with the information in the cell, Darwinism was left to wither on the vine.

— PBH

I am amazed by the persistent failure of the ID-ealogues to learn anything about 20th century Biology, let alone the 21st.

Further, if you were to say that a genetically transmissible feature that was present in your ancestors, will not appear at some time in your descendants, you would need a rather good story to convince a geneticist. No matter how many generations; something that's in the blood-line, stays in the blood line.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

As we have seen amply demonstrated above, the way Neo-Darwinists explain these observations is to avoid facing them, whilst perhaps falling back on slow, incremental change. But change can take as long as you wish: the laws of heredity stand regardless of time. Time is not a mechanism.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

I don't believe we need to be particularly bright to see that a computer code implies a computer. A computer code that materializes out of the aether, is magic: a code that results from transmission from a computer is a verifiable, mathematicaL fact.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

How can anybody take someone like PBH seriously

How can anybody take someone like PBH seriously?

Darwinism fell short because its proponents did not insist on rigorous, practical, math-based modelling.

I don't believe we need to be particularly bright to see that a computer code implies a computer. A computer code that materializes out of the aether, is magic: a code that results from transmission from a computer is a verifiable, mathematicaL fact.

Note to CBBB, Mr Doering, and other science-minded folks: congratulations. You have shown yourselves wise men. Cheers.

Wow! This is a crazy site! I have been reading all of the posts and their links and views on this debate (if you can call it that:-)
Evolution/Creationism are both Theory and hypothesis....
Neither have been proven to be THE story of where we came from......
Evolutionists argue that they know the truth as settled fact in science when they don't have one shred of evidence FOR
Macro evolution (otherwise they would win all the money that's been offered by philanthropist to who could prove it once and for all)
Creationists argue that there is more than one model in science for the origins of all living things and that all paradigms should be explored....
When you look at all the arguments being debated (so called) and put all of the evidence on the table, the only conclusion I can come to so far is that Evolutionists are afraid of their PhD's not being worth a damn if they are proved wrong (because of the childish comments on this site) and Creationist aren't afraid of looking at all the evidence at their own peril (of whether God, Intelligent Designer, exist or not).
This has always concerned me about Scientist in all disciplines.....that most of them are less than dishonest when it comes to facts in evidence that go against their theories or hypothesis....true science dumps the bad and keeps the good no matter where it leads......even if it goes against their personal beliefs......I have yet to see that from most evolutionists.....and some Creationists.
It amazes me that Scientists on both sides, trained in the same institutions
with the same degrees can't look at the evidence in an impartial way. But, I've noticed that when an evolutionist is confronted by his counterpart in the other camp with opposing views and evidence, the evolutionist will inevitably start name calling and putting down the person instead of the evidence, and that the creationist will try to get his voice heard over the noise of babble that won't let them speak-----are the evolutionists afraid of admitting they might be wrong? True Creationists don't seem to have that problem...
So much for true science and looking for the truth!

Is it my wacky, wacky imagination, or does EVERY post that opens with claims of "openmindedness" or demands for "fairness" turn out to be the ugliest kind of disingenuous bu--sh--? As evidence: Mr/Ms "Stoner" above.
I'm sure scientists around the globe shiver at the prospect of losing her/his respect.

Yes, it's all a plot by PhD's.

(yawn)

I've always found the "Neither have been proven..." opening to be a giveaway that the writer is about to advance his preference for some flaming poppycock.

Stoner, your name explains everything.

You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Comment #59671 Posted by CBBB on November 23, 2005 08:43 PM (e) (s) Sal then ran over to the Intelligent Myths thread, where at 7:07 pm, he posted this Challenge them in one spot they pop up somewhere else. This is like a giant game of Whack-a-Mole.

PBH I don't really understand what you're talking about?

Something that's in the blood line stays in the blood line? I don't believe this is true - what about deletion mutations, or almost any mutation for that matter?

Note I am not a biologist.

Sal seems to have a strong educational background, I don't understand why he's Dembski's witting pawn. Many of his arguements are terrible and combine that with the fact that he ignores basic criticism or questions he's VERY unconvincing.

"Evolutionists argue that they know the truth as settled fact in science when they don't have one shred of evidence FOR Macro evolution"

"true science dumps the bad and keeps the good no matter where it leads"

Francis Wheen is a journalist and author of several books, including a highly acclaimed biography of Karl Marx. His collected journalism, Hoo-Hahs and Passing Frenzies, won the George Orwell prize in 2003. Francis Wheen's new book, How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World: A Short History of Modern Delusions, is published by Fourth Estate.

