Intelligent Design offers biblical alternative to Darwinian evolution, Dembski says

...said scientist and author William Dembski

Intelligent Design's first goal is to demonstrate the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution as an explanation of the origin of the universe, Dembski said.

Intelligent Design's first goal is to demonstrate the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution as an explanation of the origin of the universe, Dembski said.

Then again, one must recall that the retort to the observation that Dembski et al are religiously motivated is that we supposedly are motivated by a metaphysical position--Epicurean materialism. As in:

"In response, you are going to argue that evolution is likewise motivated by a metaphysical position, namely, Epicurean materialism. Show how Epicurean materialism underwrites evolution."

This is from Dembski's test, found at:

http://tinyurl.com/amggj

Which shows how competent a philosopher of science the dolt is. The philosophy of science today traces back far more to Kant than to Epicurean philosophies (which are interesting in their excellent conception of how to do science, but lacked the tools to go far in it). And Kant is more Platonic than anything else, not to mention his being a believer in God. In fact Kant's contribution to Hume's view of science was to preserve Platonic notions of ideas and mathematics as a prioris, from which one may then proceed to work through the relevant data in as scientific a manner as possible.

Evolutionary theory proceeds from practices mostly developed early on by good scientific Christian thinkers. The only reason why Epicurean materialism and positivism/Kantian science tend to converge is that both have rejected unnecessary metaphysical ideas (while mostly acknowledging that we begin with cognitive abilities which are a priori to science), and thus they hit upon a reasonably unbiased conception of how to view the world. Dembski wishes to equate the rejection of metaphysical assumptions with the maintenance of same.

It just goes to show that he has to warp the history of science and philosophy in order to present his warped view of present science as if it were legitimate.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #68814 Posted by Russell on January 8, 2006 07:07 PM (e) (s) ...said scientist and author William Dembski

Seems that the Judge agreed with Dembsk after all: Intelligent Design offers a biblical alternative to Darwinism

So far I have not found Dembski making the statement as in the quote. He does point out his misunderstanding of Haeckel's embryos and their relevance to evolution and other 'Icons'. I guess if one repeats often enough one's flawed understandings of evolutionary science, people eventually may believe it.

> Can someone please explain to me in what sense Dembski is a "scientist"?

Is Mark Perakh a scientist? If yes, only because he was doing science (he doesn't now)? If so, then Dembski is a scientist if maths is science.

Hey, if maths is science then maybe I actually have a good excuse to get worked up about this stuff!

Anyway, less posting, more Representation Theory.

"Biblical alternative to Darwinian evolution"?!

Once again we encounter this unsupportable notion that the Bible is opposed to evolution. This is taken as a given by so many that it is stated matter of factly. As if it were obvious. But those of us who know the Bible AND evolution, know better. The original (that is, Hebrew) text of Genesis just does not support this notion of conflict. Yes, it states that there was design. But that idea is also not in conflict with evolution.

Why do some folks persist in staking out positions without doing their homework?

Well, if we're dealing with the origin of the universe, then certainly that cuts down the available candidates for the position of intelligent designer. But in that case, he should be going after cosmology, not evolution.

This tactic seems to be common among IDists - to say that, yes, OK, we'll agree that evolution can explain bacterial drug resistance and dog breeds and so on, but it can't explain larger things like the origin of mammals, especially humans, and the origin of the universe and the fine-tuning of the solar system for life and so on. Somewhere along the line in their desire to discredit evolution they redefine it so that it's being asked to do the impossible.

Dembski seems oblivious to the fact that science, in the few hundred years it has matured and freed itself from the bondage of religious authority, has discovered more, explained more, and deepened our understanding of the universe far more than has his sectarian world view in a few thousand years. He looks like a complete fool holding himself up as an example of a scientist. Instead, he constantly chases his tail in a whirlwind of sophistry and pseudophilosophy. In spite of his PhD's, he remains totally naive and inexperienced in the practice and successes of scientific investigation. I have rarely encountered a stuffed shirt so ignorant. He would return science to the days of the Inquisition and set the clock back thousands of years.

"In response, you are going to argue that evolution is likewise motivated by a metaphysical position, namely, Epicurean materialism. Show how Epicurean materialism underwrites evolution."

And here I thought evolution was "motivated" by the premise that complex life forms had recent ancestors similar to themselves. Shows what I know, huh.

Henry

Can someone please explain to me in what sense Dembski is a "scientist"?

Well, if we're dealing with the origin of the universe, then certainly that cuts down the available candidates for the position of intelligent designer.

— albion

Intelligent Design's first goal is to demonstrate the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution as an explanation of the origin of the universe, Dembski said.

Can someone please explain to me in what sense Dembski is a "scientist"? In the sense that he's not a duck.

Can someone please explain to me in what sense Dembski is a "scientist"?

The Intelligent Design movement has generated controversy because it deals with issues at the core of the current debate between secularists and those who hold a Christian worldview.

Dembski is quoted as saying, "I think the other side is worried. And they are right to be worried because I think the ideas are on our side. I think the arguments are on our side."

Intelligent Design offers biblical alternative to Darwinian evolution, Dembski says at SBTS forum
April 07, 2005
By David Roach
http://www.towersonline.net/story.php?grp=news&id=268

Dembski has just made a good number of physicists happy by proving the multiverse theory -- because clearly he is living in an alternate universe!

Well, if we're dealing with the origin of the universe, then certainly that cuts down the available candidates for the position of intelligent designer.

— Corkscrew

I don't see why that should be the case. One rather cute conjecture that I came across a while back is that, as intelligent organisms develop more and more powerful science, they're likely to eventually discover how to create new universes. And, of course, they'd create universes that had roughly the same fundamental constants as their own, modulo a small amount of "mutative" variation... See where this is going? Darwinian evolution of universes, oh my!

What is America's established religious philosophy?

Briefly outline Darwin's theory of evolution? What are some of the scientific problems with this theory? Is this theory reconcilable with Christian theism?

Once again we encounter this unsupportable notion that the Bible is opposed to evolution. [...] The original (that is, Hebrew) text of Genesis just does not support this notion of conflict. Yes, it states that there was design. But that idea is also not in conflict with evolution.

Tulse,

You are wrong. Have you read the Bible in its original carefully? Try some good books on the subject, such as Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF, and get an education.

"the current debate between secularists and those who hold a Christian worldview"

You would think that a mathematician, especially "the Isaac Newton of information theory", would know how to draw a Venn diagram.

An individual who [...] regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore [her], [s]he's just a troll."

Is Mark Perakh a scientist? If yes, only because he was doing science (he doesn't now)? If so, then Dembski is a scientist if maths is science.

As much as I understand what folks like Gould (who I deeply respect and admire) have tried to do, it's just false to say that science (and specifically, evolution) does not conflict with at least some aspects of some religions.

"Evolutionary theory proceeds from practices mostly developed early on by good scientific Christian thinkers."

No, they were mostly developed early on by good scientific Arab and Muslim thinkers, while Christians were mired in the Dark Ages. Keep in mind that 'algebra', algorithm', and 'cypher' are from Arabic.

To get an idea how pervasive the influence of Arab mathematicians was during the Middle Ages, visit the MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive and look for biographies of mathematicians born between A.D. 500 and A.D. 999. You'll find the vast majority of names are Arabic. One of those names is Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi, born in what is now Uzbekistan around A.D. 780. Never heard of him? He's well known in mathematical circles for a work in which he preserved and expanded on the work of Diophantus, a Greek. The work was titled "ilm al-jabr wal muqabalah," "the science of transposition and cancellation." The Arabic "al-jabr" became the Latin "algebra," the name given to the branch of mathematics Diophantus had founded. Al-Khwarizmi's own name got twisted into "algorism," meaning "the art of calculating," what we now call arithmetic. Even more important, Al-Khwarizmi drew on the work of Hindu as well as Greek mathematicians, picking up the Hindu numerals, including the zero, which was unknown to users of Roman numerals. His work was translated into Latin, and the numerals--called Arabic numerals, despite their Hindu origin--went with it. The numerals were passed to Europe through the Italian mathematician Leonardo Fibonacci. It took a while, but the Arabic numerals turned mathematical calculations upside down. Today, no one can envision doing long division or any number of other manipulations without them. The Persian scientist Rhazes, also called by the Arabic name Abu-Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariyya Ar-Razi, was born near what is now Tehran about A.D. 845. He studied medicine and became the chief physician of Baghdad's biggest hospital. He is credited with being the first to distinguish clearly between smallpox and measles and described his experiments so well that modern scientists can reproduce them. Rhazes also concocted what is now called plaster of Paris and described how it could be made into casts to keep broken bones in place. The most prominent physicist of the Middle Ages was Alhazen (Arabic name: Abu-'Ali Al-Hasan ibn Al-Haytham), born in Basra (Iraq) about A.D. 965. Fascinated by optics, he corrected an old notion that people see by rays of light emanating from the eyes and reflecting from objects. Alhazen realized that the sun or some other source emits light before it's reflected off objects and into the eye. He also explained that lenses magnify objects because of the curvature of their surface, not because of any intrinsic property of the material the lens is made from. He did much work on reflection and refraction of light, including studies of the rainbow and the focusing of light through lenses. He made a pinhole camera and parabolic mirrors, the type now used in telescopes. The world had to wait nearly six centuries--until the days of German astronomer Johannes Kepler, who was heavily influenced by a Latin translation of Alhazen's work--to see further progress in optics. The dry air and clear skies of the Middle East led Arabian science to make its most famous marks. Pick up a star chart, and you'll see all kinds of Arabic names for stars. There's Algol, the winking "eye of the demon" in the constellation Perseus; Aldebaran, the eye of Taurus, the bull (from Al Dabaran, "follower"--of the Pleiades star cluster); and Betelgeuse, the brightest star in Orion. The name Betelgeuse is from the Arabic Ibt al Jauzah, or Armpit of the Central One, via a long line of intermediate names. "Arab and other Muslim astronomers made numerous observations of star positions," says U of M astronomy professor Terry Jones. "Much of the ancient Arabs' contribution to astronomy consisted of preserving and refining the knowledge of others, especially Greeks and Egyptians." For example, Arabian astronomer Albategnius (Arabic name: Abu-'Abdullah Muhammad ibn Jabir al-Battani), born in what is now southeastern Turkey around A.D. 858, made a mark by improving on the work of the ancient astronomer Ptolemy, who had drawn up a model of the universe with the Earth at the center. Albategnius noted, among other things, the position of the sun among the constellations at the moment the sun appears smallest--that is, when Earth is farthest from the sun. Observing the sun's position for himself at that moment, he realized the sun was no longer in the position where Ptolemy had said. He concluded that this position changed slowly and calculated a rather accurate value for the motion. Today, we know this phenomenon happens because the Earth's elliptical orbit itself rotates. Albategnius became the most respected of Arabian astronomers in the eyes of Medieval Europeans. To read more on the development of science during ancient and Medieval times, see Isaac Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, the source for much of this article.

I just took a course in the fall on the History of Science in the Medieval Islamic world by Dr. F.J. Ragep at the University of Oklahoma where I learned a great deal about how much modern science and math owes to that community.

It can also be said that Al Haytham was very much a precursor to Francis Bacon and the development of the scientific method. I encourage everyone to study up on science's Islamic/Arabic past as the west owes much of its progress to this society.

As much as I understand what folks like Gould (who I deeply respect and admire) have tried to do, it's just false to say that science (and specifically, evolution) does not conflict with at least some aspects of some religions. Evolution (or, more precisely, the picture that evolution, as constrained by the paleontological record, paints of organismic development) cannot be reconciled with a literal reading of Genesis.

But the Christian Bible was never intended to be taken 100% word-for-word literally by Christians, not even from the very start.

Take the story of the Good Samaritan. The Good Samaritan obviously wasn't a real person - he was a character in a parable that Jesus made up. By telling that story, Jesus wasn't giving a true account of two actual uncaring Jews and an actual kind man from Samaria, he was using a fictional example of how we should behave towards people that we don't have any family or cultural ties to. I don't think that the parable in question is degraded because it's a work of fiction - why should the Genesis story be the same?

Hang on, why am I even bothering to type this? Most people reading this are either non-Christians (in which case this is all just fairy tales) or Christians like Ken Miller (who already get this far better than I'm explaining here) and those that aren't are never going to be swayed by a semi-anonymous commenter in an evolution blog.

So, how about those Jurassic crocodilians, eh?

General comment from someone who isn't a scientist or a mathematician, or even an American, but who has been following the Dover trial and related issues on line, mainly on the NCSE website and the excellent Panda's Thumb:

I know that the naming of names is important, and that calling creationism Intelligent Design is a way of disguising its creationist goals, and that some people therefore prefer to use the phrase Intelligent Design Creationism.

But, after the comprehensive beating that Judge Jones gave ID, isn't it time we started naming ID for what it really is: the Intelligent Design Hoax?

A hoax is defined in the shorter Oxford dictionary as a deception or a joke. Intelligent Design is a huge deception carried out over at least a decade, and it is a sick joke on science, in one way, and gullible Christians, in another way. The last thing creationists can take is open ridicule, and exposing ID as a hoax exposes it to ridicule.

A few letters in every local and national newspaper in the USA referring to the Intelligent Design Hoax would get the idea of a hoax in common use and help to fix in the common mind the real nature of the ID project and the motives of its proponenets.

Carol Clouser, the *christians* hijacked your bible. Go after the hijackers if you think it is nonsense, but quit whinging about people who are commenting on the *christian* bible. They are not addressing your bible at all.

"Can someone please explain to me in what sense Dembski is a "scientist"?"

In the sense that he likes to misrepresent himself as being a scientist, and will continue to do so unless and until a sufficiently public and sufficiently thorough debunking of his scientific credentials is performed, so that gullible journalists cease to take him at face value.

re:
"That's simply not the case, at least at the largest scale. Certainly a literal interpretation of the creation story is at odds with the fossil record, and there's no evidence of a worldwide flood that wiped out all but 2 of each species in humanity's lifetime.

As much as I understand what folks like Gould (who I deeply respect and admire) have tried to do, it's just false to say that science (and specifically, evolution) does not conflict with at least some aspects of some religions. Evolution (or, more precisely, the picture that evolution, as constrained by the paleontological record, paints of organismic development) cannot be reconciled with a literal reading of Genesis."

I agree. Evolution cannot be reconciled with a literal reading of Genesis. You gotta choose which road you're going to travel. And to say that because Jesus used parables like the parable of the Good Samaritan is grounds for us to dismiss other sections of the bible as parable or metaphor, displays a dreadful lack of sound reasoning and unbiased biblical research.

But the Christian Bible was never intended to be taken 100% word-for-word literally by Christians, not even from the very start.

But the Christian Bible was never intended to be taken 100% word-for-word literally by Christians, not even from the very start.

— Fernmonkey

Spot the cronyism in Dembski's lists of texts for his courses, his DI mates are well represented.

"Dembski said he looks forward to serving at Southern because of the seminary's willingness to sponsor Intelligent Design research as a legitimate scientific enterprise"

About time!

"---an attitude that some Christian colleges and universities do not share because they believe embracing intelligent design will compromise their status in the academic world."

Or they just recognize a losing proposition when they see one.

Comment #68910 posted by allygally on January 9, 2006 04:24 AM But, after the comprehensive beating that Judge Jones gave ID, isn't it time we started naming ID for what it really is: the Intelligent Design Hoax?

Yeah, especially a judge who doesn't know the basics about attorney-client privilege, right Larry? LOL.

Why is so much weight being given to the opinion that a single judge --- who is not even a scientist and who has studied ID for only a short time --- has about ID?

Most judges are not scientists. Those would be pretty demanding careers to hold down simultaneously. However, his opinion is pretty important in the state of Pennsylvania.

Moreover, the stuff that came up at trial really doesn't look all that good for ID as anything other than an attempt to do an end-run around the SCOTUS ruling against teaching creationism in public schools. ID had its best chance to show what it was made of - a fair trial with all the witnesses they could come up with - and you saw the results. Just like every other time that creationism has had its day in court.

Now, you're probably going to tell me - correctly - that science is done in labs, not in court. So if there's anything more to ID than trying to wriggle under the establishment clause, let's see it. Preferably in peer-reviewed academic paper format.

Addendum: I think it's clear now that the best use of the mammoth resources that ID proponents have at hand is in repackaging their publications for the lucrative fundamentalist homeschooling market rather than fighting hopeless constitutional lawsuits.

Of course, they'll have to fend off the accusations of heresy from the young-earthers...

Why is so much weight being given to the opinion that a single judge --- who is not even a scientist and who has studied ID for only a short time --- has about ID?

— Larry Fafarman

Larry wrote: Why is so much weight being given to the opinion that a single judge --- who is not even a scientist and who has studied ID for only a short time --- has about ID?

"I think it's clear now that the best use of the mammoth resources that ID proponents have at hand is in repackaging their publications for the lucrative fundamentalist homeschooling market rather than fighting hopeless constitutional lawsuits."

hmmmm...the best thing the DI could do with their mammoth resources is solve problems like poverty, homelessness, addiction and violence. Wouldn't that be the Christian thing to do? If only...

The heading for this thread says "Intelligent Design offers biblical alternative to Darwinian evolution, Dembski says". Yet in the OP, there isn't one Dembski quote referencing the Bible, religion or Christianity or anything of the sort. So what is this "biblical" alternative to which the heading refers but, from any of the quotes in the OP, Dembski does not?

Intelligent Design's first goal is to demonstrate the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution as an explanation of the origin of the universe, Dembski said.

Comment #68968 Posted by KL on January 9, 2006 08:48 AM (e) (s) "I think it's clear now that the best use of the mammoth resources that ID proponents have at hand is in repackaging their publications for the lucrative fundamentalist homeschooling market rather than fighting hopeless constitutional lawsuits." hmmmm...the best thing the DI could do with their mammoth resources is solve problems like poverty, homelessness, addiction and violence. Wouldn't that be the Christian thing to do? If only...

Comment #68965 posted by Lord Monar on January 9, 2006 08:42 AM Larry Fafarman wrote: ****Why is so much weight being given to the opinion that a single judge --- who is not even a scientist and who has studied ID for only a short time --- has about ID?***** Because he had the testimony of an expert on biology and the testimony of an expert of ID. He then did his job and decided which side was right.

Can someone please explain to me in what sense Dembski is a "scientist"?

Larry wrote: Why is so much weight being given to the opinion that a single judge --- who is not even a scientist and who has studied ID for only a short time --- has about ID?

Why is so much weight being given to the opinion that a single judge --- who is not even a scientist and who has studied ID for only a short time --- has about ID?

n. the explanation of a court's judgment. When a trial court judgment is appealed to a court of appeals, the appeals judge's opinion will be detailed, citing case precedents, analyzing the facts, the applicable law and the arguments of the attorneys for the parties. Those opinions considered by the court to be worthy of serving as a precedent or involving important legal issues will be published in the official reports available in most law libraries. Since appeals courts have anywhere from three to nine judges, there are often "dissenting opinions" which disagree with the majority opinion, and "concurring opinions" which agree with the result, but apply different emphasis, precedents or logic to reach the determination. Normally the majority opinion identifies the author, but some brief opinions are labeled "in banc" (by the bench) or "per curiam" (by the court) in which the author is not specified.

Comment #68895 Posted by Carol Clouser on January 9, 2006 02:21 AM (e) (s) Tulse, You are wrong. Have you read the Bible in its original carefully? Try some good books on the subject, such as Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF, and get an education.

Carol is correct, the Bible is not inconsistent with evolution as a secondary means. But as I have pointed out before, none of the PT regulars wants the Bible to be consistent with science. From their perspective this must be avoided at all costs. They are very similar to the John Birchers who absolutely needed a communist under every bed. Acknowledgment of the truth, that the bible and science are consistent, would deprive many PTers of their raison d'être. The most they will do is tolerate (in some cases, just barely) someone like Ken Miller, whom they shamelessly exploit as a "useful idiot" because he (erroneously) affirms that the bible and science are merely complementary yet orthogonal.

Comment #68871 Posted by blipey on January 8, 2006 10:59 PM (e) (s) How do we know he's not a duck? Has someone penetrated the Dembskian Solopsistic Universe to see how he views himself?

.. don't get Larry started on legal definitions Julie ... he considers himself to be a 'legal eagle' and he'll have that nice lady at the library run off her feet.
... probably too late now - expect this thread to be innundated with the ramblings of this self-procalaimed 'legal genius'.

hmmmm...the best thing the DI could do with their mammoth resources is solve problems like poverty, homelessness, addiction and violence. Wouldn't that be the Christian thing to do? If only...

I don't think they're really interested in that sort of thing.

But with a different judge and different experts, it is conceivable that a different decision --- or maybe even no decision ( on the issues of ID as science and ID as religion ) --- would have been reached.

And it is conceivable that if my auntie had testes she could be my uncle. The judge could have made a narrow decision, stating that the Dover school board clearly had religious intent, and not finding anything at all on the wider issues of ID as science or religion. This didn't happen. The creationists lost in court, just as creationists always lose in US courts of justice.

Now, seeing as you're the smart lawyer and we're just poor miseducated bloggers here, tell me this: the TMLC had all the resources that they needed to mount a defence, and they still lost horribly, so what would YOU have done to win this case if you were with the TMLC? Which witnesses would you have called, what sort of evidence would you have subpoenaed, and which questions would you have asked the prosecution witnesses to show that ID is SCIENCE and that it is NOT RELIGION? How would you have done so? (I'd particularly like to know how you'd explain those older drafts of Of Pandas And People, for example.)

Both Ms. Clouser and Mr. Heddle fail to see the big gaping hole in their "reasoning".

Which "Bible" is literally compatible with "the picture that evolution, as constrained by the paleontological record, paints of organismic development"?

Whoever wins, please clean out the blood of the infidel from the floor.

The Intelligent Design Hoax

Mr Fafarman misses the point when he asks - "Why is so much weight being given to the opinion that a single judge --- who is not even a scientist and who has studied ID for only a short time --- has about ID?"

The judge reached the only conclusion he could, given the evidence and the shakiness of the ID case and the unreliability of the ID witnesses.

But my point is not about the judge, per se, it's about winning the attention of the public. It's about PR. There have complaints on this blog and elsewhere that science has all the right arguments, but is still losing the PR war. But in order to win the argument you must also expose your opponent's position.

Judge Jones's decision that ID is not science but a smokescreen for creationism, confirms the scientists' case and destroys the DI's case. Furthermore, it shows that the DI has been engaged in a decade-long attempt to mislead the world about its "theory", which is religious not scientific, and its strategy, which is to get religion taught in public schools in the USA. Is this not an elaborate and deliberate hoax?

It is highly unlikely that true creationists will ever be dissuaded of their error, but the threat that ID poses to science education can be deflected (at least in the short term), and Intelligence Design can be exposed to the widest possible levels of ridicule (which it deserves), if ID is given its rightful name: the Intelligent Design Hoax.

Repetition is all. The aim should be to thoroughly discredit the very idea of Intelligent Design, so that that, when the American public sees or hears the words "Intelligent Design", they immediately associate them with the word "Hoax". For that to happen, every time a public statement, press release, quote, letter to the editor, blog entry, or whatever, is made, it should be in relation to "the Intelligent Design Hoax". That way it will eventually sink in to the public consciousness, and maybe even the minds of some politicians, that Intelligent Design is indeed a Hoax.

Don't encourage him Fernmonkey! Most of the 300 posts on this thread:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/desparate_pathe.html

are of Larry's legalistic ramblings on the trail. He said he wanted to start '1000 Dovers'. Let him take up his own challenge and let's see what happens....

Let's use this thread to examine the megalomaniacal rants that can be heard from Dembski's bunker.