Posted by C. Stoner on November 25, 2005 07:25 AM (e) (s) Wow! This is a crazy site! I have been reading all of the posts and their links and views on this debate (if you can call it that:-) Evolution/Creationism are both Theory and hypothesis.... Neither have been proven to be THE story of where we came from...... Evolutionists argue that they know the truth as settled fact in science when they don't have one shred of evidence FOR Macro evolution (otherwise they would win all the money that's been offered by philanthropist to who could prove it once and for all)....

This has always concerned me about Scientist in all disciplines.....that most of them are less than dishonest when it comes to facts in evidence that go against their theories or hypothesis......

This is exactly what I was talking about!
I ask a simple question and get shouted down, or attacked and ridiculed and the sort.
I never claimed to be either an evolutionist or creationist! I was just observing things and trying to understand what all the fuss was about.....orrg1 in his response is the only one so far who has given me a respectful, intelligent, scientific response to check out and see if it is true.
The rest of you so far have proven to be less than honest (sorry about the typo in my original post!) about real discussion!
Thank you orrg1 for the info, I will look into it and try to reply on most points as I find them and understand them.

PS>For those of you who are mad at religion.......I never said anything about it except what needed to be said in order to use the word 'Creationist'.....thanks for your understanding:-) (Elitism has never looked good on humans)

I ask a simple question and get shouted down, or attacked and ridiculed and the sort.

I never claimed to be either an evolutionist or creationist!

Evolutionists argue that they know the truth as settled fact in science when they don't have one shred of evidence FOR Macro evolution

Posted by C. Stoner on November 25, 2005 12:10 PM (e) (s) This is exactly what I was talking about! I ask a simple question and get shouted down, or attacked and ridiculed and the sort. I never claimed to be either an evolutionist or creationist! I was just observing things and trying to understand what all the fuss was about.....

I mean there's this guy, Salvador Cordova, who comes here and makes all these grandious claims about ID, how genetic algorithms are phoney, higher intelligences, complexity and how flipping coins is an accurate model of biological systems and then he refuses to even awknowledge, much less address some simple questions about ID.

So you want to talk about dishonesty why don't you take a look at the ID side? They try and dodge simple questions like they were bullets.

This is exactly what I was talking about! I ask a simple question and get shouted down, or attacked and ridiculed and the sort.

Now go study the pharmaceutical industry. Can you find a single company anywhere on Earth that is working on new lifesaving drugs based on an intelligent design hypothesis?

"I Believed in Santa Claus until I was 17, until some mean person told me it wasn't true- Paris Hilton"

Man I keep doing that

TO BE READ SUBJECTEVLY
You will notice the major Difference between Buddhism and the CC on the definition of the natural truth .

They all play the same game with self identity.

The answer is, there is no secret.

However the jouney will always be there.

Thank you Ed Darrell,
As I said in my last post, I will be looking this stuff up that you and a couple of gracious others have given me to see first hand what this is all about.
It seems the others assume to know who I am!
I guess I am supposed to be some kind of 'stealth' creationist/religionist/narrow minded drone or something of the like....!
I really want to know who is right and who is wrong on these issues!
But I guess evolutionists have their 'righteous bunch' just as much as religious followers!
There is a proverb that is true in all circumstances----"in the council of many is wisdom" That is why I look at all sides.......some of your cohorts would have me not look at anything except what they have to say.....and why would I believe them?....I don't know who they are...they could be writing from an asylum for all I know!
Your exhort for me: "If you don't want to be mistaken for a creationist, do not walk with them and quack with them." seems to break that proverb, though I can see your point.....they say the same thing about you guys! Yet, I am here trying to decide.
Again, thank you for your links and gracious manner on this issue, I truly appreciate it....I hope others could learn from you and orrg1 how to respond with true debate instead of 3rd grade antics.......Thank you.

Mr. C. Stoner,

if one is sincerely interested in learning, he doesn't barge in making grand unsupported claims that do not correspond to reality.

That's why, your tirade notwithstanding, I remain of the opinion that you are, in fact, yet another creationist trolling for reactions and claiming martyrdom as soon as he gets them.

If you are not one of these agents provocateurs, by all means ask the "simple question" you said you had (and never uttered).

You'll notice a sudden change in attitude, I promise you.

I guess I am supposed to be some kind of 'stealth' creationist/religionist/narrow minded drone or something of the like....!

You have to understand this assumption is based on the fact that you presented yourself in almost exactly the same way that every 'stealth' creationist who has come around here in the past has presented themselves.

some of your cohorts would have me not look at anything except what they have to say

I don't believe this to be true. If you look at our websites we have links to Creationist websites and blogs but that isn't always the case with them. A good example is Answers in Genesis which, to my knowledge, does not have links to any critical material.

how to respond with true debate instead of 3rd grade antics.......Thank you

Years of Creationist dishonesty has made people cynical.

I didn't know I was on a 'tirade'!
Are you people so cynical that for me to get to the truth of the matter would require me to give up my mind blindly to what you have to say without looking it up?
Wow, talk about indoctrination!
While you all have been deciding my fate without true debate I have been using some of the gracious info given to me by
Ed Darrell and orrg1 to start learning about this issue......I just got off from the 'Creation science debunked' website and am going to other places to check what they have to say.
Maybe they will be more civil in their responses to someone who really wants to know.......
PS>I am sorry if I 'sound' like a creationist in my writing, but I have certain questions that are hard for me to postulate......I don't know how to sound like an evolutionist because I am not sure or convinced of the evidence and a lot of you are not helping me to find it!
You are more concerned about being 'Right'
than helping me.......
At least there are a couple of you who are trying to help and I thank you for it.....back to the hunt.....

PS>CBBB,
So far I have found years of dishonesty on both sides.....that is why I am looking and searching both views.

CBBB,
I was looking in Answers in Genesis and found these Biographies....I am not sure if they are complete as I still have to look them up and study them with the ones from evolution sites.......still on the hunt.....
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp#pastsci

Comment #60060 Posted by C. Stoner on November 25, 2005 05:49 PM (e) (s) CBBB, I was looking in Answers in Genesis

I'll say. ID is pretty absurd but AiG is just off the absurdity charts.

So far I have found years of dishonesty on both sides.....that is why I am looking and searching both views.

I don't know where you'd find dishonesty on the evolution side. Of course I'm biased but the reality is everything we have is based on physical evidence, data, experiements, real world applications, etc.

With the other sides it's not science, it's just wild-eyed speculation dressed up as science.

I really want to know who is right and who is wrong on these issues!

THERE YOU GO STONER!
Here's an example of dishonesty right there on that Answers in Genesis site.

They list a bunch of "creation scientists" but they list people like Newton, Galileo, Kepler, etc.

Listing ANYONE Pre-Darwin is being dishonest - there was no other explanation than 'God Did it" pre-Darwin so they were creationists by default.
And Notice that the entire list is just a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of all scientists today. These are fringe crack-pots (every field has crackpots) and do not ever represent a decent sized minority let alone anything close to a majoritiy.

You looked for information on science by FIRST going to a YEC, Xian site devoted 100% to fighting ToE at any cost and by any means (almost any means, actually: I forget that even they disavow "Dr. Dino"), and you claim to be trying to understand, even learn?

That is, to quote Popeye, "imbareasskin."

Renounce publically your initial completely untrue presentation of your position as unbiased (and ignorant) and I'll treat you as an honest guy actually curious about something other than himself.

PLUS
Another dishonesty is while greats like Newton and Faraday may have believed in God and creation NONE of these greats used God in their scientific theories or research to explain something, while this is exactly what the Creationists want to do. So they differed GREATLY from the modern Creationists.

That's the big difference, it's not about believing in God, many real scientists do.
The creationist pseudoscientists want to use God in real scientific theories which is absurd and anti-scientific, by definition.

Thanks CBBB,
I will keep that in mind.....
As for limpidense, can't you read? Or are you so self-absorbed in your own arrogance that no matter what is said you are blinded by your own brilliance? I was first at a E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N site....CBBB mentioned AIG so I thought I would take a look.......
And the only thing 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank'
can come up with is to treat me as a child with ridicule (boy I really hope he is not indicative of who is a teacher today)He says:

"Then go to a library (the big building with all the books in it) and ask the nice librarian to point you to all the "biology" books. Read them. All of them. Twice. Then have an educated person explain all the big words to you."
What a pompous ass! I really am trying to find out stuff and most of you are only playing stupid schoolyard games!

Thanks CBBB for at least being honest and trying to help.....by the way, I am on my to the library to check out some stuff.....I guess I will find someone to hold my hand and change me while I am there asking stupid questions......"there is no such thing as a stupid question, only arrogant silence"-Homer Floyd Starnes jr... PhD math, Masters in engineering. (My dad)......back to the hunt.....

Evolution/Creationism are both Theory and hypothesis...

Evolutionists argue that they know the truth as settled fact in science when they don't have one shred of evidence FOR Macro evolution

(otherwise they would win all the money that's been offered by philanthropist to who could prove it once and for all)

Creationists argue that there is more than one model in science for the origins of all living things and that all paradigms should be explored...

When you look at all the arguments being debated (so called) and put all of the evidence on the table, the only conclusion I can come to so far is that Evolutionists are afraid of their PhD's not being worth a damn if they are proved wrong (because of the childish comments on this site) and Creationist aren't afraid of looking at all the evidence at their own peril (of whether God, Intelligent Designer, exist or not).

This has always concerned me about Scientist in all disciplines.....that most of them are less than [dis]honest when it comes to facts in evidence that go against their theories or hypothesis....

true science dumps the bad and keeps the good no matter where it leads......even if it goes against their personal beliefs...