Comment #68982 posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 09:31 AM Larry wrote: ****Why is so much weight being given to the opinion that a single judge --- who is not even a scientist and who has studied ID for only a short time --- has about ID?**** Scientists and Judges both look at evidence to draw their conclusions Larry. The conclusion they have both come to in this case in this case is that Intelligent Design is a Hoax. So now you are reduced to waging a war on the law as well as on science.

Sorry, Dean.

To David Heddle: I don't think that the non-Christian PT regulars care a whit whether the Bible is 'consistent with science'. It might save time and legal fees if creationists did not keep interpreting the Bible as inconsistent with science, and it would definitely be nice if those same creationists didn't keep pushing to get their own peculiar religious views taught to other people's children as science on the taxpayer's dime, but I think that to most of the non-Christians here the question of whether the Bible is 'consistent with science' is about as interesting and relevant to the world around them as that of whether JK Rowling and JRR Tolkien were writing about the same kind of elves.

I would also like to know your rationale for deciding that Ken Miller is either an idiot or the victim of exploitation.

What did I tell you???

That's okay Fernmonkey

But as I have pointed out before, none of the PT regulars wants the Bible to be consistent with science.

— David Heddle

Fernmonkey,

Oh they care a great deal. They take great pleasure in pointing out where they believe the bible is in error with regards to science.

As for Ken Miller, I never said, nor do I think, that he is an idiot. Far from it, I am certain he is quite smart. Unlike most of the PT contributors, Miller is an actual scientist. What I wrote was that you guys treat him like a "useful idiot". When appropriate he is paraded, on a leash, to demonstrate that bright, progressive Christians are sort-of tolerated.

Corkscrew,

You hardly have to tell me that my Bible has nothing to fear from you.

Even in the law, the principle is that single judges do not make final decisions. That is why cases can generally be appealed ( unfortunately and unfairly, the Dover case cannot be ), and why appeals court panels have 3 judges and the Supreme Court has 9 justices. Also, having different scientific experts might have made a difference. Furthermore, the judge did not get a broad range of opinions on ID, but only got the narrow range of opinions that the testifying scientific experts provided him.

— Larry Fafarman

Well there's also Bill Dembski! He's held in rather high esteem (in his own mind anyway).

Comment #68988 posted by Fernmonkey on January 9, 2006 09:42 AM Now, seeing as you're the smart lawyer and we're just poor miseducated bloggers here, tell me this: the TMLC had all the resources that they needed to mount a defence, and they still lost horribly, so what would YOU have done to win this case if you were with the TMLC?

Which witnesses would you have called, what sort of evidence would you have subpoenaed, and which questions would you have asked the prosecution witnesses to show that ID is SCIENCE and that it is NOT RELIGION?

Comment #68985 Posted by David Heddle on January 9, 2006 09:39 AM (e) (s) Carol is correct, the Bible is not inconsistent with evolution as a secondary means. But as I have pointed out before, none of the PT regulars wants the Bible to be consistent with science. From their perspective this must be avoided at all costs. They are very similar to the John Birchers who absolutely needed a communist under every bed. Acknowledgment of the truth, that the bible and science are consistent, would deprive many PTers of their raison d'être. The most they will do is tolerate (in some cases, just barely) someone like Ken Miller, whom they shamelessly exploit as a "useful idiot" because he (erroneously) affirms that the bible and science are merely complementary yet orthogonal.

Sadly, it seems the lesson most of the IDers are taking away from Dover is "get better at lying about the nature of ID". At least Dembski is showing a little honesty here.

Mr Heddle, perhaps you might like to actually read some of the earlier comments and rephrase your assertion into the following (slightly more accurate) statement: "They take 'great pleasure' in pointing out where the literal interpretation of the bible is in error with regards to science."

Furthermore, I think it is highly insulting to Prof Ken Miller to categorise him and 'them' 'using' him in that fashion.

And it speaks incredible volumns of the Creationist and IDers, if the good prof is characterised by you as a "And if he's a "bright, progressive Christian".

Apologies, hit enter too soon.

Oh they care a great deal. They take great pleasure in pointing out where they believe the bible is in error with regards to science.

— Heddle

Comment #69010 Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 10:33 AM I noticed the way you spelled "defence" --- another non-American on this website?

Comment #69005 posted by Corkscrew on January 9, 2006 10:13 AM The Board could, if it wished, have appealed any and all of his conclusions. They did not wish to do so because, as it turned out, the immoral antics of the Board members resulted in them all being unelected (which should tell you something in itself).

Incidentally, the possibility of appeal meant that he would not have made the inflammatory statements that he made unless he was 100% sure that they were completely accurate and supportable.

Incidentally, which experts would you have summoned rather than, say, Behe? My understanding is that he's pretty much the cream (cheese?) of the ID crop.

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design" The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

Let's see, Origin of Species. Global Flooding. Earth as the Center of the Universe. Pi with the value of 3.00 (though that's pretty weak and should be discounted). Rabbits that are ruminants. Insects with four feet. Bats are birds. Plants predate the sun. The earth is flat and resting on four pillars.

I'm glad Larry isn't my lawyer...

(1) The defendants were open about their religious motivations.
Apparently, Larry would have encouraged them to commit perjury, or does he believe the subject just wouldn't have come up?

(2) The defendants rejected teachers' advice for modifying the ID statement.
The question was, "What would you have done to win the case?" If the defendants had followed the teachers' recommendations, there wouldn't have been a case.

(3)The defendants did not bother to learn anything about ID.
Duh. And you would have taught them? What knowledge were they missing that might have turned the tide, given their obstinate religious motivations?

4) A defendant used a church fundraiser to purchase the ID books, then lied about it.
We know this--what's your point? How does this help to make a better case, or weren't you paying attention when the question was asked?

(5) Defense expert witness Behe had chosen a view of ID that made it possible to lead him into saying that ID is like astrology.

There is no "view" of ID that won't also admit for teaching astrology, alchemy, or any other type of pseudoscience. Behe did the best he could with what he had to work with.

(6) The defense teams squabbled among themselves, and three expert witnesses for the defense withdrew.

Actually, this was probably an advantage for the defendants, as there's no reason to assume that Dembski, e.g., would have come off any better then Behe did. You see, it's ID that's free from rational content, not the defendants' case.

(7) The defendants chose an ID book, Of Pandas and People, that was easy to attack. For example, newer editions substituted the words "intelligent design" for the word "creationist" that appeared in earlier editions.

There are no ID books that aren't easy targets. Witness the treatment of Behe's book, which is considered a bulwark of ID.

(8) The defendants/defense failed to protect the privilege of an attorney-client message that the board's solicitor sent to the board. The case opinion used this message against the defendants.

But as has been pointed out before, the cited message, given the mountain of evidence against the defendants, didn't amount to much in the grand scheme of things.

Comment #68828 posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 8, 2006 08:08 PM the creationists were even dumb enough to file a court case in California claiming that *evolution* was a religion too. And indeed I've heard some IDers yammering about doing the same thing, post-Dover.

For starters, the defendants and the defense could have avoided the following mistakes --- (1) The defendants were open about their religious motivations. (2) The defendants rejected teachers' advice for modifying the ID statement. (3) The defendants did not bother to learn anything about ID. (4) A defendant used a church fundraiser to purchase the ID books, then lied about it. (5) Defense expert witness Behe had chosen a view of ID that made it possible to lead him into saying that ID is like astrology. (6) The defense teams squabbled among themselves, and three expert witnesses for the defense withdrew. (7) The defendants chose an ID book, Of Pandas and People, that was easy to attack. For example, newer editions substituted the words "intelligent design" for the word "creationist" that appeared in earlier editions. (8) The defendants/defense failed to protect the privilege of an attorney-client message that the board's solicitor sent to the board. The case opinion used this message against the defendants.

— Larry Fafarman

Evolution itself has many of the trappings of religion. Many of the terms that apply to religion --- e.g., dogma, heresy, and faith --- also apply to evolution.

No, it doesn't.

Being stupid again, I see.

Heddle -

Since when has anyone on PT claimed that they "do not want" the Bible to be consistent with science? Care to back that up with some facts?

And if ID is "all about the science", why should compatibilty with the Bible be an issue at all? Why does no one worry whether Quantum Mechanics is compatible with the Bible?

And why does no one (or at least a small minority at best) seems to be worried whether evolution is compatible with the Koran, the teachings of Joseph Smith, or any of the Hindu sacred texts, or the Urantia book for that matter?

Why is it always the Bible, the Bible, the Bible??? Could it be that ID is at its core a fundamentalist Christian political crusade? If ID is all about the science, why can't everyone regardless of belief or lack thereof join in?

Moses,

For someone with a name such as yours, you display quite a bit of ignorance about the books of Moses.

The Greek Septuagint is not the original written version of the Bible. If you knew any history you would know that the Septuagint originally was a translation performed by Jewish scholars at the behest of King Ptolemy. They translated from the Hebrew to the Greek.

Aside from difficulties and errors inherent in any translation, we are informed by the Talmudists that the Jewish scholars DELIBERATELY mistranslated from the Hebrew to avoid difficulties with the temperamental king.

And there are millions of folks, including myself, who have read the Bible "in its original".

And you miss the point of my response to Tulse and my original post. The point was that the original Bible is not in conflict with science even if interpreted literally. Yes, you read that correctly - even if interpreted literally, so long as it is translated correctly.

Telling someone he/she is wrong is fair game in a debate. That is not considered an insult. And I think you are well aware of that.

All the Biblical criticisms you cite in your response to David have been shown long ago to be entirely vacuous.

Larry, you answered the question you wanted to answer, not the question I asked you. I asked you what you'd have done in Dover to win the case, with the school board and the facts as they were, not with a hypothetical school board that didn't talk about creationism all the time and that didn't hold a church fundraiser to buy ID books and then try to launder the proceeds and that didn't lie under oath about it.

Yes, I'm British (expat living in the Czech Republic) and no, we don't have constitutional separation of church and state in Britain. However, I'm a great admirer of US Constitutionalism for reasons such as this.

He said he wanted to start '1000 Dovers'. Let him take up his own challenge and let's see what happens....

Ms. Closer, Mr. Heddle:

I'd love to agree with you, but apparently it isn't possible: when you speak about "the Bible" you are referring to two very different books.

Now, before I can take either of you seriously, I'd like you to reach a consensus on which Bible is the real Bibleâ„¢, which - taken literally - does not conflict with science.

Is it

A) Clouser's Bible?
B) Heddle's Bible?
C) Neither?

Thank you. Please refrain from commenting as if you had addressed this question until (unless) you do, in fact, address it.

Comment #69041 posted by Wislu Plethora on January 9, 2006 11:01 AM I'm glad Larry isn't my lawyer...

(1) The defendants were open about their religious motivations. Apparently, Larry would have encouraged them to commit perjury, or does he believe the subject just wouldn't have come up?

(2) The defendants rejected teachers' advice for modifying the ID statement. The question was, "What would you have done to win the case?" If the defendants had followed the teachers' recommendations, there wouldn't have been a case.

(3)The defendants did not bother to learn anything about ID. Duh. And you would have taught them? What knowledge were they missing that might have turned the tide, given their obstinate religious motivations?

(4) A defendant used a church fundraiser to purchase the ID books, then lied about it. We know this---what's your point? How does this help to make a better case, or weren't you paying attention when the question was asked?

(5) Defense expert witness Behe had chosen a view of ID that made it possible to lead him into saying that ID is like astrology. There is no "view" of ID that won't also admit for teaching astrology, alchemy, or any other type of pseudoscience. Behe did the best he could with what he had to work with.

(6) The defense teams squabbled among themselves, and three expert witnesses for the defense withdrew. Actually, this was probably an advantage for the defendants, as there's no reason to assume that Dembski, e.g., would have come off any better then Behe did. You see, it's ID that's free from rational content, not the defendants' case.

(7) The defendants chose an ID book, Of Pandas and People, that was easy to attack. For example, newer editions substituted the words "intelligent design" for the word "creationist" that appeared in earlier editions. There are no ID books that aren't easy targets. Witness the treatment of Behe's book, which is considered a bulwark of ID.

(8) The defendants/defense failed to protect the privilege of an attorney-client message that the board's solicitor sent to the board. The case opinion used this message against the defendants. But as has been pointed out before, the cited message, given the mountain of evidence against the defendants, didn't amount to much in the grand scheme of things.

I noticed the way you spelled "defence" --- another non-American on this website? Let's see --- we already have Corkscrew, Dean Morrison, and Steve Elliot. I don't know if you are British, but may I point out that there is no separation of church and state in Britain and that creationism is taught in a lot of British government-funded schools?

— Larry Fafarman

"So we should have NO PROBLEM in believing that humans, and all the other animals, are made of clarified butter . . . . And that Area 51 exists and there are LGM."

Whoa, there. I can understand being skeptical of the idea that the place is a storage facility for alien technology, but to say the place out-and-out doesn't exist? That is, that there is no military base at the end of Highway 365 in Nevada? It seems to me this is a case of overcorrection (to steal a term from driver's ed).

David Hettle:

I am agnostic, yet I still find value in the Bible -- if only from an historical point of view. I also believe there is truth in the Bible -- if only because, statistically speaking, a book that big has to get something right. I find the idea that the Bible is not literally true fits in better with my understanding of the historical development of religions than does the idea that the Bible is completely, 100% correct and dictated from high by the Creator. (Similarly, I like the ideas put forth in evolutionary theory, because they make sense in terms of what I know of dynamical systems.) It's not that I don't want to believe in the Bible's absolute truth; it's that, if I were to do so, nothing else would make sense. Actually, I guess that gives me a reason to want the Bible to be wrong in some places: I like to understand to world around me.

Larry F wrote:
"Evolution itself has many of the trappings of religion. Many of the terms that apply to religion --- e.g., dogma, heresy, and faith --- also apply to evolution."

The whole "Science is just another religion" thing is ridiculous. My aunt has two eyes, two ears, a nose, two arms, two legs, OMG, she's just exactly like my uncle! In fact, the similarities are so overwhelming that she must actually BE my uncle!

If you put science and all the thousands of religions in the world in a room, and asked any rational person "Which of these is not like the others?" the answer would be "Science" every time.

There's no reason at all why the Bible should be either wholly consistent or wholly inconsistent with modern scientific inquiry. The Bible was written before the development of the scientific method. The scriptures and mythologies of most other major religions also pre-date the methods now used to study both human history and the natural world. There's no reason why the ancient Hebrews or the early Christian church should be held to 21st century (or even 18th century) academic standards -- no more than ancient Greek legends lose cultural value because they are probable composites of multiple events and include stories of intervention by the Olympian gods.

That's why, from a scientific perspective, this is generally considered to be a non-issue.

No one could have done a worse job of defending ID than Behe, who said that ID is like astrology.

— Larry Fafarman

I don't know --- I have not read and compared all ID books. All I said was that the Pandas book was an easy target for the reason I stated.

— Larry Fafarman

And if ID is "all about the science", why should compatibilty with the Bible be an issue at all? Why does no one worry whether Quantum Mechanics is compatible with the Bible?

— rdog29

By the way - I'm British too. Just like Darwin. You did know Darwin was British, didn't you?

— Tim Hague

So...

It seems eventually every single thread on this site becomes either "The Carol Clouser thread" or "The Larry Fafarman thread". Eventually either Fafarman comes in and starts pushing his bizarre on-a-whim legal theories; or Clouser comes in and starts promoting her publisher's interpretations of the Torah as inassailable truth. Both of these people inevitably say the exact same thing in every thread, and both are from what I've seen impressing no one but themselves. But their persistence means that once they start going, all other discussion ceases. Anything which is not part of their personal private flamewar gets simply flooded out.

This is making discussion here essentially impossible. Every thread on the site effectively has a big timer hanging over it, and when that timer reaches 0, the topic at the top of the thread is discarded and Fafalman or Clouser (or in this case both in parallel) become the new topic of discussion. This gets old after awhile. Watching the dishonest act as punching bags is only amusing for so long.

Does this just go on forever, then?

Heddle - Since when has anyone on PT claimed that they "do not want" the Bible to be consistent with science? Care to back that up with some facts? And if ID is "all about the science", why should compatibilty with the Bible be an issue at all? Why does no one worry whether Quantum Mechanics is compatible with the Bible? And why does no one (or at least a small minority at best) seems to be worried whether evolution is compatible with the Koran, the teachings of Joseph Smith, or any of the Hindu sacred texts, or the Urantia book for that matter?

He said he wanted to start '1000 Dovers'. Let him take up his own challenge and let's see what happens....

I noticed the way you spelled "defence" --- another non-American on this website? Let's see --- we already have Corkscrew, Dean Morrison, and Steve Elliot. I don't know if you are British, but may I point out that there is no separation of church and state in Britain and that creationism is taught in a lot of British government-funded schools?

Aureola Nominee,

We are here discussing Genesis, which is where the areas of interaction with science are primarily concentrated.

Julie,

Your argument is eminently reasonable to a person who perceives the Bible as merely the handiwork of ordinary mortals. It is entirely unreasonable from the point of view that the Bible is a divinely inspired document. After all, who or what would know science better than the party responsible for breathing fire into it?

taken literally, mod points 1-5

Comment #69049 posted by Fernmonkey on January 9, 2006 11:17 AM Larry, you answered the question you wanted to answer, not the question I asked you. I asked you what you'd have done in Dover to win the case, with the school board and the facts as they were, not with a hypothetical school board that didn't talk about creationism all the time and that didn't hold a church fundraiser to buy ID books and then try to launder the proceeds and that didn't lie under oath about it.

Does this just go on forever, then?

— Andrew McClure

Actually he went to my Cambridge college (Christ's). There's a rather cool shrine in his honour over by the laundrette. If you ever visit Cambridge in summer I recommend checking it out - the shrine itself is somewhat tacky but there's a beautiful magnolia tree overhead and a lovely little stream.

— Corkscrew

By the way - I'm British too. Just like Darwin. You did know Darwin was British, didn't you?

I'm British too. So was William Paley. Bugger, in the end this mess is all our fault. We even sent the fundamentalists over there.

— Bob O'H

The Greek Septuagint is not the original written version of the Bible.

— Carol Clouser

Aureola,

Your comment does not pass muster. It is a common ploy, to condescendingly say that if one is allowed to use arguments such as 1-5 then "LOL, of course you can make anything consistent." It's a false dimmea---either (a) the bible must be defended hyper-literally or (b) it is pointless because anything goes.

But there is something in between, something not familiar to most PT commenters, namely scholarship. One can make a claim that a certain statement is metaphorical---such a claim can be evaluated. If the Genesis account stated: "And God placed the earth, which was shaped like a flat disk, in the center of the cosmos, and, as it is the pinnacle of His creation, He directed all the heavenly orbs to rotate about, prevented from escaping their paths by angels" then it would be impossible to argue that the bible was consistent with science regardless of how much one cried "poetic language". However, if it states that "the sun moved across the sky," then it is plausible that it is a figure of speech rather that a scientific declaration.

Saying that, in effect, you must defend it hyper-literally or there's no point is an extreme copout.

This gets old after awhile. Watching the dishonest act as punching bags is only amusing for so long.

What I meant was that they should have been quiet about their religious beliefs when promoting the ID rule.

The teachers proposed an ID statement that would have been less disparaging of evolution.

They looked bad because they did not know anything about something that they were pushing.

They could have found another source for the money --- it was only $850.

I am not sure, but I think that Behe said that ID is like astrology because he views ID as a complete explanation for the origin of species. If he had viewed ID as just a criticism of evolution theory, he could have avoided saying that ID is like astrology.

The message [from the solicitor] amounted to a lot --- it was a major factor in the judge's decision.

...you guys treat [Ken Miller] like a "useful idiot". When appropriate he is paraded, on a leash, to demonstrate that bright, progressive Christians are sort-of tolerated.

— David Heddle

Your argument is eminently reasonable to a person who perceives the Bible as merely the handiwork of ordinary mortals. It is entirely unreasonable from the point of view that the Bible is a divinely inspired document. After all, who or what would know science better than the party responsible for breathing fire into it?

— Carol

I think we should petition Her Majesty to issue an apology for the past acts of her predecessors' subjects.

Oh, no, Mr. Heddle! That's what you wished I did, not what I did. I set up no false dilemma of any sort.

You claimed that the Bible (by the way, which one?) is literallycompatible with this and that.

Literally means literally, i.e., "to the letter" (not to the metaphorical spirit, not to the hyperbolic exaggeration, not to the stylistic innovation; to the letter).

I happen to share the opinion that the Bible has parts that were written metaphorically, parts that used stylistic hyperbole, parts that were merely poetic, and so on. I also happen to share the opinion that some of the events described in the Bible really did happen.

So tell me, Mr. Scholar; am I a Biblical "Literalist-mod points 1-5â„¢ too?

It certainly feels like it sometimes. And you missed out Heddle, who's on this thread too. All we need now is for Blast From The Past to make an appearance and we'll have a 'flush' ;).

Would you prefer that it ignore the creationists and everyone spend their time telling one another how fascinated they are with how biology works?

Perhaps one could say that the parts which materially conflict with science are not the important parts of those religions? I mean, it seems to me like from a Christian perspective, things like the salvation of the soul are or ought to be a lot more important than worldly matters like, I dunno, the exact origin of turtles.

For fundamentalist Christians, the 66-book Protestant BIBLE (KJV-only for some) -- and not Jesus -- is their primary object of worship. To them, if you demonstrate any error in their Bible (or more specifically their denomination's interpretation thereof), their either-or mindset tells them it is entirely untrustworthy and certainly not useful for "spiritual edification."

Of course, this is a bogus dichotomy of their own making. But, nevertheless, it is how they "reason." I know this because I am an ex-fundamentalist Christian. Even to this day, vestiges of this kind of black-or-white mentality plagues my thinking on a whole range of issues.

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 10:33 AM (e) (s) ... 1.I know who should not have been called as an expert witness --- Behe, who said that ID is like astrology. Basically, I would have chosen a scientist who views ID as just a criticism of evolution theory rather than as a complete explanation for the origin of species. Also, I would have introduced non-ID criticisms of evolution theory that use scientific arguments. In contrast to the Dover school board, the Cobb County school board did not make big mistakes. It now looks like the appeals court may be leaning towards overturning the ban on the Cobb County evolution-disclaimer textbook stickers. 2.I noticed the way you spelled "defence" --- another non-American on this website? Let's see --- we already have Corkscrew, Dean Morrison, and Steve Elliot. I don't know if you are British, but may I point out that there is no separation of church and state in Britain and that creationism is taught in a lot of British government-funded schools?

Does it really matter whether we take the Bible literally or metaphorically? Either way, to me it's still a collection of Jewish history, law, and mythologies (the Old Testament that is) transcribed from oral to written history and presented as the basis for a religious text. The real question is whether or not these are truly "divinely inspired". Did a burning bush really speak to Moses and identify itself as God, or was Moses suffering from some psychological delusion that we might define in psychiatric terms today? If someone these days claimed to find gold tablets with the true gospel written on it, what would we think? (Oh, wait, the Mormons already bought that one.) Or what about being inhabited by the souls of dead aliens (a la Scientology?) I see no reason to hold Genesis of the Gospels up to the standards of science, because I put no more credibility in them than Scientology. And if the Bible is more metaphor than fact, it still holds no relevance to my understanding of how life and the universe operate.

Why is it always the Bible, the Bible, the Bible??? Could it be that ID is at its core a fundamentalist Christian political crusade? If ID is all about the science, why can't everyone regardless of belief or lack thereof join in?

And you miss the point of my response to Tulse and my original post. The point was that the original Bible is not in conflict with science even if interpreted literally. Yes, you read that correctly - even if interpreted literally, so long as it is translated correctly.