...I have yet to see that from most evolutionists.....and some Creationists.

It amazes me that Scientists on both sides, trained in the same institutions with the same degrees can't look at the evidence in an impartial way.

But, I've noticed that when an evolutionist is confronted by his counterpart in the other camp with opposing views and evidence, the evolutionist will inevitably start name calling and putting down the person instead of the evidence, and that the creationist will try to get his voice heard over the noise of babble that won't let them speak-------are the evolutionists afraid of admitting they might be wrong?

True Creationists don't seem to have that problem...

So much for true science and looking for the truth!

Thanks Aureola Nominee,
I guess I hit a nerve........so much for reverse questions and thought, by the way, the question is about truth and who has it and who doesn't.....or is that too hard for you guys?

....back to the hunt

Sal's omega point discussed

Creationist Troll Stoner, regarding Lenny

What a pompous ass!

That's funny.

I really am trying to find out stuff

I have all the answers you need, Stoner. Plus, as far as you know, I am a very devout Christian and therefore would never ever lie to you.

If you really want the answers you seek, you need only sign up for a PayPal account and let me know that you have sufficient funds to pay for the answers. Alternately, you may provide me with your checking information and/or a major credit card number. After I verify that you have sufficient funds to pay for the answers to the questions you have asked, I will provide you with the answers.

Of course, all this assumes that you really want the answers to your questions.

If that is the case, then provide me with the requested information, and I will get those answers sent to you immediately, in hard copy or, if you wish, on a computer-readable CD in a handsome keepcase.

You can trust me, C. Stoner. As a devout Christian, as far as you know, I would never mislead someone.

I have the answers you seek. If you really want those answers, you'll be happy to pay for them. That is the way capitalism works according to the system that was set up by the founders of this country, some of whom were also devout Christians, as far as you know.

And the only thing 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank' can come up with is to treat me as a child with ridicule (boy I really hope he is not indicative of who is a teacher today)He says: "Then go to a library (the big building with all the books in it) and ask the nice librarian to point you to all the "biology" books. Read them. All of them. Twice. Then have an educated person explain all the big words to you." What a pompous ass! I really am trying to find out stuff and most of you are only playing stupid schoolyard games!

really hope he is not indicative of who is a teacher today

Thanks Aureola Nominee, I guess I hit a nerve...

.....so much for reverse questions and thought,

by the way, the question is about truth and who has it and who doesn't.....or is that too hard for you guys?

....back to the hunt

Wow!
I am not a creationist, I have never claimed to be a christian, I have been looking where gracious people have been telling me where to go to find evidence.
(3 people who really want me to find what I am looking for)
I've been basically called a liar, incognito creationist, treated as a child, been given religious lessons, Freudian psycho-babble, given the opportunity to "pay" for information on what you people should be giving out for free if you truly want me to know......
Is everyone in this genre as egotistical and arrogant as your posts portray, or are there any among you who knows what it is like to want to know things?
I guess I will stick with the things the gracious people gave me to look at for now....(plenty of good stuff)......the rest of you can wallow in you delusional self aggrandizement.....
back to the hunt......

Mr. C. Stoner:

One does not go hunting for the truth armed with lies.

Please, whenever you feel like saying something of substance in support of your claims, feel free to do so.

Whining like a 3rd grader, to use your powerful metaphor of a few posts back, will lead you nowhere.

Over and out.

Wow again,
The arrogance of a few elites in this forum......I started out today with what I knew.....started asking for help on the issue....Got help from some genuine, thinking people, then am attacked by those who are threatened by little ole me trying to find sources for finding out what is true! These people must be very insecure with their knowledge and positions in this field otherwise they would be helping!
Reminds me of schoolyard bullies pushing people around because they have no substance.....
I'd like to thank CBBB, orrg1, and Ed for at least trying to help.........
I will get to the bottom of this somehow, someway...........on to http://www.darwinianmedicine.org/
Back to the all night hunt......thanks Ed!

started asking for help on the issue

I did. Right now they are closed so I am looking things up........stop being an elitist....

1. All of the charges levelled at you appear to be 100% true (it's hard to deny when they are documented in detail).
2. Your denials are much, much less than honest.

CBBB
Not to be a word monger, but, I do not think that creationists or ID'rs are given to speculation. To speculate implies that you are open to the possibility that you are wrong, are open minded in your quest to find out if you are right, and that you are genuinely searching for answers. Creationists and ID'rs are quite certain that there pseudoscience is reality because some 2000 year old book says so. They are not interested in seeking information that may not agree with there world view. (I hope that I am making sense.)