I laugh every time I read that. No doubt fundamentalist Muslim's believe that the Koran advocates jihad and suicide bombing if only the Koran is "translated correctly." Well, what experts should we rely on for this correct translation? Your's?

And why do the correct experts have to be consulted at all? With such an important message as whether we spend eternity in pain or bliss, I'd like to think an Intelligent Being would have done a far better job of speaking for Herself in getting the message out.

Instead, we have to rely on a select few experts (certainly a minority) .... or more specifically we are required to choose the experts to rely on and then hope and pray we are right.

Science demonstrably is different from religion in several ways, but one of the most interesting distinctions is that science converges, whereas religion diverges.

By this I mean that some new discovery or field of study may spawn a large number of scientific schools of thought; however, over time, as observations and experiments contribute to understanding, the number of differing ideas approaches one. Today, for instance, there's not a wide variety of scientific opinions regarding the nature of combustion.

With religion, however, a novel teaching from a new teacher will begin as a single system of thought, but within two generations it will have split into several factions, often virulently hostile to each other. If the religion persists for a thousand years, the number of divergent sects may number in the tens of thousands. (Do you know how many major different kinds of Shi'ite Muslims there are?)

Withal in science, no one cares what some great luminary may believe; the focus is upon what that person has discovered. Since in most cases in religion "discovery" is impossible, the focus is upon belief and authoritative revelation.

Larry Farfarman commented:

"I noticed the way you spelled "defence" --- another non-American on this website?"

That's the idea -

"It's not that they're wicked or naturally bad
It's knowing they're foreign that makes them so mad!"

He also commented:

".. but may I point out that there is no separation of church and state in Britain"

Larry, you may, but why not take a break from posting and check your facts. Look up antidisestablishmentarianism in wiki; it won't take 10 seconds to put yourself right.

Heddle -

My point was that the only religious text whose compatibilty with evolution (and sometimes with cosmology) seems to be of concern is the Bible (in the USA at least). You would expand that to include all of science. So now we have to worry about Physcis, Chemistry, Meteorolgy, etc etc being compatible with the Bible.

But if science is to be "compatible" with religious teachings, then what makes the Bible the supreme authority? Why not the Book of Mormon? Why not the teachings of Rastafarianism? Why not those screwballs who committed group suicide a few years ago?

Who decides what religious text is the authority?

Somehow I don't think the DI would smile on science being subordinated to, say, the Urantia book. No, only the Bible will do. So all this talk of "compatibility" kinda smacks of a religious (primarily fundamentalist Christian in the USA) movement, don't ya think?

Geez, Larry.

Did you really post several times saying "this is what I would have done to win the case."? Then post saying that this case was unwinnable and you wouldn't have taken it? You wonder why no one takes you seriously. Oh, and while you're looking at your own thread history, contemplate in what ways it is similar to the DI's propoganda history. Discuss. See if you can get this on Dembski's final exam.

Gav - you just wanted to say 'antidisestablishmentarianism' didn't you?

Don't expect Larry to understand our Geography.

Why is so much weight being given to the opinion that a single judge --- who is not even a scientist and who has studied ID for only a short time --- has about ID?

— Larry

But with a different judge and different experts, it is conceivable that a different decision --- or maybe even no decision ( on the issues of ID as science and ID as religion ) --- would have been reached.

— Larry

Also, having different scientific experts might have made a difference. Furthermore, the judge did not get a broad range of opinions on ID, but only got the narrow range of opinions that the testifying scientific experts provided him.

— Larry

By this I mean that some new discovery or field of study may spawn a large number of scientific schools of thought; however, over time, as observations and experiments contribute to understanding, the number of differing ideas approaches one. Today, for instance, there's not a wide variety of scientific opinions regarding the nature of combustion. With religion, however, a novel teaching from a new teacher will begin as a single system of thought, but within two generations it will have split into several factions, often virulently hostile to each other. If the religion persists for a thousand years, the number of divergent sects may number in the tens of thousands.

This is a slight change of subject but I just realized why Dembski and the ID people claim the evidence for evolution doesn't exist. I'm not sure if they really believe this, but I can see how they can pitch that argument to people who are largely ignorant about science. (Sorry to be so un-pc, but it is simply a fact about many ordinary, but otherwise reasonably intelligent, lay people.)

They are counting on the supposition that most lay people don't understand the nature of scientific evidence. Most of what scientists view as supporting evidence for a theory involves data or observations confirming predictions or expectations based on the theory, but otherwise a priori improbable.

This is easily expressed in terms of Baye's theorem, where the likelyhood of the whole set confirmed predictions of a theory, p(E|T), is 1 and the a priori probability of the theory, p(T), may be small but is still significantly larger than the a priori probability of the complete evidence, p(E), that is, of the complete set of predictions relative to random outcomes. This gives a large value of p(T|E)=p(E|T)P(T)/P(E), which is the subjective probability of the theory, given the evidence. One should be careful not to take this too seriously, numerically, in particular cases as, say, an epistemological argument, at least most of the time, since a priori probability assignments are subjective and therefore time-bound and sometimes too arbitrary to be very meaningful. However, it seems to express the intuitions upon which most plausible inferences are made by people and provides some degree of justification for those intuitions. This Bayesian intuition also appears to underly the concept of consciliance, although that may be slightly weaker confirmed predictions. But I think that conciliance can also by understood within the probabilistic/logical framework of Bayesian probabilities.

But, steering away from formalism, it should be enough to point out that these are exactly the same set of reasoning tools that we use for all of our probable inferences, such as when a detective investigates a crime or a jury (or TV new audience) decides the guilt or innocence of a defendent, often based largely on circumstantial evidence. In fact, "circumstantial evidence" is sometimes enough to convict someone of a crime in cases where such evidenct is considered strong, i.e., in cases where there is a good deal of consciliance between acknowledged facts and those that might be expected based on the hypothesis of guilt.

With this understanding of evidence, which most of us take for granted, there is an enormous amount of evidence supporting evolution. But Dembski and other creationists seem to demand some kind of more direct evidence, something like the observation of a large mamallian species evolving to another species within a humanly observable time-span. This is analogous to demanding a witness to a crime instead of circumstantial evidence. Note, however, that the court-room analogy breaks down here because other types of evidence, that are not typically considered circumstantial, are also often considered definitive. Things like fingerprints or bloodstains, showing the defendent was at least present at scene of the crime, for instance, or shell casings matching a gun that belonged to the defendent. There are many analogies in the case for evolution as well, things like common genes, features and diseases, hard data such as carbon dating data, etc. A biologist could make this list a lot better than I. But the IDers and other creationists simply dismiss such evidence as irrelevant or wrong. I wonder if these social conservatives would do the same with the analogous evidence in a criminal case.

A couple of final notes: There actually is only a difference in degree between "hard" evidence and ordinary circumstantial evidence - there can almost always be alternative explanations for "hard evidence" - however the line is drawn because alternative explanations for facts of that sort are understood to be generically improbable (a priori). So on the whole, all of our intuitive probabilistic inferences appear to involve consciliance and predictive consistency of this informal Bayesian, or quasi-Bayesian sort. (I'm well aware that we actually use crude algorithms that give "good enough" solutions in common, or once common circumstances, so that cognitive psychologists might consider that statement naive. The phrase "informal quasi-Baysian" was a deliberate weasle intended to be sufficiently vague to cover real mental processes so I could state my point without getting diverted into those issues.)

Second, while there is a great deal in favor of evolution in terms of both explanatory power and evidence of the sort discussed above - a great many conscilant facts, if not outright confirmed predictions - ID offers nothing of the sort. It makes no predictions at all!!! If you were desparate, you could think of their design "inference" as a "prediction", it could only be a prediction if you allowed for circular predictions. Other than their design "inference", they are explicit about their conscious refusal to infer any specific predications about any facts of the natural world. This is why ID is not science. Science ties together disparate facts about the world. Sometimes they are connected by covering laws and sometimes under less rigid relationships. But good scientific theories make bold predictions beyond the context in which they were first infered or inspired. And they are predictions which can be wrong.

I recall Dembski somewhere made the innane comment that they don't "have to provide" predictions with "the same ridiculous level of detail" that scientists have to provide. So they can explain the existence of everything and the particulars of literally nothing. Then, ID may be metaphysics, and you may judge it by whatever standards are deemed to apply there, but it not, and can not be science.

That's the idea - "It's not that they're wicked or naturally bad It's knowing they're foreign that makes them so mad!"

— Gav

My point was that the only religious text whose compatibilty with evolution (and sometimes with cosmology) seems to be of concern is the Bible (in the USA at least). You would expand that to include all of science. So now we have to worry about Physcis, Chemistry, Meteorolgy, etc etc being compatible with the Bible. But if science is to be "compatible" with religious teachings, then what makes the Bible the supreme authority? Why not the Book of Mormon? Why not the teachings of Rastafarianism? Why not those screwballs who committed group suicide a few years ago? Who decides what religious text is the authority? Somehow I don't think the DI would smile on science being subordinated to, say, the Urantia book. No, only the Bible will do. So all this talk of "compatibility" kinda smacks of a religious (primarily fundamentalist Christian in the USA) movement, don't ya think?

Now, I find this interesting cos I'm currently studying QM and there's a very obvious question that arises: if God is omniscient - sees everything - then why isn't he continually collapsing the wavefunction? Seems like a quantum universe + an omniscient God would behave exactly like a classical universe.

— Corkscrew

It either is consistent in what it says about science, or it isn't, regardless of whether you view it as a holy book.

Biblical inconsistency is not important to me, until certain folks use the Bible to try and push pseudo-scientific gibberish like CreatioIDism on unsuspecting high school students.

Then....game on, you nutjobs.

Comment #69087 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 9, 2006 12:39 PM 1.Behe is probably the only biologist the ID movement have. He did not say ID was like astrology. Rather he said that the way scientific standards would have to be changed in order to include ID they would also then allow astrology in.

2.Do you have a problem with British posters? No other colonialists seem to object. Creationism is taught in some British schools Larry. One of the few statements you have made that is correct. However creationism is taught in religious education. Evolution is taught in biology classes.

Fundamentalism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In comparative religion, fundamentalism has come to refer to several different understandings of religious thought and practice, including literal interpretation of sacred texts such as the Bible or the Quran and sometimes also anti-modernist movements in various religions. In some ways religious fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon, characterized by a sense of embattled alienation in the midst of the surrounding culture, even where the culture may be nominally influenced by the adherents' religion. The term can also refer specifically to the belief that one's religious texts are infallible and historically accurate, despite possible contradiction of these claims by modern scholarship. Many groups described as fundamentalist often strongly object to this term because of the negative connotations it carries, or because it implies a similarity between themselves and other groups, which they find objectionable.

We've been through this before. Creationism is taught as science in some British government-supported schools. See "Creationists taking over state schools," ------

Science to an important degree recognizes and ratifies the religious approach.

— Flint

In some important respects, respect for evidence is very much an acquired trait.

"Christians have a choice when they notice contradictions between that book and the real world. They can make special excuses that it doesn't really say what it says, so there's no conflict, or they can stick with it like Ken Ham and say science is wrong."

Or perhaps there is a third choice; that human spirituality lies outside the physical world, that mysteries such as love cannot be distilled down to measurements, and that the Bible offers ONE moral tradition, a series of stories and metaphors that teach us how to care for others and to find meaning. I am not a spiritual person, but many in my family are (I envy them sometimes) and I don't think that religion should be used to control others but to inspire us to help others. I don't need (or want) science to justify or deny that. Trying to find "God" or whatever other mystery you want in a bacteria flagellum reduces it down to a physical idea, and something very important is lost. Religion should free us to look beyond the physical but not prevent us from learning about the physical world in all of its complexity. By over analyzing the Bible word for word, are we not losing sight of the bigger picture?

It should be obvious that I am not a Bible scholar. However, it used to frustrate me in college when in English we never looked at literature or poetry from a sociological or historical angle. We just simply analyzed the work, line by line, word by word. I know that this has value, but it seemed to miss an important point-that literature reflects the human condition, and is a window into the mind of the writer.

I came to my own conclusion that fundamentalism is in itself a political movement; an attempt to control the hearts, minds and behavior of people.

Comment #69104 posted by blipey on January 9, 2006 01:32 PM Geez, Larry. Did you really post several times saying "this is what I would have done to win the case."? Then post saying that this case was unwinnable and you wouldn't have taken it? You wonder why no one takes you seriously.

This is a mystifying remark. What aspects of religion are ratified by science?

As for those other books, once again it is up to their champions to decide whether consistency with science is important. I don't care at all, which is why if a Rastafanarian claims that his sacred writings are consistent (or inconsistent) with science---that's fine with me, I don't care and wouldn't engage. The fact that atheists do engage with those us who claim that Bible is consistent with science, the fact that there are websites and books devoted to the subject, the fact that people will parrot the same alleged discrepancies, all this demonstrates my claim that they do, in fact care deeply---because biblical inconsistency is very important to many atheists.

— David Heddle

Under the circumstances, I don't think that anything could have been done to win the case.

The term can also refer specifically to the belief that one's religious texts are infallible and historically accurate, despite possible contradiction of these claims by modern scholarship.

Aureola,

You would be right about Biblical interpretation if it were done on an ad hoc basis, sometimes literally, sometimes metaphorically, sometimes allegorically, sometimes sarcastically or whatever, without ryme or reason. What David is saying, and he is absolutely correct, is that there are sensible rules. I would summarize those rules for simplicity's sake as follows: Interpret literally except where an ordinary person engaged in everyday conversation would be expected to know to interpret otherwise.

Randy,

The fact that no Hebrew Biblical documents older than the dead sea scrolls have YET been found, does not at all mean those writings first appeared at that time. Quite the contrary. Those revered (by the Essenes) writings must have been very old by the time they were recorded in the scrolls. We find the Talmudists engaged in conversation and debate about their oral tradition pertaining to the Bible, a tradition they cite as going back to over one thousand years. And other archeological finds establish many other aspects of the Hebrew Bible, going back centuries prior to the dead sea scrolls.

Be that as it may, when I use the term "original" I mean "as opposed to translations". I think reasonable people everywhere can agree that original documents of any type are always more authentic, more faithful to the intent of the author, than translations, especially multi-generational translations.

A lesser-known or unknown scientist who would not say that ID is like astrology would be preferable to Behe.

— Larry

ID can be taught without changing scientific standards --- just teach it as a criticism of evolution theory.

No, they were mostly developed early on by good scientific Arab and Muslim thinkers, while Christians were mired in the Dark Ages. Keep in mind that 'algebra', algorithm', and 'cypher' are from Arabic.

All I said was that the case was unwinnable with the facts as they were. I also described how I would have changed those facts to create some chance of winning the case.

I think all this discussion about the bible fun. Mostly because the bible as a writen book had "evolution" itself (it changed over the time, so the bible "evolved").

See "documentary hypothesis" at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis)

"The hypothesis proposes that the Torah was composed from four earlier source texts, which were combined by a redactor (referred to as R).

J - the Jahwist. J describes a humanlike God called Yahweh and has its main interest reflecting Judah and the Aaronid priesthood. J has an extremely eloquent style. J uses an earlier form of the Hebrew language than P.
E - the Elohist. E describes a humanlike God initially called El (which is sometimes Elohim according to the rules of Hebrew grammar), and called Yahweh after the burning bush, and has its main interest reflecting biblical Israel and the Shiloh priesthood. E has a moderately eloquent style. E uses an earlier form of the Hebrew language than P.
P - the Priestly source. P describes a distant and unmerciful (but just) God sometimes referred to as Elohim and El Shaddai. P partly duplicates J and E, but altering details to suit P's opinion, and also consists of most of Leviticus. P has its main interest in an Aaronid priesthood and King Hezekiah. P has a low level of literary style, and has an interest in lists and dates.
D - the Deuteronomist. D consists entirely of most of Deuteronomy. D probably also wrote the Deteronomistic history (Josh, Judg, 1 & 2 Sam, 1 & 2 Kgs). D has its interest reflecting the Shiloh priesthood and King Josiah. D uses a form of Hebrew similar to P, but in a different literary style."

By the way, the Flood is a summerian mythos, you will find a better account at "Gilgamesh", the bible account appear be a resumeé from the more complete summerian account. Not surprisingly the Babel account appear refer to a summerian city, Babylon (greek variant of akkadian Babilu), that had a huge ziggurat (other think that Erech was "Babel", because Erech had a greater ziggurat; both cities had a lof of diferent languages as any modern metropolis). And "Eden" is itself a summerian name (eden = plain) and the seven days account for the creation mythos (there are two accounts at the Genesis book) problably come from the chaldean astrology (FIRST DAY, Sun: creation of light; SECOND DAY, Moon: holds the heavens up from the Earth;THIRD DAY, Mars: the ocean is fought back; FOURTH DAY, Mercury: the lore of "signs and seasons"; FIFTH DAY, Jupiter: all living things created; SIXTH DAY, Venus: the living things learn to couple with each other; SEVENTH DAY, Saturn: the gods rest; you can note that the semitic people not knew the planet Mercury and that Mercury was discovered by the chaldean astologers).

So, why we need make so much mess about some summerian mythos and some chaldean astrology?

Sorry my bad english, my native language is portuguese.

I feel quite at home in the NASCAR Nation. Ergo I am not a fundamentalist.

No, I didn't say religion, I said the religious approach of "snag their minds while they're young, and orient them in the desired direction."

— Flint

(And incidentally, not being knowledgeable about astrology, I'm not sure I understand what "predictions" it makes. I've read a few newspaper horoscopes (the one-size-fits-all "predictions") and found them to be so hazy that nearly anthing that happens can be stretched to qualify. To me, those are NOT predictions, they are bafflegab. What am I missing?)

Posted by Caol Clouser on January 9, 2006 02:41 PM (e) (s) Aureola, You would be right about Biblical interpretation if it were done on an ad hoc basis, sometimes literally, sometimes metaphorically, sometimes allegorically, sometimes sarcastically or whatever, without ryme or reason. What David is saying, and he is absolutely correct, is that there are sensible rules. I would summarize those rules for simplicity's sake as follows: Interpret literally except where an ordinary person engaged in everyday conversation would be expected to know to interpret otherwise. Randy, The fact that no Hebrew Biblical documents older than the dead sea scrolls have YET been found, does not at all mean those writings first appeared at that time. Quite the contrary. Those revered (by the Essenes) writings must have been very old by the time they were recorded in the scrolls. We find the Talmudists engaged in conversation and debate about their oral tradition pertaining to the Bible, a tradition they cite as going back to over one thousand years. And other archeological finds establish many other aspects of the Hebrew Bible, going back centuries prior to the dead sea scrolls. Be that as it may, when I use the term "original" I mean "as opposed to translations". I think reasonable people everywhere can agree that original documents of any type are always more authentic, more faithful to the intent of the author, than translations, especially multi-generational translations.

Larry is now reduced to writing:

If I had been forced to represent the defendants, I would have advised them to avoid the mistakes I enumerated.

This sounds depressingly similar to the excuse used by Marxists to explain away the total failure of every Communist regime ever created: yes, the USSR was a total failure, but it wasn't really "True Communism," they were led astray by Stalin's mistakes. The next revolution, in China, will be better, trust us, that Little Red Book makes so much sense...okay, China was a failure, but our ideology is still valid; let's look to Cuba for a better example...okay, Cuba sucks too, let's all wave a banner for Ho Chih Minh and Pol Pot...oh dear, that was a hideous fiasco -- but the Sandinistas will vindicate our ideology...

Give it up, Larry. Or perhaps I should say, admit you've given up and stop pretending you haven't. The only people you're fooling are the ones who want to be fooled, and they don't tend to hang around here.

All I said was that the case was unwinnable with the facts as they were. I also described how I would have changed those facts to create some chance of winning the case.

— Larry F

Sin bin for rogue witnesses Adam Cresswell, Health editor January 10, 2006 A SPORT-STYLE system of red and yellow cards is being considered to deal with rogue expert witnesses whose eccentric or irrational views are skewing medical negligence cases. ...

Last comment about astrology, I promise:

Astrology actually would not be properly inserted into an astronomy course as a putative "competing theory", since it actually says almost nothing about the nature and history of the stars and planets themselves. It would actually need to be inserted into biology, sociology and psychology courses, since its main thrust is "the effect of heavenly bodies on Earthly bodies", more or less.

In fact, one might need to "teach the controversy" in those areas where astrology and ID might overlap to some extent.

AC said:

David Heddle wrote: As for those other books, once again it is up to their champions to decide whether consistency with science is important. I don't care at all, which is why if a Rastafanarian [sic] claims that his sacred writings are consistent (or inconsistent) with science---that's fine with me, I don't care and wouldn't engage. The fact that atheists do engage with those us who claim that Bible is consistent with science, the fact that there are websites and books devoted to the subject, the fact that people will parrot the same alleged discrepancies, all this demonstrates my claim that they do, in fact care deeply---because biblical inconsistency is very important to many atheists.

I reiterate, the number of refutations of Rastafarian science consistency is directly proportional to the number of people claiming that Rastafarianism is consistent with science. Not many of those, are there?

Comment #68898 was way out of line. Carol may be wrong (in fact, I'm almost sure she is), and as far as I can see, she has yet to back up her general assertrions with any specific instances; but calling her a troll is uncalled-for. She is, at the very least, more honest and less obnoxious than Larry. Not that that's saying a lot...

I think reasonable people everywhere can agree that original documents of any type are always more authentic, more faithful to the intent of the author, than translations, especially multi-generational translations.

Interpret literally except where an ordinary person engaged in everyday conversation would be expected to know to interpret otherwise.

Heddle -

So what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that you don't care about science's "compatibilty" with any religious text besides the Bible.

OK, that's fine - that's your religious opinion.

But why should science necessarily have to be "compatible" with the Bible (or any other religious text)? Would you consult a chemistry textbook if you needed comforting over the death of a loved one? I doubt it. Then why look to a religious text for validation of phyiscal or biological theory?

Why the conflation of empirical knowledge with moral guidance?

Stephen Elliot: don't forget that Dawkins has his program 'Religion - the root of all evil? on C$ in the UK right now!!

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 03:25 PM (e) (s) Stephen Elliot: don't forget that Dawkins has his program 'Religion - the root of all evil? on C$ in the UK right now!!

In college I learned quite a bit about speciation in various evolutionary biology courses. The problem is, as this indicates, speciation just means reproductive isolation ("a population stop mating with others"). This doesn't mean you have observed the origin of something truly new. All they observed was that two bird populations migrated at different times so they didn't mate anymore. No big deal.

I previsouly wrote a post explaining why viral evolution doesn't entail the origin of any new genetic information, and why it really isn't an impressive example of evolution! The feared evolution of the Avian flu essentially entails the swapping of pre-existing genes to produce a new virus composed of pre-existing genes.

This is evolution, but not a very impressive example of such.

Dean,
Found it....CH4

I haven't searched, and don't plan to, but can Mr. Heddle present a single occurrence of a group of atheists spontaneously debating the scientific accuracy of the Bible without first being provoked by Christians?

But why should science necessarily have to be "compatible" with the Bible (or any other religious text)? Would you consult a chemistry textbook if you needed comforting over the death of a loved one? I doubt it. Then why look to a religious text for validation of phyiscal or biological theory?

Looks like the IDiots over at TelicThoughts have taken a page from the Dembski playbook. They are now banning people outright for posting polite but dissenting opinions, claiming these posters are really "trolls".

The latest action stems from a blog by Steve Petermann, a computer science guy with no training in biology who claims (surprise!) that his engineering analysis shows ToE to be impossible. He is making the same typical creationist claims (i.e. "Darwinism states that things evolve by blind chance"), and has deleted / banned those who politely pointed out his glaring errors.