To:Engineer-Poet

You know, I enjoy reasonable debate or sincere help in the matter at hand.....I am not looking for Christianity here. When have I told falsehoods about Christ?
(what are you talking about....are you a complete idiot or what).
I am not for one side or the other, that is why I am looking up stuff on this debate! (with all of the schooling out there, you would think people could converse reasonably!)
I have not denied anything......I have asked for help in this matter and all you can do is accuse out of thin air.......if you put half your energy into helping me instead of using it to bolster your opinion of yourself then I might just get where I am trying to get in this hunt for info.....but alas, your to stuck on stupid to help........and the hunt continues........

to:Stephen Elliott,
Thank you for the encouragement...I am not one of those 'trolls' as you call them....
I really want to know........If I am misinformed, then I am as ready as the next person to accept it and move on to next level......but your colleagues for some reason are on a vendetta.....I guess they aren't very good at helping anyone but themselves 'survival of the fittest' and all that!
Again thanks.......back to the hunt....

Hey k.e.,
Something has been bugging me.......why do you use a TM trademark for your statement : The WordTM? And what is your obsession with Freud?.......
Just asking......I need real help here finding the truth!....
back to the hunt....

C. Stoner,

While I confess I have my doubts about your claims you are looking more and more like a seeker after what's true here. However, you do seem to have been lied too in malicious ways by creationists.

There is more information just on the Internet relating to evolution than any one person can read in a life time. Add specialized libraries to that and the topic is overwhelming. The trick is getting at the information that answers your specific question.

If you want help from of us navigating that over abundant treasure trove of information you have to ask real questions and be as specific as possible.

Now what, specifically as possible, do you doubt about evolution.

Thanks Norman Doering for understanding,
I am looking for specific information on macro evolution.....I have been seeing a lot of hopeful conjecture so far but nothing solid......can you help point me to something more substantial?.....
back to the hunt.......

To C. Stoner.

Library books are a good resource. Why not take a course in biology at your local college (they have night classes in most colleges)? This way, you'll be able to interact with other people who have a common interest. Reading by yourself is ok, but taking a course in a group with a professional instructor to help guide you is more appealling. Good luck.

Arriving late and having read the first few pages of comments, I got a bit bored and jumped to the bottom - to find much the same thing but with a new member of the cast. Back-tracking to the middle where Philip Bruce Heywood disappeared (#59954) and C.Stoner appeared (#59970), I was struck by the similarity in their inability to format posts. Even if they aren't the same person, general incompetence seems to be a characteristic feature of creationists, ie rather than merely specific (and wilful) incompetence at science. Of course there's also their characteristic dishonesty ...

Thanks Mark,
I typically put in a 14 hour day at work.
The reason I am trying to find some more info online is that I have this weekend off and our library here in town is closed right now and I would like to get straight to the specific info on macro evolution that I can read and study while on my job starting Sun. night.
When I can get to a library I will start looking up stuff there......but for now I would like to cut through the maze out in cyberspace............thanks.......back to the hunt.....

To:SEF,
If you can't do anything but be an elitist in my hunt for more info on evolution, then please keep your faulty opinions to yourself.....pour yourself a glass of $100 crappy wine, look into the mirror and say your beautiful 400 times and then believe it.....other people have been really trying to help.....I figured that people on a forum like this would be better suited to give me info faster than bouncing all over the web......but your bb-ina-beer can brain hasn't Figured that out yet......so if you can't contribute to the hunt, get on someone else to bolster your lack of self esteem.......back to the hunt.....

To C. Stoner,
Yeah, I've done the long work day thing, too, so I know how it is (I've worked at three jobs at one time on more than one occasion). Difficult to even find time to eat, sleep, buy groceries, etc. Somehow I managed to squeeze in a little time to study during work breaks, but that's how I started. Then I began taking one course at a time during the day at my local high school and then college (with some difficult scheduling problems), but with a lot of hard work, I eventually achieved a degree in biology. Don't know if this is your goal, but hopefully whatever your pursuit is, things will eventually turn out well.

Posted by C. Stoner on November 26, 2005 05:33 AM (e) (s) Thanks Mark, I typically put in a 14 hour day at work. The reason I am trying to find some more info online is that I have this weekend off and our library here in town is closed right now and I would like to get straight to the specific info on macro evolution that I can read and study while on my job starting Sun. night. When I can get to a library I will start looking up stuff there......but for now I would like to cut through the maze out in cyberspace............thanks.......back to the hunt.....

C. Stoner,

It's still impossible to know where you're coming from. You showed up with an attitude and a suitcase full of misinformation and baseless claims about Science, scientists and evolution. What was the basis for those claims?

My first suggestions to you would be an attitude adjustment and less complaining about the (deserved) responses your first post generated. There are many on this board who would be more than willing to point you in the right direction, but will not put up with your combative demeanor.

There've been too many creationist trolls who've shown up here armed with ignorance, arrogance, and closed minds - it tends to make some of us a bit testy. If you are truly here for answers, try backing up a step or two and starting over again.