Seems the ID guys just can't figure out that censorship and banning will only hurt their cause.

Great line from the Dawkins documentary :

"We're all atheists about most of the gods that have ever existed; it's just that atheists like me go one step further".

I can't see them ever showing this in America without a huge outcry - here it'll be shown without anyone taking much notice (or at least get less attention than George Galloway on 'Celebrity Big Brother) - part 2 next week.

(Sorry C4 of course Steve - only just noticed the typo)

Mr./Dr.? Heddle,
I can't understand why you would believe the bible to be inerrant.
Are the writings and experiences of bronze/iron and stone age people more relevant than your own?

Perhaps a techo-geek fan of PT could get in touch with our site creators and help to automatically re-route any post from Larry, Heddle and Ms. Clouse to another part of the Panda anatomy? Since their ideas and comments so often seem to be pulled from their fundaments and after all they are fundamentalists, perhaps the Panda's Arse might be an appropriate title.

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 03:56 PM (e) (s) Great line from the Dawkins documentary : "We're all atheists about most of the gods that have ever existed; it's just that atheists like me go one step further". I can't see them ever showing this in America without a huge outcry - here it'll be shown without anyone taking much notice (or at least get less attention than George Galloway on 'Celebrity Big Brother) - part 2 next week. (Sorry C4 of course Steve - only just noticed the typo)

Mr./Dr.? Heddle, I can't understand why you would believe the bible to be inerrant. Are the writings and experiences of bronze/iron and stone age people more relevant than your own?

Dr. Heddle,
Actually I do care. I am not anti-religion. I just see no reason to treat the bible as inerrant. I would be interested in a theological conversation/argument. But it would probably be better to do it on AtBC.

David Heddle spots Emily, the social worker:

David: "You hypocrite! You care deeply about heroin."
Emily: "Huh?"
David: "Heroin is very important to you."
Emily: "Well, that's kind of a vague statement, isnt' it?
David: "Heroin is very important to you. You put up webpages telling people not to use it. You argue with junkies about whether it's good."
Emily: "Well, yes, I did those things."
David: Like I said. All you social workers care deeply about heroin."
Emily: "You're a dumbass."

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 03:56 PM (e) (s) Great line from the Dawkins documentary :

I don't agree with Heddle that Catholics qualify as 'fundamentalists' as in his opinion they follow an unswerving literal interpretation of the Bible. They do seem to be able to be persuaded that their interpretion might be wrong - and even apologised to Galileo. Can't see the fundies apologising for anything - let alone that that Darwin fella might have been right all along.

Doesn't mean that I don't have problems with Catholicism though - The Popes 'infallible' views on contraception and the use of condoms in HIV-riddled Africa is something I with which I have a problem - 'reasonable theist' or not. At least guys like you and Ken Millar are rational though Steve - and probably a lot more fun to sit down and have a chat over a pint with; than the frothing at the mouth trolls we get here.

More info on the Dawkins documentary here:

'The Root of all evil'

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 04:19 PM (e) (s) I don't agree with Heddle that Catholics qualify as 'fundamentalists' as in his opinion they follow an unswerving literal interpretation of the Bible. They do seem to be able to be persuaded that their interpretion might be wrong - and even apologised to Galileo. Can't see the fundies apologising for anything - let alone that that Darwin fella might have been right all along. Doesn't mean that I don't have problems with Catholicism though - The Popes 'infallible' views on contraception and the use of condoms in HIV-riddled Africa is something I with which I have a problem - 'reasonable theist' or not. At least guys like you and Ken Millar are rational though Steve - and probably a lot more fun to sit down and have a chat over a pint with; than the frothing at the mouth trolls we get here.

Stephen Elliott,

Well, in a nutshell because the bible makes very lofty self-referential claims, if it is not inerrant, then it is a pack of lies --and consequently we have no reason to believe that its message of salvation is real. That is why I want to believe the bible is inerrant. Why I actually believe it is inerrant is much more complicated.

Dean Morrison,

Dis you misread or are you purposely mischaracterizing what I wrote? I never said that the Catholics follow an unswerving literal interpretation (neither do I.) I said, apropos your wikipedia definition of fundamentalism, which included in part:

The term can also refer specifically to the belief that one's religious texts are infallible and historically accurate

that the Roman Catholic Church affirms, magisterially, the inerrancy of scripture. She does. So by that definition Catholics including Ken Miller (those who affirm the teachings of their own church) are fundamentalists.

The fact that Rome apologized to Galileo is irrelvant. It is not an admission that the bible contains error, it is an admission those who (without biblical support--it wasn't actually worse than a bad interpretation) demanded that the earth be at the center of the cosmos.

As for beer, I like Coors or Iron City.

Atheists, on the other hand, readily respond to such claims about the bible. Sorry, the evidence is clear that you really do care that the bible simply must be incompatible with science.

Panda's Arse might be an appropriate title.

Comment #69126 Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 02:26 PM (e) (s) All I said was that the case was unwinnable with the facts as they were. I also described how I would have changed those facts to create some chance of winning the case. The Cobb County school board did not make the big mistakes that the Dover area school board made, and it looks like the Cobb County school board has a chance of winning its appeal of the ban on the evolution-disclaimer textbook stickers.

One of the pleasures (there have to be some) of being addicted to this debate even though I'm far away in the UK is that it's educational. In particular, the business of ID being the same order of thinking as astrology has been enlightening -- and here I must thank my partner, who's an expert in early modern Scottish history and takes quite an interest in current creationist/ID happenings.

It turns out that in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, ideas like demonology, astrology and alchemy were indeed thought of by rational people who considered themselves part of the Enlightenment as being equally as valid as scientific ideas as astronomy, chemistry and physics (with apologies for using modern terms for ideas that had not been so differentiated then). Demonology in particular was significant, as people were frequently tried, convicted and executed for witchcraft - the evidence for which had to be compatible with contemporary legal thought. For a while, demonology worked by collecting people's reports of what had happened -- "Sure, she was asleep next to her husband in Pitenweem on the night that the cow was cursed, but the Devil left a double behind while she flew to Aberdour and appeared to me while casting her spell" -- and that was evidence enough.

Eventually, though, the lawyers grew uncomfortable with this. There was literally no defence against this sort of accusation, and as the idea that proof should be empirically tested grew the limitations of relying on personal statements became apparent. In the end, witchcraft was never disproved as a legal phenomenon -- but it could never be proven either, and the lawyers refused to prosecute the cases. At the same time, the non-empirical traditions fell away from the corpus of scientific thought: it's intriguing to speculate about how law and science cross-fertilised at the time, as it was quite in order for people to maintain parallel specialisations and a self-respecting enlightenment thinker would pride themselves of being abreast of all developments whether they were nominally medic, lawyer or cleric. That's something we've lost, with certain noble exceptions.

The parallels with Dover are compelling - but it cannot be denied that the highest traditions of law (where I'd place constitutional issues) are entirely resonant with those of the Enlightenment. There is now no defence of God or the Devil in the courtroom, so perhaps ID's proponents should not be surprised that their special pleadings find no echo.

R

Posted by Alan Fox on January 9, 2006 04:40 PM (e) (s) Panda's Arse might be an appropriate title. Seconded.

Or maybe, in the interest of our younger readers, Panda's Rump, er, Panda's Rumpus Room...

Comment #68898 was way out of line. Carol may be wrong (in fact, I'm almost sure she is), and as far as I can see, she has yet to back up her general assertrions with any specific instances; but calling her a troll is uncalled-for. She is, at the very least, more honest and less obnoxious than Larry. Not that that's saying a lot...

It is best to let creationists post and let lurkers see how they are rebutted.

Why does everyone fail to see Carol's and David's dilemma? like so many others, it starts with their own desires.They want a God or a savior, they crave a better world, a heaven, and of course a book(the bible) with all the right answers,then they project those desires into their own versions of reality. Any ideas that may refute or challenge their religious concepts,must be swept aside or totally dismissed, this reinforces their faith system.When David looks to explain certain scientific problems within the bible, he proceeds, not in a neutral manner,to find the truth, but in a frame of mind that the bible must be correct, and any other explanation simply is not an alternative.
I would lay the burden of truth squarely at their feet,prove the bible is valid, truthful,inerrant,and contains no errors.If you concede that there is one, single error,you open up Pandoras Box to the total validity of all the book.The bible clearly states that"ALL scriptures are inspired by God"not just the ones David,Carol,or any other, so called bible scholars have decided upon, ALL means All. John Wesley said "If there is only one falsehood in the bible,it could not be inspired by God" I would agree.
If I were to rhetorically? ask both David and Carol if, they were presented with overwhelming evidence that would prove conclusively that their beliefs were false, would they accept it?I feel they would answer, that no such evidence could ever exist.

Astrology actually would not be properly inserted into an astronomy course as a putative "competing theory", since it actually says almost nothing about the nature and history of the stars and planets themselves. It would actually need to be inserted into biology, sociology and psychology courses, since its main thrust is "the effect of heavenly bodies on Earthly bodies", more or less.

impervious,

I do not think atheists are plotting to destroy Christianity. What gave you that idea? And if they were, it would be just about the last thing I would worry about.

What I have been saying is that they care--not all--but especially those with an interest in science--that the bible be deemed irreconcilable with science. It is important, I suspect, for their feelings of self-consistency.

JONBOY,

I agree with much of your comment. I earlier wrote: "Well, in a nutshell because the bible makes very lofty self-referential claims, if it is not inerrant, then it is a pack of lies ---and consequently we have no reason to believe that its message of salvation is real."

Comment #69087 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 9, 2006 12:39 PM 1.Behe is probably the only biologist the ID movement have. He did not say ID was like astrology. Rather he said that the way scientific standards would have to be changed in order to include ID they would also then allow astrology in.

No, there must be hundreds of biologists who support ID

— Larry Fafarman

Dr. Heddle,
Surely it should be God that is inerrant rather than the writings of a few ancient people.
How do you know that they didn't just make it up?

Is this nonsense not simply proof that the God of the Gaps is in retreat even on the pages of the Bible? The Bible is "literally" true... except where it has to be carefully and creatively interpreted by the likes of Heddle so as not to conflict with science. Apparently this requires one to abandon any sort of literal reading of the definition of the dictionary entry under 'literal'.

Mr. Heddle,
I think you miss two points. First, it's not the "evolutionists", nor even the proponents on this blog who claim that the Bible must be read absolutely "literally". It is a small subset of "fundamentalists" who claim that the Bible is the inerrant, literal word of God. As these fundamentalists describe it, "inerrant" means that there is no waffling. These fundamentalists (not the assembled bloggers) say that the Bible does *not* speak in metaphor (except where a given character such as Jesus says he/she is telling a story). The fundamentalists say there is *no* mistranslation. I have heard it described that the Hand of God guided each hand of each translator, so there can be no error in translation. If, as you say, many parts of the Bible are not to be taken verbatim, but can be seen as metaphor where needed, then I don't think anyone here has a problem.

(BTW, your arguments about bats-as-birds and the dimensions of a particular metal circle seem quite reasonable, especially the problems of translation. But then with those qualifiers, we're no longer talking about a "literal", "inerrant" reading of a particular English version of the Bible. In that case, we're talking about what the Bronze and Iron Age folks thought about their world at that time, which may be quite different than what we know today. It may have been "true" as far as they knew, even though it may have been wrong.)

The second point you appear to miss is what these assembled bloggers actually get upset about. If the "fundamentalists" only claimed that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, no one here would get upset. What they DO get upset about is when these same "fundamentalists" start claiming that large parts of science are in error, and society (and in particular the government) much teach our children that proven science is wrong, and that the ONLY truth can be found in the Bible. *That's* what people get upset about.

If you aren't making either of those two claims (inerrancy or science-is-wrong), then I don't think anyone here has any issue.

Scott
-----
P.S. Except for those hard core cases who just like to argue and throw insults around. ;-)

I 100% agree with anti-troll (Auntie?), and add it is not best when I have to skim over a deluge of drivel by David H., Carol C., or that new, near Platonic Ideal of dumbnessity, Larry. F. (Although I still believe L.F. might be a particularly extended joker, however not funny his brand of humor would be.)
I really am getting to the point of just leaving this site: these are more than people I don't simply disagree with: they are harpies who befoul every possible discussion.

(Oh, and a special note to C.C. and D.H.: Even skimming past your endlessly repetitive posts, I still find I cannot avoid ending up with the stench of your self-absorption on the heels of my consciousness, due to so many people being fascinated with challenging (or baiting, perhaps) you. I'll address you both directly, I hope for the very last time in this life: most of us, atheist or not, here don't give a flying f--- about the Bible in relation to science. Much, MUCH wiser, smarter, more eloquent, more tactfully forceful people than you have exhausted that line of inquiry entirely, perhaps over a hundred years ago. You and your sort (GoP or Blast) are not merely wrong -- often ignorantly, often dishonestly, willfully wrong -- in EVERY assertion you make but boring: inventive, passe, not novel, not even cute. If I want to see CREATIVE insanity, I need but google "kooks" to find honest nutcases, from whom I can learn far much more about being human than you can now ever hope to be, stunted and "spiritually" blind as you are.)

It is not an admission that the bible contains error, it is an admission those who (without biblical support---it wasn't actually worse than a bad interpretation) demanded that the earth be at the center of the cosmos.

It had better be "Real Ale" though. Or I will get all fundy and preachy

Posted by RupertG on January 9, 2006 04:47 PM (e) (s) One of the pleasures (there have to be some) of being addicted to this debate even though I'm far away in the UK is that it's educational. In particular, the business of ID being the same order of thinking as astrology has been enlightening --- and here I must thank my partner, who's an expert in early modern Scottish history and takes quite an interest in current creationist/ID happenings.

"...if it is not inerrant, then it is a pack of lies ---and consequently we have no reason to believe that its message of salvation is real."

— Heddle

Looks like the IDiots over at TelicThoughts have taken a page from the Dembski playbook. They are now banning people outright for posting polite but dissenting opinions, claiming these posters are really "trolls".

I do not think atheists are plotting to destroy Christianity. What gave you that idea? And if they were, it would be just about the last thing I would worry about.

— Heddle

Re: 69211

In fairness, this post was about Dembski, so it was doomed to become a "moronic debate" from the start.

They want a God or a savior, they crave a better world, a heaven, and of course a book(the bible) with all the right answers,then they project those desires into their own versions of reality. Any ideas that may refute or challenge their religious concepts,must be swept aside or totally dismissed, this reinforces their faith system.

What I have been saying is that they care---not all---but especially those with an interest in science---that the bible be deemed irreconcilable with science. It is important, I suspect, for their feelings of self-consistency.

Why is provoking an issue? If a Rastafanarian "provokes" me by claiming his book is scientifically inerrant---I won't respond because I simply don't care. Atheists, on the other hand, readily respond to such claims about the bible. Sorry, the evidence is clear that you really do care that the bible simply must be incompatible with science.

— David Heddle

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 05:34 PM (e) (s) It is not an admission that the bible contains error, it is an admission those who (without biblical support---it wasn't actually worse than a bad interpretation) demanded that the earth be at the center of the cosmos. you left the sentence unfinished Heddle - what happened - too much froth come out of your mouth? Steve Elliot wrote: It had better be "Real Ale" though. Or I will get all fundy and preachy no problems there mate - our local brew is Harveys - CAMRA Champion best beer of Britain 2005! (I have theory that pisswater the colonials drink addles their brains - but I won't share it because I'm sure there's a comrade or two who also enjoys the stuff.

I have theory that pisswater the colonials drink addles their brains

If you look at Dembksi's, ARN's, and a few other IDC blogs you can see an authoritarian type of get out of line and you will be punished party line seems to be a part of IDC culture. This makes perfect sense, especailly when you realize that it only take a few questions to bring the whole house of cards down.

It is a small subset of "fundamentalists" who claim that the Bible is the inerrant, literal word of God. As these fundamentalists describe it, "inerrant" means that there is no waffling. These fundamentalists (not the assembled bloggers) say that the Bible does *not* speak in metaphor (except where a given character such as Jesus says he/she is telling a story).

No, there must be hundreds of biologists who support ID.

You want to be taken seriously and not be insulted, yet you make inane comments like these?

Please. Do a LITTLE research. It really, really, really helps your arguments when you bring even one teeny tiny fact to the table.

January 8, 2006 Reminder To Stay On Message This applies to everyone writing articles as well as writing comments. Professor Dembski excepted of course. The topic and purpose of this weblog is to instruct and promote the intelligent design work of Bill Dembski in particular and the ID movement in general. We are trying to convince that world that ID is based on math, science, and logic. While the implications tend to attract religious devotees in large number ID is not about religion.

No, there must be hundreds of biologists who support ID.

No, there must be hundreds of biologists who support ID.

Comment #69154 posted by Michael Rathbun, FCD on January 9, 2006 03:14 PM Astrology actually would not be properly inserted into an astronomy course as a putative "competing theory", since it actually says almost nothing about the nature and history of the stars and planets themselves. It would actually need to be inserted into biology, sociology and psychology courses, since its main thrust is "the effect of heavenly bodies on Earthly bodies", more or less.

Can someone please explain to me in what sense Dembski is a "scientist"?

Dembski is a scientist like Elmer Fudd is a hunter.

I am a fan of "Bombardier", "London Pride" and "Abbot's Ale" and of course "Old speckled hen".

— Stephen Elliott

Comment #69239 posted by Mr Christopher on January 9, 2006 05:35 PM ****Looks like the IDiots over at TelicThoughts have taken a page from the Dembski playbook. They are now banning people outright for posting polite but dissenting opinions, claiming these posters are really "trolls".**** Dave Scot is banning at least one person a day at Demsbiki's smile a while a day camp IDC blog. Not for disagreeing either, he is banning IDC supporters who do not share Dave's personal values and opinions.

Where do you live? I am a fan of "Bombardier", "London Pride" and "Abbot's Ale" and of course "Old speckled hen". If you live near London and fancy a wet, let me know. There is a cracking pub just off Trafalgar square, lots of real ale, reasonably priced.

How's this then? http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/623#more-623

I have had plenty of trouble in posting "polite but dissenting opinions" on this website.

Do research. Could help.

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design" The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

In fairness, this post was about Dembski, so it was doomed to become a "moronic debate" from the start.

I don't see how it is possible to ban people, because they can always return under different names and email addresses (screen names).

I have had plenty of trouble in posting "polite but dissenting opinions" on this website.

.. don't get Larry started on legal definitions Julie ... he considers himself to be a 'legal eagle' and he'll have that nice lady at the library run off her feet.... probably too late now - expect this thread to be innundated with the ramblings of this self-proclaimed 'legal genius'.

This thread has become far more interesting now that we are talking about beer (FSM heaven)! All you warm beer and weasels water skullers should try Monteaths (Original, Celtic Red, Dark etc) from New Zealand. Ok they are now really making it in Auckland, and not the West Coast anymore, but it is still shades above a lot of foreign muck.

Mr Christopher - you failed to point that Jill Schneider, another biology professor at Lehigh University, has posted some excellent thoughts about Intelligent Design Theory and evolution. It is well thought-out, informative, persuasive and occasionally humorous. I recommend it as reading material for all PT regulars and lurkers.

Tice with a J, this is new to me! Thank you kindly. This one gets bookmarked :-)

Chris

That's neither fair nor true --- there have been numerous discussions at PT of Dembski that have not turned into moronic debates. More importantly, it is irrelevant to the point that this debate does nothing to impress lurkers looking for information about ID and evolution.

— anti-troll patrol

I don't see how it is possible to ban people, because they can always return under different names and email addresses (screen names).

By the way, why all this trolling and troll-feeding about the whole religion/science bit?

Relax. It was a joke.

Surely the bounty of posts on this site made by, you know, actual contributors who debunk Dembski quite nicely will suffice for the casual lurker. At any rate, this thread was derailed long ago.

Also, who died and made you the Thread Police?

David,

I am astounded at that ridiculous argument countering your fine analysis of Solomon's sea and the pi = 3 affair. That the Bible is replete with rounding and approximations is an old story. The Talmud (tractate Eruvin) analyzes the pertinent verses and concludes as you did - and that was almost two thousand years ago!

Stephen Elliott,

"Do you not consider it odd that God would only speak to a very small group of people and a long time ago? Surely the creator of the entire universe would present evidence to all people. I find it objectionable to state that only a few individuals can know the mind of God and the rest of us should just slavishly obey."

Since you indicated that you believe in God, surely your conception of Him is sophisticated enough for you to realize that neither you or I, nor any of the created, can read nor understand His "mind", the creator. His calculations are cosmic in scope, ours are provincial, selfish and mundane.

The Bible (old testament, of course) clearly states that it is addressed to a small group of people, referred to as the children of Israel, who were designated by Him as the chosen people and assigned special responsiblities. We can speculate endlessly as to why He did so, and I can think of quite a few good reasons, but did so He did.

Clearly God has chosen to be elusive. Which is why intelligent men and women are still endlessly debating his mere existence. We can speculate endlessly about this too, and I can think of quite a few solid reasons, but did so He did.

You cannot have it both ways. If he is God, you cannot give Him advice as to how to run His universe. If you think you should have been consulted, than you don't believe in the God of the Bible. At least that is how I see it.

I don't see how it is possible to ban people, because they can always return under different names and email addresses (screen names).

Larry doesn't know shit about shit, apparently.

If I am banned, I will just come back under a pseudonym. I am not only a good troll, but I am also a darn good hacker.

Sounds like the Trafalgar Square thing could be a runner if corkscrew would like to join in...- how about trying for 'Darwin Day'

— Dean Morrison

LOL. yes, i'm sure Larry will show us all.

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 06:44 PM

Anti-troll patrol, I just don't know what to make of you at this point. How am I a poser? Seriously, unmask me for everyone here at PT. I'd like to know what you think my agenda is. It seems you think I'm a Dembski acolyte, which couldn't be further from the truth. You see, I was playing on your use of the phrase "moronic debate", in essence saying that all thoughts Dembski provokes are moronic. Looking back at it, it wasn't a very good joke.

I hope you at least see the irony in the fact that you, too, are now contributing to the derailing of this topic. I certainly see the irony that the anti-troll patrol is now behaving like a troll. (When did I stop beating my wife?) That just doesn't make any sense...poser.

And to think, all you had to do was post an intriguing thought about the initial post and you may have actually achieved your goal...oh, nevermind. You're clearly only interested in flaming. Sorry I baited you. I should've just left my flat joke on the ground.

The Bible (old testament, of course) clearly states that it is addressed to a small group of people, referred to as the children of Israel, who were designated by Him as the chosen people and assigned special responsibilities. We can speculate endlessly as to why He did so, and I can think of quite a few good reasons, but did so He did.

— Carol Clouser

Clearly God has chosen to be elusive. Which is why intelligent men and women are still endlessly debating his mere existence. We can speculate endlessly about this too, and I can think of quite a few solid reasons, but did so He did.

You cannot have it both ways. If he is God, you cannot give Him advice as to how to run His universe. If you think you should have been consulted, than you don't believe in the God of the Bible. At least that is how I see it.

Comment #69299 posted by Dean Morrison on January 9, 2006 06:56 PM Larry wrote: *****I don't see how it is possible to ban people, because they can always return under different names and email addresses (screen names).***** That's because you have a unique IP number Larry, that stays the same no matter what you change your name too.

Once again, if Jesus says, in the bible, "I am the vine" must we interpret that literally? That Jesus sprouts grapes? If the answer is yes---then I have nothing further to say to you. If the answer is no, then you admit that the bible need not be taken strictly literally to be true.

— Heddle

It is entirely unreasonable from the point of view that the Bible is a divinely inspired document. After all, who or what would know science better than the party responsible for breathing fire into it?

But as I have pointed out before, none of the PT regulars wants the Bible to be consistent with science.

I think that there should be a law requiring all ISP's to use dynamic IP address assignment (I keep thinking up all these wonderful ideas for new laws). You see, in a few minutes I thought up all these ways to defeat IP address bans. I told you that I am a darn good hacker and you didn't believe me.

— Larry

Once again, if Jesus says, in the bible, "I am the vine" must we interpret that literally? That Jesus sprouts grapes? If the answer is yes---then I have nothing further to say to you. If the answer is no, then you admit that the bible need not be taken strictly literally to be true.

— Heddle

Heddle and Clouser:
(speaking here about the Pentateuch, for focus.)

OK, so the bible is "divinely inspired." (granted for the sake of argument)

And the original "audience"/inspirees knew approximately jack squat of what we now know about science. (granted by you I hope)

It is believed to have its roots in oral traditions.

Was written down in different places and times by different people with different ideas about the nature of the godhead and, probably, the nature of "nature." But (and here's the kicker) presumably was consistent with those peoples' beliefs about nature.

And was then translated and probably oocasionally mis-translated/-transcripted numerous times (or has each instance of "the bible" been also divinely directed to "bring it into line" with evolving human understanding?)

Barring agreement with the last parenthetical, I cannot for the life of me figure out how the bible could possibly be consistent with modern science.

I mean, 20 year old cutting edge science isn't even consistent with what we're now pleased to call "science." (And that won't be consistent with "science" 20 years hence, and that...)

I'm not trying to be rude (and I haven't been feeding the trolls all y'all, so indulge me this tidbit.) I just don't get it.

larry wrote "I think that there should be a law requiring all ISP's to use dynamic IP address assignment (I keep thinking up all these wonderful ideas for new laws)."

Memo to the nice lady at the library :

'don't let Larry play with scissors - he'll only hurt himself'

You see, in a few minutes I thought up all these ways to defeat IP address bans. I told you that I am a darn good hacker and you didn't believe me.

You cannot have it both ways. If he is God, you cannot give Him advice as to how to run His universe. If you think you should have been consulted, than you don't believe in the God of the Bible. At least that is how I see it.

But other information on the internets shows that there does seem to be a real person named Larry Fafarman who has accomplished real things like blowing open the "real story behind meteor showers" conspiracy and filing cases that were ignored by SCOTUS. So for his persona to be truly fraudulent either 1) Larry Fafarman's real-world identity has been stolen by 1337 h@xx0rz who are cunningly crafting laughably boastful and ill-informed rants on PT in some bizarre plot to ruin his credibility or 2) Larry is self-parodying himself by doing the same thing. Either way, who cares.

What Larry predictably doesn't get is that, yes, he (and most 9-year olds) could circumvent whetever banning mechanism PT or any other public blog might use to eliminate trolls like himself from their midst, and post under another name. But whatever he calls himself, his unmistakably vacuous yet narcissistic style of blather would be instantly recognizable and his new name would then be banned, only this time much faster. I think any idiot (except Larry) realizes that anyone could keep coming back to PT with new IPs, new user names, etc., and defacing the comments as much as they wanted with pointless self-congratulationary non-argumentation, but such would be pointless if a new identity ultimately had to be chosen for every post. Because clearly, the whole point of Larry's sojourn here--self-stimulation and attention-getting--would be moot if we didn't know him as Larry Fafafooey. His real mistake is thinking what he says he makes any difference to begin with.

gregonomic,

Reading the beginning of your post I thought I might actually become animated to engage you in reasoned discussion, especially since you are probably right about not being the only one here interested in whatever reasons might be given for some of God's actions. But then your post turned vulgar, insolent and flippant. You are apparently neither truly interested in, nor in the frame of mind to sincerely engage in, such a discussion.

jon nickels,

"How could an all powerfull god allow his message to be changed by mere mortals!?"

First, it hasn't changed. The original Hebrew Bible is still in the hands of those for whom it was intended. And it is still revered by most of them. And those who choose not to revere it, well, they are exercising their God-given free will. Second, see my post above #69325.

Ogee,

All of Genesis 7 is literally true and consistent with science. Look into it. The matter has been dealt with long ago. If you want some book recommendations, please do let me know.

The trouble is - as soon as a troll with delusions of grandeur starts spouting out their: cranky legal 'expertise'; unsavory racial opinions; and bizarre views of astronomy and the moon landings; then you'll be rumbled...and if you don't do those things then it's rather going to defeat the purpose of coming here for you isn't it? So let's all play - 'Spot the Larry!'

Can I safely assume that all of the nutters who have suddenly shown up all at once are related to each other in some way?

Hey Carol, why, again, are youtr religious opinions any better than anyone else's?

And why, again, do you think science should pay the slightest attention to your religious opinions?

And why, again, is Heddle wrong about the New Testament and you are right about it (other than your say-so)?

ben, you're quite right. Let me be clear, I don't mean that Larry Falafalman doesn't exist, I think he just enjoys saying belligerent things and doesn't care how true those things are.

Lenny, that's a good point. Carol's saying Oh Mister Dave, the bible is so accurate, you're right; and David replies oh Miss Carol, I know, these dang ol atheists are so scared but it's true, the bible is so infallible...

and they carefully fail to mention that they're not talking about the same book. Really doubt Dave's using the Judah Landa translation.

steve s:

The Judah Landa translation of the Bible is "the translation to end all translations", just like World War I was "the war to end all wars".

I just got the following personal email from one of the blog managers --

Larry wrote:
****If I am banned, I will just come back under a pseudonym. I am not only
a good troll, but I am also a darn good hacker.*****

There is comparatively little that can get you banned from PT, but threats like that - and the equivalent acts - do qualify. Please don't do it again.

======================================

Hence, I will not discuss this subject any further. OK ? Thanks.

Larry

First, it hasn't changed. The original Hebrew Bible is still in the hands of those for whom it was intended. And it is still revered by most of them. And those who choose not to revere it, well, they are exercising their God-given free will.

— Carol

Also, I would think that add-on IP scrambling devices for computers would be hot-selling items.

LOL Nidaros, that reminds me of the Texas politician who--it's been a while, I can't remember exactly what happened--wanted English-only, because if English was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for her.

LOL Nidaros, that reminds me of the Texas politician who---it's been a while, I can't remember exactly what happened---wanted English-only, because if English was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for her.

WARNING! YOUR COMPUTER IS BROADCASTING AN IP ADDRESS! Every time you connect to the Internet, send email or submit a private information to a web site, you are broadcasting this unique address. With this address, someone can immediately begin attacking your computer! Download BonziProtect to protect yourself now!

Dave'Brave'Heddle: I am saying that science is more or less correct,

gregonomic, Reading the beginning of your post I thought I might actually become animated to engage you in reasoned discussion, especially since you are probably right about not being the only one here interested in whatever reasons might be given for some of God's actions. But then your post turned vulgar, insolent and flippant.

— Carol Clouser

You are apparently neither truly interested in, nor in the frame of mind to sincerely engage in, such a discussion.

Nidaros,

You might wish to know that there was no King James Bible when Paul was alive. You are off by over a thousand years!

The level of knowledge here about the Bible and theology is just pathetic.

You might wish to know that there was no King James Bible when Paul was alive. You are off by over a thousand years! The level of knowledge here about the Bible and theology is just pathetic.

You might wish to know that there was no King James Bible when Paul was alive. You are off by over a thousand years! The level of knowledge here about the Bible and theology is just pathetic.

— Carol Clouser

Yup, if Carol is anything to go by, this (G|g)od figure chose some pretty dim mortals to entrust his/her message to. Can we be sure they got it all down correctly? Perhaps they didn't pick up on the bits where he/she was joking?

Comment #69422 posted by network geek on January 9, 2006 11:04 PM *****Also, I would think that add-on IP scrambling devices for computers would be hot-selling items.***** An equally brilliant idea would be street address scrambling devices for residences, to guarantee that your mail never gets to you.

All of Genesis 7 is literally true and consistent with science.

"Look, I said that I would not discuss this issue any more"

Yes, but I'm not you.

"because the management is apparently very sensitive about it and probably does not want me or anyone else giving ideas of how to defeat a commenter ban."

Uh, no, their comment had nothing to do with that, it had to do with threatening to violate a ban.

"You are putting me in an unfair position because I am not allowed to defend myself against your posts on this subject. "

You are in an unfair position by virtue of your mental retardation.

"Furthermore, the subject is off-topic."

A novel concern for you.

Look, I said that I would not discuss this issue any more because the management is apparently very sensitive about it and probably does not want me or anyone else giving ideas of how to defeat a commenter ban.

So, why ARE you responding?

You are putting me in an unfair position because I am not allowed to defend myself against your posts on this subject.

So why are you opening your yap about it all the time?

Your position is entirely self-inflicted.

Usually is for morons.

Comment #69458 posted by network geek on January 10, 2006 01:16 AM "Look, I said that I would not discuss this issue any more" Yes, but I'm not you.

"because the management is apparently very sensitive about it and probably does not want me or anyone else giving ideas of how to defeat a commenter ban." Uh, no, their comment had nothing to do with that, it had to do with threatening to violate a ban.

"You are putting me in an unfair position because I am not allowed to defend myself against your posts on this subject. " You are in an unfair position by virtue of your mental retardation.

"Yes, I know, the management is on your side and so probably would not ban you for discussing the issue."

Not only don't you don't know that, you have no evidence pertaining to the matter.

"You people have been taking advantage of me because you know that the management is on your side."

You poor pathetic whiny little baby.

"Furthermore, you have not been warned yet."

You have no way of knowing what I have or haven't been warned about.

"I have already been warned."

That's because you have already threatened malicious intent toward this site.

"And discussing ways to defeat a ban directly concerns threats to defeat a ban."

Look, moron, there's a huge difference between discussing how to build a bomb and threatening to bomb someone. The "management" explicitly noted that there are very few things that can get you banned; among the things that can't get you banned is discussing how idiotic your idea of an IP address scrambler is.

"The management has already shown its hostility towards me and would like nothing better than an excuse to ban me."

The management has shown hostility toward an announcement of malicious intent toward this site. And they already have plenty of excuse to ban you, yet haven't acted on it.

"So I decided to avoid the subject of bans entirely."

Obviously not, since you are still discussing it.

"And I do not have the opportunity to show that you are the one who is mentally retarded."

You obviously do have the opportunity, since you continue to blabber on. What you lack are the capacity and the facts.

"It's about time we had a level playing field here."

That's not possible; I've got network design patents hanging on my wall, while you've got a Confederate flag on yours.

Quick return to an earlier topic:

So astrology can be studied in astronomy class as a historical subject.

Yes, and ID can be studied in religious-education class.

But neither one should be studied in science class because they are not science. What's so difficult about that?

Intelligent Design's first goal is to demonstrate the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution as an explanation of the origin of the universe, Dembski said. One of the chief methods of accomplishing this is to demonstrate the weakness of the scientific evidence that is presented in support of Darwinian evolution in many school classrooms, he said.

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 9, 2006 07:41 PM (e) (s) ... Stephen Elliott, ... Since you indicated that you believe in God, surely your conception of Him is sophisticated enough for you to realize that neither you or I, nor any of the created, can read nor understand His "mind", the creator. His calculations are cosmic in scope, ours are provincial, selfish and mundane. ... You cannot have it both ways. If he is God, you cannot give Him advice as to how to run His universe. If you think you should have been consulted, than you don't believe in the God of the Bible. At least that is how I see it.

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 9, 2006 08:52 PM (e) (s) ... The Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia article on IP addresses says ---- "The unique nature of IP addresses makes it possible The ACLU has been so busy attacking ID that it has not had time to attack the above outrageous invasion of privacy. ... You see, in a few minutes I thought up all these ways to defeat IP address bans. I told you that I am a darn good hacker and you didn't believe me.

Dean Morrison wrote: Sounds like the Trafalgar Square thing could be a runner if corkscrew would like to join in...- how about trying for 'Darwin Day'

Larry, being a script kiddy does not make you an Ubercracker.

Carol, I am an Atheist, but Stephen Elliott's description makes a lot more sense to me. Your own imagination does not really weight much in the light of evidence. As Lenny has so many times reminded you, it is just your opinion. You have no evidence to back your opinion that your "God" is the right one, and ALL the zillion other religions are wrong. It's a bit arrogant to punt your view as such, don't you think? Friendship, humour, joy, love, justice, fun, REASON and honesty are worth more than any religion. Stephen Elliott's description of his concept of God is closer to nature. I like nature. All I see is nature. All you see is nature... Stephen Elliott's "God" does not have a problem with the majority of human beings "created" by him, but your God does...

Yes Carol, you have the right to believe what you want to. But before trying to convince us to believe as you do, please state WHY you believe. Then, bring some evidence that your dear Enki exists. I think I am doomed, because I cannot resist bacon... On the other hand, if Heddle is right (or Islam, or Christians), you will be the one to go to hell (I'll be there too, and the whole of PT). Can you prove that they are wrong Carol?

The pub I like is called The silver cross. About 50-100 yards from Trafalgar square on Whitehall. Near admiralty arch and opposite the theatre.

IF IT AIN'T KING JAMES, IT AIN'T THE BIBLE

You people have been taking advantage of me because you know that the management is on your side.

Actually I think Larry is not a fundie, just a crank. But they, too, have the same tendency to yell "HELP!! HELP !! I'M BEING REPRESSED !!!!"

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 10, 2006 07:47 AM (e) (s) ... From my website: The fundamentalists' rabid homophobia has even led some of them to reject the one document that has long served as their one and only "true source" --- the King James Bible. When historians were able to confirm that King James was, in fact, himself a homosexual, some fundamentalists released their hellfire: fundamentalist presidential candidate Gary Bauer thundered, "I feel uncomfortable that good Christians all over America, and indeed the world, are using a document commissioned by a homosexual. Anything that has been commissioned by a homosexual has obviously been tainted in some way." (cited in Blaker, 2003, p 26). In response, some fundamentalists have been urging Christians to reject the King James Bible in favor of other translations, and a few fundamentalists have even produced their own "translations" and "paraphrases" which, they declare, tell us all what the Bible really meant to say.

I think you show more faith in the bible than God.

Lenny: are you kidding about that King James stuff? That's amazing, even for fundies.

Renier: "Friendship, humour, joy, love, justice, fun, REASON and honesty are worth more than any religion." I'll drink to that.

Reneir,

"you will be the one to go to hell (I'll be there too, and the whole of PT)".

Now, that would make hell a truly hellish experience.

Carol, as if heaven with Heddle (and Blast and GoP and all the Baptists) would be better? Please, I am sure even you would not willingly go to such a place.

But, as usual, you missed the point I was trying to make... try reading my previous post again... if you still do not see it, ask the English lads on PT to send you some ale, or perhaps Lenny will sponsor you some Porter.

What I enjoy most about our fundie friends is that they regard not being able to teach their mythology to everyone else's children "oppression"

Posted by Renier on January 10, 2006 09:07 AM (e) (s) Carol, as if heaven with Heddle (and Blast and GoP and all the Baptists) would be better? Please, I am sure even you would not willingly go to such a place. But, as usual, you missed the point I was trying to make... try reading my previous post again... if you still do not see it, ask the English lads on PT to send you some ale, or perhaps Lenny will sponsor you some Porter.

Posted by Renier on January 10, 2006 05:57 AM (e) (s) ... Friendship, humour, joy, love, justice, fun, REASON and honesty are worth more than any religion...

I think that some of us make the mistake in not reading all of a post before we form our answers.We are so ready to proffer our own views that we tend to miss some quite pertinent statements.Read my post(69213)
then read David Heddle,s surprisingly honest reply to it(69222)
Many of the subsequent posts would have made a great deal more sense in light of Davids statements.We all know now (if we did,nt before)just how people like Carol and David view the world.

Larry, are you implying that judges rule cases depending on their personal views rather than on evidence and the law? If so this simply demonstrate your ignorance on the rules governing trials. BTW, what else could the fundies have hoped for in this trial? The judge is a Bush nominated, protestant christian, Santorum blessed appointee and the ID still manages to loose BIG TIME. That shows how shallow, vacuous and non existing the evidence for ID is. Even more so, it shows the dishonesty and moral bankrupcy of the major proponents of ID that after their loss have gone back to the recourse of personal attacks.

hey Larry, two points:

1) You are very good at what you do. I have a friend who does the same thing on a few forums, he is a theatre guy and does a lot of acting. For fun he assumes an identity in a forum and basically stirs stuff up like you. For him it is fine tuning his acting craft while also having fun getting people to react to him. Your act here is pretty impressive and I bet you are constantly cracking yourself up. Take this as a compliment, you're pretty good.

2) Have you been to the After The Bar Closes PT forum? You can probably get away with more over there than here.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=43c38cf8a96cfa14;act=SF;f=14

Larry, are you implying that judges rule cases depending on their personal views rather than on evidence and the law? If so this simply demonstrate your ignorance on the rules governing trials.

Since you indicated that you believe in God, surely your conception of Him is sophisticated enough for you to realize that neither you or I, nor any of the created, can read nor understand His "mind", the creator. His calculations are cosmic in scope, ours are provincial, selfish and mundane.

— Carol

Friendship, humour, joy, love, justice, fun, REASON and honesty are worth more than any religion.

— Renier

On the other hand, if Heddle is right (or Islam, or Christians), you will be the one to go to hell (I'll be there too, and the whole of PT).

Stephen Elliot, take a look at Secular Humanism. You might find it preferable to jealous and vicious gods.

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 11:09 AM (e) (s) Stephen Elliot, take a look at Secular Humanism. You might find it preferable to jealous and vicious gods.

jeesus is my homeboy dawgs. you guys should sopt acruging and be friends. love jeebus.

Stephen Elliot, take a look at ------------------ism. You might find it preferable to jealous and vicious gods.

were you there when the world was created? no, so shut up douche

Fletcher lays out agenda Speech mixes GOP stands, health reform By Ryan Alessi, Jack Brammer And John Stamper HERALD-LEADER FRANKFORT BUREAU FRANKFORT - Gov. Ernie Fletcher last night laid out his 2006 agenda that hits on key components of the Republican platform, such as capping lawsuit awards, encouraging the teaching of "intelligent design" and enacting so-called right-to-work legislation that addresses labor unions.

Link to steve s's news story

were you there when the world was created? no, so shut up douche

— matt

...one weeks work and he's been grouchy ever since...

And when "an ordinary person engaged in everyday conversation" gets more educated, and learns more science, and therefore starts to "interpret otherwise" parts that previously were thought to be literal... what happens?

— Aureola Nominee in #69162

Well, in a nutshell because the bible makes very lofty self-referential claims, if it is not inerrant, then it is a pack of lies ---and consequently we have no reason to believe that its message of salvation is real.

— David Heddle in #69192

Basically,

that comment by Mr. Heddle ignored the trivially evident fact that "the Bible" is not a monolithic document, but on the contrary a rather haphazard collection of writings.

They are not "self-referential", as there's no conveniently clear "self", but a multiplicity of sources, each with its own tradition and political/religious axe to grind, layered on by centuries upon centuries of after-the-fact editing.

Calling it "Scripture", as if it was a coherent whole, is merely the sleight of hand of tricksters; and people, even very smart people, trying to make everything seem coherent and somehow sensible, look to me not unlike those Star Trek fans endeavouring to reconcile every instance of shields vs. transport use or superluminal firing of weapons on the show.

Fascinating, yet ultimately futile.

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 10, 2006 02:21 PM (e) (s) ...one weeks work and he's been grouchy ever since...

Has no one noticed how outraged Herr Heddle is that atheists can be described as having an agenda, yet how blind he is to the equal criticism which can be made about him?
If it is illegitimate to criticize the Bible if one is coming from a position of needing to prove it wrong, is it not equally illegitmiate to reject criticism when adopting a position of needing to see it never proven wrong?
Mote, eye, beam, Heddle.

And Carol continues to amuse, with her accelerating descent into madness.

This used to be such a nice neighborhood.

hugs,
Shirley Knott
(recovering nicely from surgery, thanks for asking)

Comment #69493 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 10, 2006 04:53 AM *****You see, in a few minutes I thought up all these ways to defeat IP address bans. I told you that I am a darn good hacker and you didn't believe me.****** Is that a joke? Are you claiming to be "a darn good hacker" who needs to look up IP address in wikipedia? What do you think would happen if you scrambled your ip address Larry (the expert hacker)?

"Evolutionary theory proceeds from practices mostly developed early on by good scientific Christian thinkers." No, they were mostly developed early on by good scientific Arab and Muslim thinkers, while Christians were mired in the Dark Ages. Keep in mind that 'algebra', algorithm', and 'cypher' are from Arabic.

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 10, 2006 03:42 PM (e) (s) ... OK, it was just a joke. But one of the managers here did not think that it was funny, and threatened to ban me just for joking about it. I am not really a hacker ---- but I am a fast learner...

"Evolutionary theory proceeds from practices mostly developed early on by good scientific Christian thinkers." No, they were mostly developed early on by good scientific Arab and Muslim thinkers, while Christians were mired in the Dark Ages. Keep in mind that 'algebra', algorithm', and 'cypher' are from Arabic.

I haven't been banned, but PZ disemvowels my posts on his threads. That is, in my opinion, more dishonest than banning--because it makes a mockery of someone's post and leaves their name associated with it--even though they did not write is as presented. Its sole purpose is to humiliate. In that sense, it is a perfect match for PZ's character.

Posted by David Heddle on January 10, 2006 04:07 PM (e) (s) I haven't been banned, but PZ disemvowels my posts on his threads. That is, in my opinion, more dishonest than banning---because it makes a mockery of someone's post and leaves their name associated with it---even though they did not write is as presented. Its sole purpose is to humiliate. In that sense, it is a perfect match for PZ's character.

Comment #69765 Posted numerous times by David Heddle: I haven't been banned, but PZ disemvowels my posts on his threads.

Dr Heddle

What puzzles me is why you want to post here. Your field of expertise is, I believe, cosmology, and you are a religious apologist. This is a blogsite where "The patrons gather to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation."

No-one here seems particularly interested in what you have to say, and you only succeed in irritating people who then respond accordingly. You could avoid PZ's disemvowelling and general opprobrium by posting in more sympathetic arenas. Why, then, do you do it?

Alan,

The subject of this post involved biblical alternatives to evolution. My comments on this thread began with my agreeing with Carol that the bible is not inconsistent with evolution. I did not interrupt a thread that was discussing some detail of evolutionary theory. I think I was at least as on-topic as most of the commenters.

Steve S,

Why am I not suprised that your view is:

1) Banned on Dembski's blog--how disgusting
2) Disemvowelled on PT--you deserved it and stop whining

Oh--I know why I am not surprised--you are the same steve s that argues that the cosmologocal constant is only small in some units and it's only a problem of immaturity in our calculations--do you still believe that given yet another famous non-ID physicist (Susskind) has published a book whose purpose is, for the most part, to find a solution to the CC problem, the problem you find so trivial?

deliberately ironical: deliberately ironic?

Comment #69474 Posted by Fernmonkey on January 10, 2006 03:31 AM Quick return to an earlier topic: ****So astrology can be studied in astronomy class as a historical subject.**** Yes, and ID can be studied in religious-education class. But neither one should be studied in science class because they are not science. What's so difficult about that?

Posted by Rich on January 10, 2006 04:44 PM (e) (s) deliberately ironical: deliberately ironic?

Actually, I think that it should be OK to just teach the non-religious, non-supernatural parts of ID --- e.g., irreducible complexity --- in science classes. I think that that would be the best solution.

Minor correction to Dave's big pile of crap:

"1) Banned on Dembski's blog---how funny"

Anyway, you have full permission to disemvowel me if I ever give a crap what you say and choose to visit your blog, which I won't and won't, and probably PZ feels the same. Let us know if the bible ever tells you whether the CC is zero or nonzero. We atheists really care a great deal, don't you know.