C.Stoner -If you are genuinely looking for an introduction to evolution you could do worse than to start here:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

.. when you have worked through this perhaps you can come back and we'll have an informed debate. This resource includes information on 'macro-evolution' in the sense that biologists use it: "Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale --- what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction."
.. although not in the sense that creationists use it:
microevolution = good; macroevolution = bad

Mr Stoner: you are clearly an attention-seeking troll with a fondness for whining. You have 17 comments in this thread; your time would be better spent reading some of the links and books cited, rather than whimpering that you need to be spoon fed. Go away. If you can't make substantive comments, I will rip them up. (Yes, I can do that.)

Everyone else: you can stop relying to this clueless gomer. Like, now. The comments that tried to give him some information are appreciated, but it is now painfully obvious that he is not going to attend to them, so let's let him find some other place to wank, OK?

Mark,
Thanks for understanding and congrats on hard work in school.

Stephen Elliott,
Thanks for your info...."Remember: Macro Evolution = Micro Evolution + More Time"
It will help in clearing all this up and and narrowing the search......(wolves are cool)

Bob Maurus,
My orig. comments are all most of us old timers know out here.....respect goes both ways......

Dean Morrison,
Thanks for the link.....I'll check it out and thank you for being patient.....

PZ Myers,
You may 'rip' them up if you like...that is your prerogative.....but I have been looking into the links that have been given me by gracious people (5 so far with lots of tags to there suggestions).......I have my computer set to refresh every 5min or so on 2 screens so I can browse while attending to this forum to get info....(have you ever typed in 'evolution' on Google? what a mess)

Like one of your gracious people said earlier...there is a lot of stuff out here on the net.....and I want to narrow my search as I said earlier.....Macro-Micro...how am I supposed to know when even Time magazine uses these terms as generalizations? I guess it is still survival of the fittest and I'm the weakest link.....trying to understand..
on to the hunt....(after some sac time)...

What do you mean by macro evolution? That is term invented by the ID movement.

Remember: Macro Evolution = Micro Evolution + More Time.

C. Stoner,

Old timers? What's age got to do with it? I'm an old timer who's made a concerted effort to keep up. The internet puts a world of knowledge at your fingertips. Take advantage of it.

Stoner,

Here's a metaphor for thinking about how the terms macro versus micro evolution effect us:

It's like arguing about macro numbers versus micro numbers and saying macro numbers can't exist because no one can count to them. What's a macro number? A number no human being can count to. How can we know they exist if we can't count to them?

What about adding the two biggest micro numbers together? Isn't that a macro number?

What about adding the effects of two non-interbreeding groups of creatures' micro evolution? Wouldn't micro evolution necessarily become macro evolution in time?

We see no problem with macroevolution. You have to explain the problem you see.

Thanks Norman Doering for really good info and links.......the problem that I have with it is that it seems more complicated than what I thought it was....and when I started searching the web....it got more confusing....so I asked for help in finding good sites from people who do this stuff like you guys....
Again, thanks......I'll use the links tonight...........

Bob Maurus,
I am trying to take advantage of it.....thanks......
Back to the hunt.........

problem that I have with it is that it seems more complicated than what I thought it was....and when I started searching the web....it got more confusing....

Just out of curiosity, Mr. Stoner, are you confused about whether HIV causes AIDS or whether Sasquatch are roaming the woods of Oregon?

Or is your confusion about the scientific consensus restricted to evolutionary biology?

I'm just curious. Call it an anthropological interest of mine.

Just out of curiosity, Mr. Stoner, are you confused about whether HIV causes AIDS or whether Sasquatch are roaming the woods of Oregon?

To:Registered User,
Yes it is......I have been looking at Wikipedia and a couple of other sites to see what macro-micro is good for and I am finding that there are 2 different camps inside biology about what it means and its use........that is what is confusing....which one is true? Gould or the other guys?......still searching...thanks for asking.....

To:'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank:
I do have a library card, I do use it when I can, my library is closed this weekend so I can't get there, plus I work 14 hours a day normally....I just happen to have the weekend off... so gracious people have been helping me to get info to take to work with me so I CAN study....but your too busy being elitist about it to try to help(what good is knowledge if you don't share it?)
........I bet kids asking questions drive you nuts:-)
....Back to the hunt.......