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 10, 2006 04:49 PM (e) (s) ... I feel that ID and evolution should be studied together so that they can be closely compared. So if they cannot be studied together in science classes because of church-state separation concerns, then I feel that they should be studied together in philosophy classes. I am serious. I don't see the point of studying them in different classes --- maybe even years apart --- when they are so closely connected. Actually, I think that it should be OK to just teach the non-religious, non-supernatural parts of ID --- e.g., irreducible complexity --- in science classes. I think that that would be the best solution.

steve s,

The bible confirms that we live in a universe with stars. That implies a small (120 orders of magnitude smaller than expected by everyone except you) but non zero CC--just like Weinberg said via his Anthropic prediction. Does that answer your question?

Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 04:56 PM (e) (s) Minor correction to Dave's big pile of crap: "1) Banned on Dembski's blog---how funny" Anyway, you have full permission to disemvowel me if I ever give a crap what you say and choose to visit your blog, which I won't and won't, and probably PZ feels the same. Let us know if the bible ever tells you whether the CC is zero or nonzero. We atheists really care a great deal, don't you know.

Oh, well, the bible mentions stars. To think I questioned its infallibility. What a fool I've been.

Anyway Dave, you're so behind the times. Me, I've moved on to a new fine tuning--my height as measured in universe width units. Measured as such, my height is around 10^-23 uwu. Do you understand how fine tuned this is? How sensitive? Why, if I was only a "hair" bigger, say 10^-22 uwu, I'd be dead of lung collapse etc. If I were a hair smaller, say 10^-24, well, there's no way you can get an adult human brain into a skull 10x smaller. I sit around in awe of this tuning. Like Dave's told us before, even if there are physical laws which demand the observed value be in a certain range, that's just proof the laws were set by god.

Praise be unto him.

Comment #69770 posted by Alan Fox on January 10, 2006 04:24 PM Dr Heddle -- What puzzles me is why you want to post here. Your field of expertise is, I believe, cosmology, and you are a religious apologist. This is a blogsite where "The patrons gather to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation."

There is no controversy.

You are welcome here.

This site defends good science, and therefore there are many people here who have much to say regarding your many wild claims.

I noticed that this website received an award from Scientific American magazine. I feel that to be truly deserving of this award, this website should welcome all viewpoints on the controversy over evolution theory, and not just be a place where evolutionists come for mutual back-scratching.

You can even change computers if you have to ---- some people have access to several computers.

I feel that to be truly deserving of this award, this website should welcome all viewpoints on the controversy over evolution theory, and not just be a place where evolutionists come for mutual back-scratching.

Comment #69781 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 10, 2006 05:02 PM Larry, Why are you so far separated from reason? ANY other scientific hypothesis was never taught as science, until it had convinced scientists that it was valid. Why is ID a special case?

Lenny: are you kidding about that King James stuff?

That's amazing, even for fundies.

Thing is though that I do believe in God. To deny that would mean lying to myself. I definitely think organised religion gives God a bad press though.

No Larry, 'PE' stands for 'Physical Excercise' - something you might get more of if you ask that nice Library for a date.

I see it's time again for my periodic reminder to Heddle.

Back when Caesar gained power in Rome, he had a nice big parade for himself. During it, he had a slave stand beside him in the chariot, for the sole purpose of leaning over every few minutes and whispering in his ear, "You are just a man".

I am happy to perform that role for Mr Heddle. See, Mr Heddle sometimes forgets that he's just a man, and seems to think that he is some sort of Divine Spokesman For God (tm)(c) or something. He's, uh, not. So whenever Mr Heddle starts prancing too much on his high holy horse, I step in to remind him that his religious opinions are just that --- his opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else's religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow his religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.

Mr Heddle, you are just a man.

why do you poeple care about the veiws on how the world was created? beleive what you want. why should it matter whos right or wrong? idiots everyone is entitled to an opinion and set of beleifs.

Hey Heddle, Carol doesn't seem to want to answer my simple questions. How about you?

What makes your religious opinions any better than anyone else's (other than your say-so)?

Is Carol right in her opinion that the New Testament is a load of crap, or are YOU right in YOUR opinion that it's not? And how can we tell?

Why do you think science should give a flying fig about your religious opinions, anyway?

Larry Fafarman

My question to Dr Heddle (which he didn't answer) was why does he want to post here. I am the last person to suggest banning anyone, not even you... well, maybe I would draw the line with Ex USMC Sgt Springer DaveScot.

"Evolutionary theory proceeds from practices mostly developed early on by good scientific Christian thinkers." No, they were mostly developed early on by good scientific Arab and Muslim thinkers, while Christians were mired in the Dark Ages. Keep in mind that 'algebra', algorithm', and 'cypher' are from Arabic.

— Stephen Elliot

Is that true? I thought evolutionary theory was started by Darwin (and his contemporaries).

Aureole,

I must disagree with your sloppy analysis of how the Bible came to us. There exists an extended family of people, known as Israelites or Jews, who have carefully and meticulously preserved, recorded, revered and cherished that core document which later became known to the world as the Bible. These people also were persecuted and frequently killed for adhering to its teachings for thousands of years, and yet they (miraculously) persevered. God was not mistaken in choosing THEM to preserve that document. Indicative of the care they took of this document of singular importance to them is the fact that after thousands of years of handwriting copies and passing them on from generation to generation, the period when errors and intentional revisions were most likely to occur (before the printing presses started rolling), there were only a handful of letters and words in dispute out of over 300,000 words (I refer to the Hebrew pentateuch). This was then in turn confirmed when the dead sea scrolls were found, dating back to over two thousand years ago. (I have also seen partial documents going back another five hundred years, to the seventh century BCE, that were identical to those segments in today's Bible.)

Your claim that the Bible is a patchwork has nothing to support it but the latter day revisionism of so called "scholars" with jobs to justify, most of whom cannot even claim fluency in Hebrew, who base these claims on the silly business of "literary style". It is no different than many of the other revisionisms going on around us all the time (like Larry's holocaust revisionism). It's just people making noise for their own motives. I would hope you would not be so naive as to buy into that baseless stuff. As a scientist I would expect a more sophisticated sense of discernment from you.

I must disagree with your sloppy analysis of how the Bible came to us. There exists an extended family of people, known as Israelites...

Alan,

I second the sentiments of Stephen Elliott. David Heddle adds much to this blog and I too would not want to see him go.

You seem to want thread after thread here to be exclusively engaged in Dembski bashing. How boring. And evil.

*****You see, in a few minutes I thought up all these ways to defeat IP address bans. I told you that I am a darn good hacker and you didn't believe me.****** Is that a joke? Are you claiming to be "a darn good hacker" who needs to look up IP address in wikipedia? What do you think would happen if you scrambled your ip address Larry (the expert hacker)?

Alan...You seem to want thread after thread here to be exclusively engaged in Dembski bashing. How boring. And evil.

Carol,

If this were a blog devoted to cosmology or religious apologetics, I wouldn't be puzzled at Dr. Heddle posting here. Repeating myself, asking him why he should want to post here (and not getting an answer) is not the same as voting to ban him.

I am also puzzled at how you think your posts here might improve the sales of Mr Landa's oeuvre.

Comment #69838 posted by network geek on January 10, 2006 07:46 PM Larry has stupidly or dishonestly or both confused two different candidates for "a joke". No one threatened to ban Larry for joking about being "a darn good hacker" so ignorant that he has to go to Wikipedia to find out what an IP address is --- not that he was joking about that. The real joke here is clearly Larry himself.

You made a fool of yourself Larry .. admit it.

Comment #69837 Posted by Carol Clouser on January 10, 2006 07:45 PM (e) (s) You seem to want thread after thread here to be exclusively engaged in Dembski bashing. How boring. And evil.

All of Genesis 7 is literally true and consistent with science.

One of the managers of this website sent me a threatening personal email which I quoted here.

Anyway, haven't we kicked this dead horse enough?

so called "scholars" with jobs to justify

David Heddle adds much to this blog and I too would not want to see him go.

Yada yada yada. What does this, or anything else Carol Clouser ever posts here, have to do with evolutionary theory, even in the most tangential way? More OT religious apologetics, ultimately just boring and obnoxious prosyletizing.

Comment #69855 posted by Dean Morrison on January 10, 2006 08:44 PM You made a fool of yourself Larry .. admit it.

Arden,

What I meant to say was that Genesis 7 is meant to be interpreted literally (as opposed to metaphorically or allegorically) and yet need not be in conflict with science. I base this on the reasoning presented in my other posts on this and other threads.

The bone of contention here is the Hebrew phrase ARETZ and sometimes KOL HA-ARETZ. The popular translation is "the earth" for the former and "all the earth" for the latter. But the fact is that in 90% of the occasions where that expression appears in the Bible it definately must mean "the land" or "all the land" referring to a previousely delineated area. Examples are, "and all the land (ARETZ) became dark" referring to Egypt, and "the peoples of all the land (KOL HA-ARETZ) came to Egypt (for food)" referring to the Cannanites. These cannot reasonably refer to all the earth.

Genesis 7 refers to a flood occuring in "the land" discussed previously (Genesis 1 - 6), namely Sumeria, roughly coincident with the plains of southern Mesapotamia. Gathering the living creatures inhabiting that limited area is a much more manageable task than doing so for the entire planet. But there probably also is an element of a miracle in this. There is no denying that miracles are part of the Bible. And I don't think that is in conflict with science. It is outside the domain of science, but not contradicted by it.

As far as "kinds" are concerned, you don't expect the Bible to take on the role of a science primer. As I have proposed previously, the general rule is that the Bible speaks to ordinary people in the manner in which ordinary people speak while engaged in oridnary, everyday conversation. (Except where it clearly does not wish to do so.) So "kinds" refer to whatever ordinary people are likely to call "kinds". The same applies to the bat referred to (perhaps) in Leviticus as a bird.

There is no way around the Hebrew word SHANA meaning year. The longevities of Noah and others throughout Genesis can only be miraculous. But again that is not contradicted by science. You either accept it or you do not. But you cannot use science as a basis for rejection.

There is no way around the Hebrew word SHANA meaning year. The longevities of Noah and others throughout Genesis can only be miraculous. But again that is not contradicted by science. You either accept it or you do not

All of Genesis 7 is literally true and consistent with science.

There is no way around the Hebrew word SHANA meaning year. The longevities of Noah and others throughout Genesis can only be miraculous. But again that is not contradicted by science. You either accept it or you do not. But you cannot use science as a basis for rejection.

— Carol Clouser

Arden,

Your position makes no sense. You know, and you know that I know that you know, that the Bible is full of God and miracles right from the get go. How many entities do you know that can say "let there be..." and then, presto, "and there was..."? So why are you asking me about chapter 7? Why not just pick on chapter one?

I am not, as you assert, engaged in "proving" the "scientific accuracy" of the Bible and I certainly do not claim that miracles are part of the scientific method. I clearly stated just the opposite in my very last post! I DO assert that science cannot be used as a basis for rejection of the Bible. And you have provided nothing to persuade me or anyone otherwise.

No, you cannot slap the word miracle on everything and be done with it. If the Bible would state something that science demonstrates is highly likely to be false (let alone "proves" to be false) you would have a valid and significant point. (See, my approach is falsifiable.) If, for example, the Bible made it clear that the earth is only a few thousand years old, that would conflict with science. Science claims that is false. Slapping the word miracle on this would solve nothing.

gregonomic,

Neither you nor I nor anyone else can know whether or not we see miracles in our daily lives. Some philosopher (forget the name) has stated that "nature is merely a set of miracles we have gotten used to and take for granted." I am not arguing quite that, but science cannot demonstrate otherwise. Your entire argument in the above post is utterly without merit and you know it.

Aredn and gregonomic,

Why do both of your posts turn at the end to profanity and insults? Because you must desperately believe that the Bible is what you say it is, and you finally realize that your supporting arguments have been shreded and rendered impotent. Insults and profanity are the last refuge of the defeated atheist.

Comment #69810 Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 10, 2006 06:34 PM (e) (s) Comment #69781 posted by Stephen Elliott on January 10, 2006 05:02 PM Larry, Why are you so far separated from reason? ANY other scientific hypothesis was never taught as science, until it had convinced scientists that it was valid. Why is ID a special case? Evolution theory is no more scientific than the irreducible complexity concept of ID. Evolution theory cannot be used to make predictions of macro-evolution, because macro-evolution in progress cannot be directly observed. The only predictions that evolution theory can make in regard to macro-evolution are predictions of likely future discoveries of more circumstantial evidence of macro-evolution. For example, the fossil record can be used to make predictions of likely future discoveries of "missing link" fossils. And comparative anatomy can be used to make predictions about genetics, and vice-versa. And so forth. A lot of evolution theory is not actually science but is just wild speculation and philosophizing. A good example is the concept of "punctuated equilibrium" (PE), which is widely accepted by scientists today. PE is the idea that evolution occurred by short spurts followed by long plateaus. But PE is not supported by any evidence but is actually supported by an absence of evidence --- the absence of "missing link" fossils. PE supposedly explains the absence of missing link fossils because the spurts of evolution were supposedly too short to leave a fossil record.

— Larry Fafarman

Neither you nor I nor anyone else can know whether or not we see miracles in our daily lives

— Carol Clouser

Why do both of your posts turn at the end to profanity and insults?

Insults and profanity are the last refuge of the defeated atheist.

Your position makes no sense.

You know, and you know that I know that you know, that the Bible is full of God and miracles right from the get go. How many entities do you know that can say "let there be..." and then, presto, "and there was..."? So why are you asking me about chapter 7? Why not just pick on chapter one?

All of Genesis 7 is literally true and consistent with science.

Insults and profanity are the last refuge of the defeated atheist.

No, you cannot slap the word miracle on everything and be done with it. If the Bible would state something that science demonstrates is highly likely to be false (let alone "proves" to be false) you would have a valid and significant point. (See, my approach is falsifiable.) If, for example, the Bible made it clear that the earth is only a few thousand years old, that would conflict with science. Science claims that is false. Slapping the word miracle on this would solve nothing.

— Carol

But as gregonomic just wrote, human can't live to 600 years and you.... chose not to respond to that. Does that mean 600 years old human beings are consistent with science? Or is it a miracle?

Carol so now you are an authority on ancient floods in mesopotainia as well as biological aging AND decoding myth and 3000 (or more) year old pseudo science.

OK I'll take you up on it
3 questions
1. Why did Michael Angelo paint rams horns on Moses in the Sistene Chapel what is the significance of them and what other myths use the same symbol.

2. What is the commonality between the Egyptian Book of the Dead stories and the Hebrew world view.

3. Choose either the historical method of imposing world view on neighboring tribes through completely wiping them out or changing the world view to account for multiculturalism OR various second coming myths from say 5000 years ago to 2000 years ago OR the effects of overgrazing by goats and sheep on the forrests in mesopotainia.

Carol, precisely how does a theist, such as yourself, defeat an atheist? Do you defeat him/her with overwhelming knowledge of the True Bible. An atheist has no use for the bible, yours or anyone else's. Do you put the fear of god in someone who does not see the necessity to believe in a god, your god or any other. All of your ruminations about the bible and its relation to science are essentially meaningless. You obviously have a very high opinion of yourself and of the importance of your religious notions. Sorry, I'm not impressed.

Carol so now you are an authority on ancient floods in mesopotainia as well as biological aging AND decoding myth and 3000 (or more) year old pseudo science. OK I'll take you up on it 3 questions

— k.e.

In the case of biblical literalists, the answer to Eugene's question would likely be: because they are cowards clinging to ignorance in a tight, dark (but warm!) crevice.

If a device like Zaphod's (HHG2tU) glasses (what were they named, again?) could be devised to work against possible moral, ethical, psychological threats the owner of the patent would make zillions.

I don't see any profanity in my last post - would you care to point it out for me?

P.S. If you don't suffer from Carol's exaggerated sensitivity, you might enjoy the "Minced oath" entry at Wikipedia.

Comment #69933 posted by Wayne Francis on January 11, 2006 01:03 AM Larry how about this prediction from way over 100 years ago. Prediction - humans have a common ancestor with other great apes. This was made before we knew about chromosomes and DNA.

I'd say do some research Larry, but you've clearly pointed out many times that you don't need to read anything.

Macro-evolution can be and is observed in many different ways. Given the definition of "Macro-evolution" being "evolution that leads to speciation"

Larry either get a clue, which I and almost everyone else here agree will not happen, or shut up, again I and almost everyone else here agree that will not happen either but we can hope.

As far as "kinds" are concerned, you don't expect the Bible to take on the role of a science primer.

Macro-evolution is sometimes defined as consisting of those evolutionary changes that are so drastic that they have never been directly observed.

But why do you bother 'proving' the scientific accuracy of the OT when you can simply take anything that's scientifically impossible and slap a big 'MIRACLE' label on it? It renders all the rest of the 'scientific' explanations completely vacuous.

Larry wrote: Macro-evolution is sometimes defined as consisting of those evolutionary changes that are so drastic that they have never been directly observed. I prefer that definition.

We've seen this in the lab with Drosophila paulistorum now unable to produce fertile offspring with the parent species. We've seen this in nature via ring species of Salamander Ensatina where the sub species of klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed. (note there are many ring species that show this type of speciation Ensatina is just one of many examples)

Heddle: It is amazing how "little" you all care about demonstrating that the bible is inconsistent with science

Larry Farfarman

As I suggested to you way back here you do need to do some background reading, both on ID and on evolution. Not only would it help your arguments, I think you might also find it interesting.

If you insist on posting from a position of almost complete ignorance you will continue to be flamed as a troll or a windup merchant.

David,

"For example, if Genesis read, "God created the earth in the midst of his eternal universe" it would be making the same, indisputable, scientific error that Einstein, Hoyle, and Eddington made. There would be no way to cry "miracle" to reconcile an eternal universe with one that, we now know, had a beginning. Fortunately Genesis did speak of the beginning of the universe, predating modern science's discovery by several millennia."

And one might add to your comment that the ancient philosophers also strongly supported the concept of an eternal universe. Aristotle, for example, spoke of the "antiquity of the universe", by which he meant that it was eternal. The Bible's reference to a beginning thus was made in opposition to contemporary established thinking. Yet it remarkably turned out to be right on target. The big bang we know today is a singular event, never to be repeated again for this universe, thus representing a true beginning.

David Heddle

I think it's totally irrelevent if the bible (or any other collection of fairy tales) is consistent with science. How often do I refer to the bible during my scientific pursuits? Once a day? No. Once a month? No. Once a year? No. Have I ever? No.

Comment #69984 Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 11, 2006 06:28 AM ... Macro-evolution is sometimes defined as consisting of those evolutionary changes that are so drastic that they have never been directly observed. I prefer that definition. ...

— Larry Fafarman

...You should learn how to debate people without putting them down.

— Larry Fafarman

Yet it remarkably turned out to be right on target.

If a device like Zaphod's (HHG2tU) glasses (what were they named, again?)

— limpidense

"For example, if Genesis read, "God created the earth in the midst of his eternal universe" it would be making the same, indisputable, scientific error that Einstein, Hoyle, and Eddington made. There would be no way to cry "miracle" to reconcile an eternal universe with one that, we now know, had a beginning. Fortunately Genesis did speak of the beginning of the universe, predating modern science's discovery by several millennia."

Regarding the subject of Larry...

My personal opinion is that he's performing his own experiments on us.

You see he makes totally outlandish and clearly false statements. He asks for evidence or information on things but when he gets that information he doesn't just ignore it, he flaunts the fact that he hasn't followed up.

IMO, he in now way supports ID. He's just baiting us for his own amusement. I have stopped responding to his posts. The more outragious and clearly false statements he makes, the more I'm convinced that he is literally just "trolling".

I wouldn't be surprised if he does the same thing on other web sites (e.g. his meteor stuff probably falls into this category). He has probably tried the same tactic on the creationist sites but they banned him quickly.

Dean Morrison,

Actually I used the word "fortunately", not Carol. It was used ironically.

Carol,

I have a question of Hebrew usage at the end of this post. If you get a chance, your input would be appreciated.

Tim,

Nor do I refer to the bible for my scientific pursuits. It is not a science textbook. It is comforting, though, that what it does say about science is reliable.

Comment #70006 Posted by Tim Hague on January 11, 2006 08:50 AM (e) (s) David Heddle I think it's totally irrelevent if the bible (or any other collection of fairy tales) is consistent with science. How often do I refer to the bible during my scientific pursuits? Once a day? No. Once a month? No. Once a year? No. Have I ever? No.

Ms. Clouser:

1) The "Bible" is not the Torah. You - who claim to be a scholar - should refrain from engaging in this wilful equivocation.

2) The Torah is also a haphazard collection of writings, by many different authors (by the way, any idea about how Moses might have written a book about events following his own departure from this world? Was that a mistranslation too?), who wrote at different times. You know this as well as I do, or, as a self-proclaimed scholar, you should.

3) Genesis recounts an origins myth (or two). The Song of Solomon is a poem (and a highly erotically-charged one, at that; but don't tell this to a fundy, or he'll get his pants in a knot). Numbers is a combination census - organization chart - mission statement. Kings 1 and 2 are a heavily edited story of the semimythical kings of the Jews (and "revisionist" - i.e. evidence-based and not ideologically-driven - archaeology has something to say about those guys). And on and on. Hardly a coherent whole, unless you have a very quirky definition of coherence.

4) Alas, you do share Mr. Heddle's taste for semantic trickstery. Now, "the Bible" that is not the Bible is completely compatible with science... mod miracles!
Sorry, this is too ridiculous. As I already told your ally-of-convenience, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is compatible with science, if we only suspend our disbelief long enough to disregard supernatural occurrences!

In short, Ms. Clouser, try again. Your arguments, up to now, have been woefully inadequate.

Steve s,

I meant it tongue-in-cheek, but of course there is some substance---after all Weinberg used nothing more than our existence (or the existence of stars) to make a bold prediction about the value of the CC.

Although I was tongue-in-cheek, other much more impressive scientists than I say very similar things. For example, we have Nobel Laureate (for cosmic background radiation discovery) Penzias stating: "The best data we have (concerning the Big Bang) are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole."

Nor do I refer to the bible for my scientific pursuits. It is not a science textbook. It is comforting, though, that what it does say about science is reliable.

David,

Ken Ham is wrong on a few counts. YOM is used as era even with ordinal numbers (Hosea), Genesis speaks of "one YOM" not "the first YOM", so it's not ordinal, the much more frequent use of YOM as day (daylight) and as 24-hour period, as opposed to era, is merely based on need, and there is no other Hebrew word for era that is nearly as precise as YOM.

Hope this helps.

Perhaps if you weren't so willing to make cosmological non sequitur arguments for god, I would have known you were being tongue in cheek that particular time. But you are, so I didn't.

Carol,

Thank you.

Oh, in addition to PTers caring (a great deal) about claims that the bible is consistent with science, many will not be happy that you (and I) disagree with Ken Ham. They prefer to paint with a very broad "creationist/fundamentalist" brush.

Mr. Heddle:

I, for one, care as much about people lying about the Bible as I care about people lying about anything else, because lying offends my ethical sense (you know, that thing that many fundamentalists deny any atheist has).

Also, the fact that you and Ms. Clouser may not agree with Mr. Ham's conclusions in no way detracts from the fact that you share his modus operandi: there are some (i>a priori beliefs that translate automatically into conclusions, and then you work backwards to support them. In that, there is no real difference among creationists and fundamentalists of any stripe.

I would venture that PTers care far less about the Bible's scientific inaccuracies than Heddle and Clouser do about PTers' opinion of the Bible.

Mr. Heddle:

I, for one, care as much about people making false claims about the Bible as I care about people making false claims about anything else, simply because I care about being lied to.

As to the broad brush, the fact that Ms. Clouser and you disagree with Mr. Ham's conclusions in no way detracts from the fact that you share his modus operandi: some beliefs come first, then comes backwards reasoning to find "support" for those "conclusions". In that, there's no real difference among creationists/fundamentalists, be they YEC, OEC, Muslims, Jews, or what have you.

Comment #70048 Posted by Ogee on January 11, 2006 10:36 AM (e) (s) I would venture that PTers care far less about the Bible's scientific inaccuracies than Heddle and Clouser do about PTers' opinion of the Bible.

No, it only demonstrates that, apparently, you cannot handle multifaceted concepts.

Most people who engage in this debate (the scientific accuracy of the bible) understand that miracles are exempt from the discussion.

Nobody needs to explain how Jesus turned water into wine---because it wasn't a parlor trick but a miracle---

which by definition is supernatural---i.e., it defies scientific explanation.

Most educated people in this debate will also avoid the argument that you just made,

"no fair, you can call anything a miracle!" because they understand that (a) it is too trivial of a point to make on a public forum under their own name and, more importantly, (b) that the bulk of the biblical text does not describe the miraculous and so provides ample, fertile ground that can be examined for scientific error.

For example, if Genesis read, "God created the earth in the midst of his eternal universe" it would be making the same, indisputable, scientific error that Einstein, Hoyle, and Eddington made. There would be no way to cry "miracle" to reconcile an eternal universe with one that, we now know, had a beginning. Fortunately Genesis did speak of the beginning of the universe, predating modern science's discovery by several millennia.

It is amazing how "little" you all care about demonstrating that the bible is inconsistent with science.

...many will not be happy that you (and I) disagree with Ken Ham.

— David Heddle

The multiple fronts that bible has to fight today - scientific, historic, morality - I'll never understand why anyone would take it seriously.

— Eugene Lai

Nobody needs to explain how Jesus turned water into wine...

— David Heddle

Aristotle, for example, spoke of the "antiquity of the universe", by which he meant that it was eternal. The Bible's reference to a beginning thus was made in opposition to contemporary established thinking.

— Carol

Yet it remarkably turned out to be right on target.

Wayne Francis,

Nowhere does the Bible state or even imply that Adam was the first human. The Hebrew AUDUM can mean one of three things: (1) humanity, (2) the human male, and (3) the name of an individual. In Genesis the meaning of the word shifts as the story progresses. Most translations get it wrong in many instances. For a complete and thorough analysis you will need to read up on it. I can recommend some good books if you are interested.

Regarding Jushua, your questions have been addressed long ago. Again, read up on it.

Comment #69989 posted by Renier on January 11, 2006 07:41 AM Larry wrote: Macro-evolution is sometimes defined as consisting of those evolutionary changes that are so drastic that they have never been directly observed. I prefer that definition. So, you have to replace the definition with your own in order to attack it?

Wayne gave you some good samples: We've seen this in the lab with Drosophila paulistorum now unable to produce fertile offspring with the parent species. We've seen this in nature via ring species of Salamander Ensatina where the sub species of klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed.

There is no evidence to support the idea that a lizard can evolve into a bird by a series of small micro-evolutions, and the idea is counter-intuitive.

Larry,

The genetic difference between two species of fruit flies is similar to the genetic difference between two species of great apes (e.g. humans and chimpanzees).

Is the difference between humans & chimpanzees significant or should we just consider chimpanzees the same as humans? If you believe the former, then we *have* witnessed "macro-evolution". If you believe the later, you should make it your personal crusade to free all of those "humans" unfairly detained in zoos.

Nobody needs to explain how Jesus turned water into wine---because it wasn't a parlor trick but a miracle---

Or, more plausibly, it simply never happened.

That is not just my own definition --- it is also one of the definitions given in the article on macro-evolution in the Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia.

The term macroevolution refers to the emergence of new species and higher taxa through evolution, which, according to some cannot be explained using the gradual changes inherent in evolution. It is often used in the creation evolution controversy to refer to the part of evolution that cannot be directly observed, and contradicts scripture. The term 'species' has atleast six conflicting definitions making speciation difficult to define.

Oh, in addition to PTers caring (a great deal) about claims that the bible is consistent with science, many will not be happy that you (and I) disagree with Ken Ham. They prefer to paint with a very broad "creationist/fundamentalist" brush.

[dang! I was sure I previewed that]

I respond here rather than further divert this thread.

Larry said: "There is no evidence to support the idea that a lizard can evolve into a bird by a series of small micro-evolutions"

Amuse me, Larry, please, with your explanation of all the intermediate fossils between dinosaurs and birds. Are they hoaxes, maybe? How else could a half-bird half-dinosaur have left his bones and feathers imprinted in rock?

Please explain all the fossils - don't just stop at the most famous ones.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Many ancient peoples claimed that their early kings lived for hundreds of years. Jewish legends about 900-year old patriarchs are no different--or more credible--than the parallel Egyptian or Sumerian or Hindu stories.

Just popped the Panda's Thumb thread about Steve Steve looking at the new evidence that challenges the idea of a 'Cambrian explosion' onto Wikipedia.
Not an option open to Carol, Larry or Heddle unless they discover a new book of the 'Bible' (and providing they all agree on that of course....)

2) The event happened but it has a natural, scientific explanation, it's not a miracle.

— Ubernatural

Was it common for everyone to live that long yet still have roughly the same number of children that modern families have in 1/10th the amount of time?

Ok, so if Noah and his wife only had 3 sons before their bodies started to fall apart, how much more time goes by before he gets up the gumption to build an ark? 400 years? I wonder what kind of shape he was in at that point, or his sons for that matter. I assume they would have been quite old too?

Was it common for everyone to live that long yet still have roughly the same number of children that modern families have in 1/10th the amount of time?

Posted by Eugene Lai on January 11, 2006 03:15 PM (e) (s) ... My theory: Noah is an elf.

hey! congrats. this makes two threads now that Larry has managed to entertain us all for so long that they have run over 400 posts.

quite an accomplishment.

I can't recall even JAD in his heyday accomplishing that feat.

beer bongs all around!

One quible, surely it should be "was an elf". Either that or he is much older than 600 years.

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 11, 2006 03:53 PM (e) (s) hey! congrats. this makes two threads now that Larry has managed to entertain us all for so long that they have run over 400 posts. quite an accomplishment. I can't recall even JAD in his heyday accomplishing that feat. beer bongs all around!

so... it appears while i suspected it right along (as did anybody who has read her posts for a reasonable period), the reason Carol thinks metaphysics and philosophy should be taught as science is that, well, she thinks they ARE.

correct me if I'm wrong, but shes says:

1. that the correct and literal interpretation of genesis is not incompatible with science.

2. from the correct and literal interpretation of time as written in that account, one can only conclude that several protagonists in the genesis account MUST have been hundreds of years old.

3. The age of these protagonists can only be defined as miraculous.

4. ...but miracles don't conflict with science.

Am i missing something here? Seems this argument can now be put to bed.

Carol thinks miracles should be included in the purview of science. This does not conflict with earlier statements she has made.

However, I hope it is now clear to EVERYONE that her definition of the scope of science and the ACTUAL accepted scope of science are two quite different things.

I see no point in arguing semantics with Carol. She has made her position quite clear, as far as I can tell.

Nobody here, or anywhere else, will ever be able to convince her that her definition of the purview of science is incorrect, or even untennable.

Can we move on to Heddle now?

Heddle is not nearly as clear.

so, we could ask him directly:

Heddle:

"Do you think science should Carol's definition and examples of miracles within its purview?"

If not, then we are in agreement that in fact, no matter what accepted transliteration you use, the OT is NOT in agreement with the current accepted definition and purview of science.

If you, like Carol, believe the current accepted purview of science is too narrow, clearly state so.

that way, all can see how little point there is in arguing with you, just like we can clearly see with Carol.

What do reckon on Larry's chances of taking JAD's crown, as crank of the year?

hmm, that was interesting...

question to Heddle should read:

"Do you think science should accept Carol's definition and include examples of miracles within its purview?

Larry is a textbook troll. you can even lookup the definition of troll on the web if you doubt it.

I thought Larry's real name was Larry Farma?

will the real Larry please stand up?

What this Larry Farma?

http://www2.ljworld.com/users/LarryFarma/comments/

- same e-mail address and loopy opinions anyway -

Do I get a point for 'spot the Larry' or is it yours STJ?

Well, i wasn't the first to dig up the "Farma" alias, so i can't take credit for that.

feel free to give yourself a 'spot the larry point' just for digging up the confederate flag reference, tho i think someone might have beaten you to that as well.

heck, 'spot the larry' points for everybody!

I'll even give larry a point if he tells us whether one or both of these are aliases. he doesn't even have to give us his real name (if he has one).

I'll claim the bike thing though - maybe he can make a tandem and take that nice lady from the library for a ride?

You know - as a cyclist - he does at least have one redeeming feature - way to go Larry!!

I believe that a "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no reliable way(s) to identify Jews and non-Jews.

otoh, having seen the way larry thinks, it seems entirely plausible that larry might be incapable of learning how to drive.

ya know, when i first started trying to catch up this morning, I found that with all the drivel from larry, heddle, and carol stinking up the site, the most interesting conversation took the form of the islander (*wink*)discussion of which is the best ale in the UK, and where to best settle that debate in the square.

got my thirst for uh, 'knowledge' up, that's for sure.

got me seriously thinking about buying a plane ticket just to analyze the ale theories being presented.

the US, as you are well aware, because of laws pertaining to the percentage of alcohol present in order to be called 'beer', or 'ale' instead of say, 'malt liquor' makes for testing theories on good ale to be difficult at best.

Unless one has a microbrewery nearby, the studious pursuit of fine ale mostly dies out.

anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that I wish the US would get its priorities straight, give up on all the political wrangling over education, and solve this horrid ale issue before it's too late!

Just google on 'Fafarman' and 'Confederate' and see how many hits come up.

It seems to be quite an obsession of Larry's. And always in the same, uh, direction.

Sir Toejam,

us 'islanders' have got a session lined up for 'Darwin day'. -Beers in Trafalgar square then off to see a lecture by Dawkins...
followed by more beer..
you are of course - most welcome ;P

- it looks like Prof Steve Steve may be joining us. We have a theory that our beer is so good that abiogenesis would occur in a pint of it in a matter of hours - if only it ever lasted that long...
.. that we will be demonstrating to him - photos to follow hopefully :)

you are of course - most welcome ;P

...or at least save me an empy barstool so i can pretend I'm there.

Any alternative explanations as to what REALLY causes meteor showers ? Larry Fafarman

Hi Larry, We really don't need another explanation since we already have the correct one. ... Pete Bias

.. will do Sir Toejam... we'll even stick a pint in front of it to see if can rustle up some abiogenesis.

hold now... pint of what exactly. I'm pretty picky about my primordial soups.

I'm more of a scotch ale fan than bitters. I'd appreciate a lean in that direction.

Hey Carol, why should science give a flying fig about your religious opinions?

Hey Heddle, same question?

Oh, and hey Heddle, why is Carol wrong when she says the New Testament is full of crap?

Hey Carol, why is Heddle wrong when he says the New Testament is the Word of God?

Hey both of you, why won't either of you answer my simple questions?

(sound of crickets chirping)

Nobody needs to explain how Jesus turned water into wine

Any real god would have it bursting out of a volcano!

.. fond of the malty old 80 shillings myself STJ - but we're in London for Crisakes (near kent - real hop country) - the best we'll probably get is a can of McEwans...

Which god of the Canaanites would that be?... And when you start getting all hostile in your certainty... It rubs the wrong way...

— Moses

Whatever it was that George Bush was about to take off in that airport, I don't want to hear anymore about it, at all.

Any others that want to join the British Panda's Thumb chapter?

The 'Silver Cross', Trafalgar Square 4.30 Mon 13th Feb - then off to UCL for the British Humanist talk for Darwin Day hosted by Richard Dawkins - 6.30 at UCL near Euston.

All welcome..

Look for Prof Steve Steve and the empty barstool with Sir Toejam's pint in front of it....

Any real god would have it bursting out of a volcano!

Yeah really. Call me when you get Corona and some dirty girls.

Comment #70101 Posted by Grey Wolf on January 11, 2006 12:54 PM Larry said: "There is no evidence to support the idea that a lizard can evolve into a bird by a series of small micro-evolutions" Amuse me, Larry, please, with your explanation of all the intermediate fossils between dinosaurs and birds. Are they hoaxes, maybe? How else could a half-bird half-dinosaur have left his bones and feathers imprinted in rock?

Sure. And and my granddad died before he could have any kids.

Now you have TWO gaps! BAM! Larry's absolutely brillant! Genius!

Yes, I know that the archaeopteryx is supposed to be the "missing link" between reptiles and birds. But I don't believe that evolution from reptile to archaeopteryx and from archaeopteryx to bird occurred in single bounds; there must have been many intermediate "missing links" in between those stages. I cannot imagine what those other "missing links" might have looked like, and some must not have been viable, e.g., with limbs that could not be used as either legs or wings.

Only an effeminate wimp would bother with wine, though. Any REAL man would have made beer instead.

— 'Rev Dr.' Lenny Flank

Hah! You poser. I make & drink mead, the nectar of the God(s)! Well, some of mine is anyway. The rest is really quite yucky (but still drinkable).

Larry, IIRC archaeopteryx is not touted as a geneological link between reptiles and birds, i.e. birds did not come from reptiles via archaeopteryx, rather it is an offshoot along the way, albeit still related, and a prime example of macroevolution.

Have a look at the 29+ evidences for macroevolution on Talk Origins for a list of genera that demonstrate multiple macroevolutionary changes between reptiles and birds.

Comment #70093 posted by Dean Morrison on January 11, 2006 12:39 PM The 'Wikipedia' entry has a big warning notice to say it's disputed .. no mention of your definition there Larry.

Lenny,

I made a batch of mead that I imagine tasted like that. It was 18%-21% alcohol and I called it my "cheap date" mead. Aweful tasting but quite "effective".

I've also made some that looked & tasted like a very fine (but much higher in alcohol) champaign.

"It is often used in the creation evolution controversy to refer to the part of evolution that cannot be directly observed, .......

Comment #70347 posted by ben on January 11, 2006 10:03 PM Larry's scientific analysis : "don't believe," "must have been," "cannot imagine," "must not have been." It's not about the fossil record, it's about Larry's preconceived notions.

.. fond of the malty old 80 shillings myself STJ - but we're in London for Crisakes (near kent - real hop country) - the best we'll probably get is a can of McEwans...

well, it is supposed to be a presentation of alternative theories, so feel free to present your side of the argument. I can be persuaded to hoppiness under some circumstances. i did, after all, live around the bay area in Northern California for many years, which was a proverbial hotbed of hoppiness.

I propose that abiogenesis would occur faster in less hoppy ales tho (higher sugar content?). Please test that for me during your meeting.

otoh, since hops are related to canabis, one might be more enamored of life arising out of hoppy soup.

hmm. definetly requires further thought...

I know! let's ask our resident expert on everything, Larry:

Larry, any thoughts on this issue? Are you even old enough to drink yet?

Carol, I happen to have Robert Alter's Five Books of Moses sitting in my lap.... Your claim that the flood was local is not supported by Alter's translation: he uses "earth" and makes no mention of Hebrew ambiguity in the footnotes. Moreover, a local flood doesn't cleanse the Earth of the lawless behavior caused by humans following God's directive to "go forth and multiply." While the scientific evidence does support a local flood, that interpretation doesn't match the context of the scripture.

To David and Carol, while the website namesake may turn you off a priori, you may find a more engaging audience for Biblical discussion on the EvilBible.com forums. It isn't often that someone educated there takes the time to actually rebutt some of the more glaring Biblical contradictions that said website expounds upon....

I can prove that God cannot exist; why can't you prove He can?

Those of you who gripe about this thread or others being "taken over" by trolls such as myself or Heddle, can see here how rapidly the conversation degenerates in our absence. You non-trolls have nothing interesting or important to say. You descend precipitously into an abyss of vulgarity and verbal depravity focused on the basest forms of pleasures of the flesh. The mind is all but forgotten.

Larry, any thoughts on this issue? Are you even old enough to drink yet?

You descend precipitously into an abyss of vulgarity and verbal depravity focused on the basest forms of pleasures of the flesh. The mind is all but forgotten.

Unmark,

I don't have Alter's book in front of me. If what you say is true, it is either an oversight on his part or he is just wrong. Any Hebrew-English dictionary will readily reveal that ARETZ usually means "the land of", not "the earth".

EvilBible.com is replete with so much silliness and ignorance, it is beneath me (I cannot speak for David) to dabble in it. I prefer to talk to intelligent and knowledgeable folk, such as those found on PT. Despite some defects in chartacter and short temperedness displayed here, I still think, as I always did, that scientists are the greatest people around. That some of them have a mental block in certain areas is worthy of my efforts.

I absolutely gaurantee that you cannot prove that God does not exist. The biggest luminares in the athiest community, such as Dawkins, have tried in vain and given up on making such a claim. And if you really thought you could do that, have you not answered your final question?

You non-trolls have nothing interesting or important to say

I think our Larry has the opposite problem --- he's a 'retired engineer from Los Angeles'.

That some of them have a mental block in certain areas is worthy of my efforts.

I gave up the atheism game many decades ago because I'm not that fond of playing whack-a-mole. Since believers are unwilling or unable to provide a coherent concept of God, I have no way of knowing whether or not I believe in God. I can't even be an agnostic since I don't know what it is I'm supposed to doubt.

Theological and mythological questions can be interesting from a literary, historical, or sociological point of view, but grown ups ought to know better than to take them seriously.

There is no denying that miracles are part of the Bible. And I don't think that is in conflict with science. It is outside the domain of science, but not contradicted by it.

Yes, I know that the archaeopteryx is supposed to be the "missing link" between reptiles and birds. But I don't believe that evolution from reptile to archaeopteryx and from archaeopteryx to bird occurred in single bounds; there must have been many intermediate "missing links" in between those stages.

I cannot imagine what those other "missing links" might have looked like, and some must not have been viable, e.g., with limbs that could not be used as either legs or wings.

A lot of evolution "science" is based on just wild speculation and philosophizing --- look at "punctuated equilibrium." LOL What a joke.

.......which would explain his painful fear based "all is sorrowful" projections Larry said: A lot of evolution Creation "science" is based on just wild speculation and philosophizing

In The Simpsons episode Thank God, It's Doomsday, after the rapture occurs and Homer Simpson is taken to heaven, he asks God to reverse what has happened. God agrees, then proclaims "Deus ex Machina" and normality is restored magically.

The biggest luminares in the athiest community

Larry said he was around 60 years old ? so he is probably too OLD to drink

depravity focused on the basest forms of pleasures of the flesh. The mind is all but forgotten.

They bred a strain of yeast specifically to survive high alcohol levels, and produced this beer that is 25.6% ABV!

STJ said: yeah, but you can't call that "beer" in the US, uh... nyah, nyah? *sigh*

"Those whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes mad." -- Euripides (c. 485-406 B.C.), a fragment.

note to those testing abiogenesis/ale theories:

be careful out there!

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2006-01-05T161559Z_01_ARM558536_RTRUKOC_0_US-DRINKING-BRITAIN.xml&archived=False

;)

Is there a way to send photos to PT?
We are planning/hoping to get some "steve,steve" pics with Dawkins.
Unless we have some real strong beer first, then forget.

Darwin day talk. London. Feb 13th.

contact reed, I'm sure he will assist.

barring that, I have a couple of places you could post your pics and then just give out the links.

If you need, just let me know.

have fun.

I absolutely gaurantee that you cannot prove that God does not exist.

Comment #70265 posted by ben on January 11, 2006 07:28 PM Nothing Larry ever says here can beat his meteor shower comment for sheer inanity

What is this nonsense about searching the Internet to see where other commenters stand on other issues?

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 01:56 AM (e) (s) barring that, I have a couple of places you could post your pics and then just give out the links. If you need, just let me know. have fun.

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 02:59 AM (e) (s) ... opinions on whether abiogenesis would occur faster in a porter or a stout? hoppy or not?

Any others that want to join the British Panda's Thumb chapter? The 'Silver Cross', Trafalgar Square 4.30 Mon 13th Feb - then off to UCL for the British Humanist talk for Darwin Day hosted by Richard Dawkins - 6.30 at UCL near Euston. All welcome.. Look for Prof Steve Steve and the empty barstool with Sir Toejam's pint in front of it....

— Dean Morrison

My money is on the stout. Guinness can be considered a meal.

— Stephen Elliott

Request ---

Would those quoting or otherwise responding to other comments please give the comment number of the comment that they are responding to ? Many commenters here give just the name of the author of the original comment or nothing at all. This comment number is very useful for checking the contexts of the original quotes or ideas and also for responding directly to the original commenter. Thanks.

Scary Larry

Comment #70473 posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 02:59 AM ****What is this nonsense about searching the Internet to see where other commenters stand on other issues?***** not other commenters, larry, just you.

"Those whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes mad." --- Euripides (c. 485-406 B.C.), a fragment.

"Those who the Troll wishes to destroy, he first drives to drink." - You-rippadese an' I-a'rippa yours - Chico Marx

I've heard you can sustain human life pretty much indefinitely on 8 pints of Guinness (and nothing else) per day. Sounds like a testable prediction to me ;)

Re Request,

Speaking as an amateur scripter, a darn good hacker should be able to write a script to pattern match and pull all relevent comments together in roughly 2 hours.

There are a lot of commenters here whom I would like to check out, but out of courtesy I don't do it.

Comment #70422 posted by Ubernatural on January 12, 2006 12:50 AM Larry, you are absolutely correct. There were millions of intermediate steps, of microevolution.

Everyone accepts microevolution.

****I cannot imagine what those other "missing links" might have looked like, and some must not have been viable, e.g., with limbs that could not be used as either legs or wings.***** Imagine, if you can, a fancy computer effect, morphing a raptor into a chicken. Are arms important to a raptor? Are wings important to a chicken? For example, if in some (impossibly improbable) freak mutation, a raptor was born with wings like a chicken, do you think the raptor could survive?

*****A lot of evolution "science" is based on just wild speculation and philosophizing --- look at "punctuated equilibrium." LOL What a joke.**** Nope. Actually that's what you are doing, right in the above paragraphs, only you're imagining in the negative. Please tell us what you think the problem is with punctuated equilibrium

Comment #70492 posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 04:34 AM Larry - if you are going to publish your views all over the web (and be in possesion of a unique name) - you want people to notice them don't you? Or have you changed your mind about the confederate flag and no longer wish to be associated with that point of view?

Larry wrote : the absence of missing link fossils

I do not want to discuss confederate symbols and the holocaust here ---- they are off-topic.

Just for Larry, here's the exact link on talkorigins which deals with reptile to bird intermediate fossils: here.

Please please read this Larry and then come back and talk to us about 'missing link' fossils again.

As I expected, even though I specifically told Larry not to "explain away" the most famous of all the intermediates between dinosaurs and birds and ignore the rest, he nonetheless did exactly that. I don't think he understands just how many intermediates have been found.

In keeping with the creationist troll theory, I predict that Larry will either not read Tim's link at all or, if he does read it, he will not bring up the topic again for a few weeks, after which he will once again triumphantly point out that "there are no intermediates between reptiles and birds!" and once again look like an imbecile for pontificating about a subject he obviously knows nothing about.

That said, as I expected, I was amused by his attempt to ignore the evidence of evolution beyond the species level.