I do have a library card, I do use it when I can, my library is closed this weekend so I can't get there

There are a number of views regarding macroevolution. Some evolutionary biologists, particularly Charles Darwin and those subscribing to the modern synthesis, see the only difference between microevolution and macroevolution as being one of scale. Other evolutionary biologists, including Gould, Schmalhausen, and Waddington, hold that microevolution and macroevolution are fundamentally different processes. Essentially the question is - how important are sudden developmental "spurts" to the overall process of evolution? Are they the driving force, or is gradual change the more important process? Macroevolution is controversial only outside the scientific community, and aspects of it are disputed by many movements such as creationism and intelligent design. Generally speaking, these groups differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting that the former is an observable phenomena, but that the latter is not. They have proposed a number of limits beyond which they believe evolution cannot occur. Proponents of Intelligent design argue that the mechanisms of evolution are incapable of giving rise to instances of specified complexity and irreducible complexity. Proponents of creation biology assert that life was originally created in a finite number of discrete created kinds beyond which and between which no evolution can occur, and that the dominant source of biological change is population isolation and genetic drift, or the loss of the diversity of the original kinds, rather than an increase of genetic diversity through mutation.

— Wikipedia

To:Dean Morrison,
But it seems to contradict itself.....how can they both be right?

What is it with "fact" checking. Have people completely lost trust in everything?

Pure objectivism, not a creative or imaginative bone in their body that THEY can TRUST PLUS the complete inability to make a CORRECT logical deduction the sort of person who just scraped through or failed both English and Science. Zero knowledge of world History outside of GENESIS, no genuine ability to subjectively process information, totally and absolutely credulous because they are completely unable to make a VALID value judgment enter "The Word^TM" and instant bot/unit. In the Year of our FORD 345 AR.......

They don't trust anybody because they have been lied to by politicians (facts gone wrong) the soap salesmen (facts gone wrong) and the evening news is just shallow entertainment (facts gone wrong.)

No more TRUTH (Old Henry would be proud)

The sort of people that really P*ss me off.

C. Stoner,

Sorry, you don't add up. You're a fount of creationist bullshit at the same time you're pleading an honest need to know. Acknowledge the first or prove the second. At least until then, you're a troll.

Hey k.e.,
I just got off of the discussion side of this issue on Wikipedia and they are having the same problem and I am pretty sure they are not your church going type....
As the proverb goes....."in the council of many is wisdom"......or do you know everything and don't need anyone or anything to help you make an informed decision? You must be God.......
Thanks again Dean.....
and
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank, Its not open when I go to work....and its not open when I get home........so I am trying my best to get some really good resources for when I am at work.......unlike government employees, I don't have access to computers or the time to use them when I am at work.......even to order library books.....

Wow Bob,
That was really constructive........back to the hunt.....

C Stoner

Granted
Just call it a LOT of experience.

Rather than try to deal with your search on a point by point basis
I am collecting some (non science)material to shift some of that wisdom as a guide.
If you do manage to get to the library try not to get too bogged down by "facts"

If you are unable to reach a logical outcome by now from resources on the web then your method needs help.
Look up "critical thinking" on Wiki

To get you started this book may help.
Remember "The Word^{TM" ? and why I think its broken ?}

Get hold of "Old Turtle" by Douglas Wood or read the reviews I feel it is illustrative .

IF you do make it to the Library I promise you will learn at least as much if not more from a technical treatise on biology facts by reading

"The Hero with a Thousand Faces" by J Campbell

Doing sac time now......eyes are dead, printer worn out, start again tomorrow before I go to work........Thank you to all who have helped so far with your posts and links........very helpful....

thank you also to those who didn't help.....you reinforce my belief in why we need a military........and why we use it......Good night......off the hunt for now....

Stop feeding the troll, or the comments will be closed.

Hi Stoner,
You've been pointed to many resources. The best collection on the web, IMHO, is Talk Origins at
http://www.talkorigins.org/

you can search or browse the archive. Many a novice person have gone there with a small interest and got sucked into reading the whole archive over a period of time me included. I even revisit articles that I have read before.

There is a TON of material up there. I have a few suggestions to help with it.
1) Use the search to get at articles that address your questions first
2) Browse through the monthly feed-backs. While you'll see people hostile here to certain questions you'll find that on the feedback these questions often get answered very carefully. I've never seen a response that is hostile. Sometimes they don't answer the posts but put them up to show how crazy some of the trolls can get
3) Get a text to speech program. There are some freely available ones out there. The free Microsoft voices can take getting used to but they help a lot once you get used to them. To start out read along with the program and you'll not only get used to the voice faster but you'll probably pick up more from the articles. If you want I can send you a program I wrote to do this which also lets you dump the article to a .WAV file. You could then use another program to convert it to MP3 or some other format that you could use in a portable media player and listen away from your computer. My email is wayneefrancis@gmail.com

to get you started go here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Good luck with your learning.

Stoner
I posted (my last post)before your last post- God no just a LOT of experience....your previouse question No not Freud...Post Jungian actually that observation makes more sense if you've had kids.

In your search of "facts" include the motives of the people producing facts and "facts" passing as "The Word^tm" (sacred text/stories) and look up "critical thinking" on Wiki.

If you have any young relatives you could do no better than buy them this book for Christmas. That will give you an excuse to read it aloud to them. It's not just for Kids it is one of Mans' timeless tales have a peek at the reviews

"Old Turtle and the broken Truth" Douglas Wood

If that wets your appetite try

"The Hero with a Thousand Faces" by J. Campbell. (should be in your Library)

Stop feeding the troll, or the comments will be closed.

Dear Mr. Stoner,
Thanks for posting something intelligent and decent. As many contributors to these pages assert, the Bible makes seemingly differing statements about the same topic. For instance, one never knows whether to take PROVERBS 26:4 or PROVERBS 26:5 as the correct proceedure. In the case of T/O, there are a couple of ameliorating factors: 1), It is exceptional in allowing free speech; 2),If they have had as much trouble getting sense out of most of the Young Earth Creationist publishers over the past 30yrs, as I have, there conceivably might be a hint of an excuse.
I'll try PROVERBS 26:5 again.

DOGS DO NOT GIVE BIRTH TO CATS UNDER NATURAL CIRCUMSTANCES. IF "DOG" IS YOUR BLOODLINE, "DOG" STAYS YOUR BLOODLINE. We have one fellow at least who is sitting on the fence about this, and another who doesn't seem to know whether he wants dogs to give birth to cats or cats to give birth to dogs, provided he can overthrow the law of inherited characteristics to prove that dogs give birth to cats whilst not giving birth to cats. You get entertainment here, even if you don't get much reliable biology.

Another contributor - or was it the same one? - seems to think statistical analyses of species populations is the sort of mathematically-based modelling that enables us to prove exactly what can or cannot happen in nature. That's like getting the government statistician to build the Brooklyn Bridge. (Or the Sydney Harbour Bridge, if you want a decent bridge.)

Then there's the idea that Mother Nature beat Bill Gates to it by 4thou. mill. yrs.. Whether that's on the advice of the Commonwealth Statistician or a chap who actually designed and built a bridge, who knows? Lord Kelvin, who ACTUALLY DID THE MATHS-BASED PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY, made some comment about stamp-collecting, whilst figuratively casting a sceptical eye over certain branches of science. He was referring to people who think they know how stamps get manufactured, because they catalogue them and atatistically analyze the data. I doubt if a single Darwinist has ever been able to explain the basics of physical chemistry. Some can begin now, by using less than 1,000 words to adequately convey the meaning of Enthalpy and Entropy. You will need to show why Enthalpy is measured in J/kg, whilst Entropy is measured in J/deg.K. Do not regurgetate Paul Davies. It won't stick.

Then we have the charming idea that time is a V-8 Buick with twin exhausts. Move over, Gyro Gearloose. Time has become a mechanism.

You come here for laughs, Mr. Stoner. Most of them can't mean to be be taken seriously.

Yours COURTEOUSLY, Philip Heywood.

P.S. I would invite all you boys down to MacDonalds for a coffee or something, but the nearest to me is several hours away. In the interim, would anyone like a rug to gnaw on?

pbh
Thankyou for that illuminating post.
You will not co course listen to this so don't.
You sir are certifiably insane find a nice couch lie down and smoke a bong the size of Sydney harbor bridge while reading "Through the looking glass" by l. Carroll listening to Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" and watching the "Matrix" in the company of 20 nubile virgins.
It works because I've done it .....you absolute tosser

Heywood, you're blithering again.

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on November 27, 2005 07:17 AM (e) (s) ..... DOGS DO NOT GIVE BIRTH TO CATS ....

find a nice couch lie down and smoke a bong the size of Sydney harbor bridge while reading "Through the looking glass" by l. Carroll listening to Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" and watching the "Matrix" in the company of 20 nubile virgins. It works because I've done it

Wayne Francis,
thanks, I've been using it....
k.e.,
I'll try to get to it...:-)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank,
Sounds like a plan..........::--))Everything is doubled----wow the colors.......

Philip Bruce Heywood,
thanks for the bite....I think every thinking human knows you can't get a cat from a dog...........

PZ Myers,
I'm not a troll........I'm a inexplicable piece of sputum pool that has acquired two legs a brain and a computer......I thought you liked evolution....[;-)

Lenny
Xcuse me while I reincarnate ))

DOGS DO NOT GIVE BIRTH TO CATS UNDER NATURAL CIRCUMSTANCES

MIACIS DO NOT GIVE BIRTH TO CATS UNDER NATURAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

Philip, you can thank me by donating $50 to your local human society. Thanks.

Hey,
thanks to all of you this weekend.....including the elitist{:-).... for the info....I'm getting ready to go to work again (another 6 days of 14's)...I'll be looking at all the stuff you guys pointed me to.......just have one question(and I'll get to it when I get back)....
Where does matter come from?.........back to work, study the hunt.....

I beg PZ to do the right thing here.

I agree. Watching Mr Stoner babble has become too painful.