By the way, Larry, if you define "macro-evolution" as "evolution that has not been observed", and then conclude that "macro-evolution has not been observed" apart from, as I say, looking like an imbecile, you are committing a logical fallacy. Hopefully, if I put your definition and conclusion in the same sentence you will see what I mean. When used by biologists, macro-evolution is more often than not "change above species level" - and that has, indeed, been observed in labs and in the wild, as well as left countless traces in form of fossils and DNA evidence and so on. I recommend you read through the entire 29+ Evidences article before you continue with this discussion.

Finally, I have twice said you are looking like an imbecile in this post, Larry. I do not mean to be insulting, just descriptive, of a person that is trying to talk about a subject he obviously knows nothing about. You *are* scary, Larry - it is very scary how someone lacking all knowledge of a topic attempts to teach it to people who make a living from that topic (biology, laws, computers... every topic you have brought up, Larry!).

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

This might not be the greatest place for you to discuss your 'Holocaust revisionism' theories - crikey Carol might even start wondering if she was on the wrong side.

Comment #70508 posted by Tim Hague on January 12, 2006 06:57 AM Just for Larry, here's the exact link on talkorigins which deals with reptile to bird intermediate fossils: here

So what ever happened to those "missing links for the missing links" ? Why aren't they in the fossil record ?"

— Larry

You descend precipitously into an abyss of vulgarity and verbal depravity focused on the basest forms of pleasures of the flesh. The mind is all but forgotten.

— Carol

I don't know about you Carol, but my mind and body are intricately linked. The occasional "pleasure of the flesh" does wonders for my mental clarity.

Could that explain why some of your thinking is so muddled, perhaps?

Comment #70573 Posted by Larry Fafarman The long list of species of dinosaurs and primitive fossil birds shows nothing.

Comment #70499 Posted by Larry Fafarman You said it --- impossible, improbable freak mutation is right, yet evolution supposedly consisted of zillions of such mutations.

Nothing in your link refutes anything I said in Comment #70499. The long list of species of dinosaurs and primitive fossil birds shows nothing. As for the morphological similarities between the bones of dinosaur forelegs and the bones of bird wings, shown here, these similarities do not mean that the proportionately tiny forelegs of a T.Rex can evolve into the proportionately huge wings of an eagle. And a bird is more than just a dinosaur with long forelegs that are shaped like wings; for example, the wing muscles of a bird can be one-third of the bird's weight.

Punctuated equilibrium (PE) is just philosophy, not science. It is not supported by any evidence but is actually supported by an absence of evidence --- the absence of missing link fossils.

*sigh*

You really ARE pig ignorant, are you.

One, there are plenty of transitional fossils. Two, the geographic concentration of many such fossils lead to punctuated equilibrium. Third, concepts of PE guide current research on EXISTING species. Fourth, you contradict yourself; a scarcity of transitional sequence generated the hypothesis--that is, by definition, NOT philosophy. The evidence pattern generated a hypothesis, which is being tested right now.

You use big words, but I do not think you know what they mean....

I cannot imagine what those other "missing links" might have looked like, and some must not have been viable, e.g., with limbs that could not be used as either legs or wings.

Penguin's, Ostrich's, Emu's, et al don't use their forelimbs as "wings" or "legs" either.

Does this mean that they aren't viable or just that Larry can't "imagine" them?

I'll leave the answer to the audience to figure out.

Basic apostrophe usage:

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_apost.html

Sitting on a bar stool and having a few are "the basest forms of pleasures of the flesh"? Boy, does SHE lead a sheltered life. You're not even going to be in a nudie bar.

Perhaps we should try baby steps, here.

Eoraptor has a baby. It looks like its mommy and daddy.
Baby grows up, has a baby and it looks like its mommy and daddy.
Baby grows up, has a baby and it looks like its mommy and daddy.
Baby grows up, has a baby and it looks like its mommy and daddy.
Baby grows up, has a baby and it looks like its mommy and daddy.
Baby grows up, has a baby and it looks like its mommy and daddy.
Baby grows up, has a baby and it looks like its mommy and daddy.
Keep doing this for a few million years. Throw in some travel and maybe a nice rift valley for grins.

Now, here's the good part so pay attention.

After the few million years, take the baby you have in your left hand and compare it to the Original Eoraptor Baby you have in your right hand.

They are different animals. Related, but different.

Eoraptor on the right, Ceratosaurus on the left.

This is where creationists get all tangled up. At no point during this entire few million years of this example does baby grow up, have a baby and it looks way different, like sprouting a trunk, or Dumbo ears or an anti-gravity gland. Nope, it looks just like its mommy and daddy with itty-bitty little changes: mommy's nose, daddy's claw.

OK, Larry, we're almost home. Here's a pop quiz.

Rewind the tape back to the original Eoraptor population. Now, wind the tape forward and watch how one part of the population moves ever westward, and another part moves ever northward.

What do you think you might see if after a few million years you compare the West baby to the North baby to the original Eoraptor baby?

(face-saving comment: not being a biologist I apologise to those of you who are biologists for my simplistic view of things. I encourage all comments and criticisms on my simple-minded example.)

Nothing in your link refutes anything I said in Comment #70499. The long list of species of dinosaurs and primitive fossil birds shows nothing. As for the morphological similarities between the bones of dinosaur forelegs and the bones of bird wings, shown here, these similarities do not mean that the proportionately tiny forelegs of a T.Rex can evolve into the proportionately huge wings of an eagle. And a bird is more than just a dinosaur with long forelegs that are shaped like wings; for example, the wing muscles of a bird can be one-third of the bird's weight.

— Larry

Comment #70583 posted by Ubernatural on January 12, 2006 11:30 AM Comment #70573 Posted by Larry Fafarman ****The long list of species of dinosaurs and primitive fossil birds shows nothing.**** Yes it does. It shows 22 transitional fossils between dinos and birds. Here they are, in order:

Oh yeah, Larry, well, how do you explain PYGMIES AND DWARVES!!??!?!!!!!1111ONEONEONE

(hi fives cool insiders)

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 12:13 PM (e) (s) ... I recognized 3 of the extinct species in your list --- allosaurus, velociraptor, and archaeopteryx. Of these, only archaeopteryx is a transitional form between dinosaurs and modern birds. The other two were strictly terrestrial dinosaurs similar to the T.Rex and showed no signs of transitioning into birds (actually, their sheer size makes it very unlikely that they were ancestors of today's birds).

Comment #70603 Posted by Larry Fafarman Of these, only archaeopteryx is a transitional form between dinosaurs and modern birds.

I recognized 3 of the extinct species in your list --- allosaurus, velociraptor, and archaeopteryx. Of these, only archaeopteryx is a transitional form between dinosaurs and modern birds. The other two were strictly terrestrial dinosaurs similar to the T.Rex and showed no signs of transitioning into birds (actually, their sheer size makes it very unlikely that they were ancestors of today's birds).

— Larry

Let's do another analogy!

Let's say an organism has 1,000,000,000,000 base pairs in it's genome.

Let's say the mutation rate between a parent and an adult is 0.00001% of their genome (which means that 100,000 pairs are different).

Let's assume that a generation takes 10 years.

Since it's been 65,000,000 years since dinosaurs where around, that means that we could have had 6,500,000 generations since the dinosaurs.

6,500,000 x 0.00001% = 65% change. So the genome could have changed 65% of the genome in that amount of time. Considering that the difference between chimps is <1 to ~4% depending upon how you keep score, that's a pretty big difference!

Of course the rate of change is drastically different in different parts of the genome, but you should have a good feel for the order of magnitude of change that's possible in that period of time.

Comment #70602 posted by Grey Wolf on January 12, 2006 12:13 PM Larry, are you really that dense? "T. rex to eagle" is not what evolution proposes - that's the old "hurricane in junkyard" stupidity.

The distance between any two given fossils in that sequence is micro-evolution, which you cannot refute

Not all birds need such huge muscles - emus live perfectly nice lives without ever flying

Comment #70608 posted by Grey Wolf on January 12, 2006 12:28 PM This is the opinion of someone who knows about dinosaurs because he saw Jurassic Park. Note to the clueless (i.e. Larry): the velociraptor was not only smaller than what was shown in the films, it was also feathered!

I disagree --- I assert that the distances between these fossils are too great to be bridged by micro-evolution.

— Larry

A mutation that improves the flying apparatus without producing flying ability would not be a favorable mutation, and macro-evolution is supposed to consist of a series of favorable mutations.

— Larry

whats your peoples problem with religion? jeebus loves you. return the gift of love to him. love jeebus cherish him. hes your pandasthumb, if it werent for him this dumb forum wouldnt exist bitches

...I see no reason why the movie Jurassic Park would have deviated from paleontology.

— Larry

Comment #70607 posted by Ubernatural on January 12, 2006 12:27 PM Comment #70603 Posted by Larry Fafarman ****Of these, only archaeopteryx is a transitional form between dinosaurs and modern birds****. Well, that's a start. You recognise one transitional fossil between dinos and birds.

I disagree --- I assert that the distances between these fossils are too great to be bridged by micro-evolution.

— Larry

Flying birds need huge wings and huge wing muscles. A mutation that improves the flying apparatus without producing flying ability would not be a favorable mutation, and macro-evolution is supposed to consist of a series of favorable mutations. Also, at some point of development the flying apparatus would still not be good enough for flying but would be heavy enough and bulky enough to be an unacceptable burden to the organism. Anyway, the dinosaur-to-birds transition is just one example of the problems I have described here --- there may be better examples.

— Larry

I have seen pictures of the allosaurus and the velociraptor in books about dinosaurs, and they looked just like the T.Rex. And I see no reason why the movie Jurassic Park would have deviated from paleontology.

— Larry

I have seen pictures of the allosaurus and the velociraptor in books about dinosaurs, and they looked just like the T.Rex. And I see no reason why the movie Jurassic Park would have deviated from paleontology.

Comment #70617 posted by Wislu Plethora on January 12, 2006 01:04 PM Larry wrote: ****I disagree --- I assert that the distances between these fossils are too great to be bridged by micro-evolution.**** Great. Please tell us where/what the limit is, then. How long is it possible for the "bridge" to be, and what factors act in its alleged limitations? Please be specific.

What would the purpose be in describing something as "flying apparatus" if it doesn't enable flight?

So you spell it "recognise"? Maybe another Britisher in this forum? Did you know that creationism is taught as science in some British government-funded schools?

I know the level of ignorance displayed by M. Fafarman and other trolls here is almost beyond belief (He did just say Jurassic Park wouldn't have deviated from paleontology). In case no one has seen it before, I thought I'd pass along a psychology study from Cornell that provides scientific rationale for the pride they seem to have in their ignorance.
Here's a bit of the abstract:
"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."

Larry, Larry, Larry. You made the intitial assertion. You see "distances" that must be "bridged," and have apparently assigned some limiting factor to them. All I'm asking is for you to explain yourself.

"Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."

Translation: Not only are these people stupid; they're too stupid to realize they're stupid.

The Bible (old testament, of course) clearly states that it is addressed to a small group of people, referred to as the children of Israel, who were designated by Him as the chosen people and assigned special responsiblities. We can speculate endlessly as to why He did so, and I can think of quite a few good reasons, but did so He did.

— Carol Clouser

"Translation: Not only are these people stupid; they're too stupid to realize they're stupid."

Exactly, but it's so much more fun to have scientific validation for it.

I have seen pictures of the allosaurus and the velociraptor in books about dinosaurs, and they looked just like the T.Rex. And I see no reason why the movie Jurassic Park would have deviated from paleontology.

I have seen pictures of the allosaurus and the velociraptor in books about dinosaurs, and they looked just like the T.Rex. And I see no reason why the movie Jurassic Park would have deviated from paleontology.

— 'I saw it in a work of fiction so it must be true' Larry

---- after you tell me why you think that the gaps are small enough to be bridged by micro-evolution.

Not how it works.

You made the claim. You support it.

Still waitin' on those alma mater(s), Larry.

Oh, and degrees/subject areas would be nice.

Comment #70624 posted by Grey Wolf on January 12, 2006 01:16 PM They started to increase speed and jump distance by flapping their arms - just long distance jumpers do in humans - except that, because of feathers, this was a *very* positive impact in jumping ability. The velociraptor depended on land speed -- feathers help that somewhat.

ding ding!

over 500 posts!

wow larry, you sure know how to draw em in!

what comes after beer bongs?

hmm.

Comment #70640 Posted by gwangung ---- after you tell me why you think that the gaps are small enough to be bridged by micro-evolution. Not how it works. You made the claim. You support it.

So where are the fossils of these dinosaurs that were able to jump great distances by flapping their rudimentary wings? And did this jumping ability increase speed --- or just slow down these dinosaurs? Did this jumping ability increase their ability to catch prey or escape predators? You yourself admitted that the velociraptors depended on land speed --- and these rudimentary wings and flying muscles must have slowed them down. And how did the feathers increase speed?

— Larry

Hey, Uber, are you telling me that the baby proto-bird looks like its mommy (also a proto-bird)?

What a concept! (comment #70601)

Take The "Done With Larry" Pledge

I'm doing it. Please join me. He's wasting everyone's time and energy, has no intention of participating and probably isn't even smart enough to be having a good laugh doing it.

"I will not respond to anything Larry Fafarman writes on PT, no matter how inane, dishonest, off-topic, self-aggrandizing, or bewildering moronic it might be. He neither offers, nor intends to offer, any positive contribution to discussion of matters relevant to PT. There is no reason to respond to his posts because every argument and observation he presents is either recycled, garbled, or simply invented in his own mind, and he has no intention of adjusting any of his preconceived ideas to fit new or existing evidence. Bye Larry."

Please join me. End the farce.

Nothing in your link refutes anything I said in Comment #70499. The long list of species of dinosaurs and primitive fossil birds shows nothing.

Flying birds need huge wings and huge wing muscles.

— LaughingstockLarry

The ones that had better feathers/slightly stronger limbs would be better jumpers and quicker runners and better insulated, and thus would survive to have children.

"I'm doing it. Please join me. He's wasting everyone's time and energy, has no intention of participating and probably isn't even smart enough to be having a good laugh doing it."

I'll be happy to pledge. Although I am learning a lot about evolutionary biology from reading these posts, (and even a bit about law, when some of you legal types write in) but all I'm learning from Larry is human psychopathology. However, for my students' sake, I need that one little bit of info I have been asking for. (going on a couple of weeks, now) So, how 'bout it? Throw me a bone, here...

And did this jumping ability increase speed --- or just slow down these dinosaurs? Did this jumping ability increase their ability to catch prey or escape predators? You yourself admitted that the velociraptors depended on land speed --- and these rudimentary wings and flying muscles must have slowed them down. And how did the feathers increase speed?

Throw me a bone, here...

packicetus.

i really should use the preview function more often.

So where are the fossils of these dinosaurs that were able to jump great distances by flapping their rudimentary wings?

No.

You made a claim.

Support it.

Posted by ben on January 12, 2006 02:54 PM (e) (s) Take The "Done With Larry" Pledge I'm doing it. Please join me. He's wasting everyone's time and energy, has no intention of participating and probably isn't even smart enough to be having a good laugh doing it. "I will not respond to anything Larry Fafarman writes on PT, no matter how inane, dishonest, off-topic, self-aggrandizing, or bewildering moronic it might be. He neither offers, nor intends to offer, any positive contribution to discussion of matters relevant to PT. There is no reason to respond to his posts because every argument and observation he presents is either recycled, garbled, or simply invented in his own mind, and he has no intention of adjusting any of his preconceived ideas to fit new or existing evidence. Bye Larry." Please join me. End the farce.

ben, I'm in with the pledge.

Take The "Done With Larry" Pledge,

Ben, I'm in.

Take The "Done With Larry" Pledge

Comment #70623 Posted by Larry Fafarman So you spell it "recognise"? Maybe another Britisher in this forum? Did you know that creationism is taught as science in some British government-funded schools?

I think our Larry has the opposite problem --- he's a 'retired engineer from Los Angeles'.

Personally I think this is fun - we should aim for the thousand

Sir_Toejam: regular bongs of course!

As an aside - Richard Dawkins was on 'BBC Radio 5' today to talk about his UK TV series 'Religion the Root of all Evil?' - the 'Dover Trial' gets a passing mention at the very end when the next guest comes on - a UK Army pastor who shows he doesn't understand what ID is (and doesn't believe in it either).

Richard Dawkins on BBC Radio 5 live

....... (falls off bar stool frothing at the mouth)

and I will completely agree to follow the "pledge" in any new threads from now on.

Did Carol and Heddley give up and go home?

I think Carol definetly has some thinking to do, based on the very clear logical inconsistencies in her presentation in this thread.

Heddley ran away before we could even pin him down, as usual.

hmm. speaking of Dawkins...

does anybody want to go into whether The Blind Watchmaker deals with evolutionary hypotheses of abiogenesis or not?

I'm sure it would attract several ID proponents, and I'm sure larry would chime in, once he understands what I'm talking about.

Comment #70659 posted by Don Baccus on January 12, 2006 02:56 PM LaughingstockLarry wrote: ****Flying birds need huge wings and huge wing muscles.***** DonTheDunce answered: Well, no, actually, not necessarily. Take a good look at an albatross, for instance. Scanty wing muscles, not particularly muscular pectorals. They mostly soar on the lift generated by wind blowing across waves.

I think Carol definetly has some thinking to do, based on the very clear logical inconsistencies in her presentation in this thread. Heddley ran away before we could even pin him down, as usual.

The wing muscles on an albatross would have to be large just to support the weight of the bird. And on an albatross, those muscles must be tireless because the albatross can soar for days ---- a reason to believe that the wing muscles must be especially large.

— LaughingstockLarry

Comment #70631 posted by Wislu Plethora on January 12, 2006 01:30 PM Larry, Larry, Larry. You made the intitial assertion. You see "distances" that must be "bridged," and have apparently assigned some limiting factor to them. All I'm asking is for you to explain yourself.

damn don, i was going to suggest that larry could actually look this up for himself, rather than relying on erroneous supposition, as he is readily wont to do.

oh well. saves him the trouble, I guess.

I'm on the pledge!

Larry is worse than JAD. At least old JAD had a "thesis," mobius though it was.

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 04:03 PM (e) (s) ... ... waay back when this page was young I made a plea to ignore the ignore the Trolls then three came along and the chimp party started. 500+ posts later the party is still going ... without looking can you remember what the original topic of this thread was? Somehow we've managed to get from Dembski: via Larry's legal ramblings; through Biblical interpretation; beery substances; definitions of 'macroevolution'; Larry's physical reality in this world Hollywood Blockbuster interpretation; to - whether feathers could help dinosaurs jump. How did this happen Larry? Did we go from Dembski to jumping fluffy dinosaurs in 'one jump' - or lots of little steps? If the record wasn't complete how would you know there was a link? Doesn't prove anything of course - but a demonstration of how little steps can add up to big changes over time... and without any 'intelligence' directing the show (or any intelligence I can see at any rate!)

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 04:03 PM (e) (s) ... Personally I think this is fun - we should aim for the thousand - as soon as this link dies off then Larry will only go to infect a new one - so we are doing the other discussions a favour.

I would say that the sizes of the gaps in the fossil record are far larger than any instance of micro-evolution that has ever been observed in recorded history.

The word "larry" now appears 332 times on this thread.

Just ignore him.

"Never try to teach a pig Larry Fafarman to sing think coherently. It only wastes your time and annoys the pig feeds his ego.

Posted by ben on January 12, 2006 05:06 PM (e) (s) The word "larry" now appears 332 times on this thread.

This thread is a good argument for re-erecting the bathroom wall, with Larry being locked in.

OK, it's clear I am not going to get an answer; guess I'll have to assume that, like Josh Bozeman, Larry has no post-high school education, lives with his folks, uses his father's aol account, and has no training in any of the areas being discussed on this blog. Guess my kids are safe applying to any institution, provided it is accredited. It is taking too long to upload 550+ posts on this old Compaq, so I'm pledgin' and signin' off.

I gave up on conversing with the maroon long ago, and can certainly sympathize with our pledge-takers.

However, this thread has regularly given rise to humor, in both micro- and mega-doses, and there is something to be said for treating it as a kind of "Larry "Maroon Cordon."

And the notion of a 1,000 comment "record" is enticing, even if it appeals only to the obsessive in me. And watching this page load is probably as interesting as most other things while doing other, more entertaining chores--like loading the bong...

And I'm very faintly interested in whether this particular maroon will turn out to be nine or ninety.

Comment #70700 posted by Don Baccus on January 12, 2006 04:43 PM LaughingstockLarry wrote: *****The wing muscles on an albatross would have to be large just to support the weight of the bird. And on an albatross, those muscles must be tireless because the albatross can soar for days ---- a reason to believe that the wing muscles must be especially large.***** DonTheDunce answered: Idiot. The albatross doesn't require any energy in holding its wings outstretched for hundreds of miles at a time. Instead, the albatross has a "wing lock" mechanism at its shoulder and elbow joints.

The word "larry" now appears 332 times on this thread.

damn, larry posted at the same time as i did.

erm...

make that 340, as of right... now.

I don't remember making the initial assertion, but I will answer your question.

Sorry, but this was not an answer.

Try again. Do some research. Use some facts or a bit pf physical evidence.

Couldn't you have brought that interesting piece of trivia to my attention without calling me an idiot

Folks around here DO try to be accurate and precise in their descriptions.

Comment #70657 posted by ben on January 12, 2006 02:54 PM Take The "Done With Larry" Pledge I'm doing it. Please join me.

And fairly large wing muscles would be required just to extend such huge wings.

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002. albatross around one's neck An annoying burden: "That old car is an albatross around my neck." Literally, an albatross is a large sea bird. The phrase alludes to Samuel Taylor Coleridge's poem "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," in which a sailor who shoots a friendly albatross is forced to wear its carcass around his neck as punishment.

Isn't it kind of striking how the tone of the L-man's messages has remained so utterly consistent over the course of 500 messages and three weeks, no matter what happens to him?

All I can say is, if he isn't at least 70 years old, god help him.

damnit! slow down larry, i can't count that fast.

let's see...

345.

Did you know that there are 'flying snakes' Larry? It's true! Now you'll tell me snakes can't fly because they don't have enormous wing muscles - but some do - really! If you don't beleive me check it out. (Of course you , David and Carol, think there was one that could talk as well - but that's another story and anyone who would think a 'talking snake' was a good idea had had one bong too many in my opinion - bound to lead to trouble).
=============================================
I'm from Los Angeles - you'll have to look it up for me!

I'm from Los Angeles - you'll have to look it up for me!

The word "larry" now appears 332 times on this thread.

For some strange reason, that really amused me. Perhaps I am going daft. BTW. What did you do to find that out?

not only are there flying snakes, Larry (347), but there are flying lizards, frogs, and fish as well!

my god, what will HE think of next!

oh, btw, just to cut to the chase, these are examples of "parrallel evolution". Grok that for us, would ya Larry (348)?

Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry.

We're all Larry, all the time!

or parallel, even :p

i'm having to type too fast to keep up with the Larry (349) count.

I think that urging other commenters to not respond to someone is in very bad taste. I think that Lenny Flank is a jerk ---- he even flamed me in response to a post of mine that actually supported his position ---- but I never asked other commenters to stop responding to him.

We're all Larry, all the time!

I may finally have tracked him down!

http://www.stoogeworld.com/_Biographies/Larry.htm

One of the coolest things in the world: flying snake videos.

"I got blisters on me fingers"

I'm gonna take a break and do a few laps in the pool.

cheers

Posted by ben on January 12, 2006 05:51 PM (e) (s) ... I copied all the text on the page, pasted it into excel, and did a "find all."

Hi, this is STJ's voicemail. I can't come to the keyboard right now. After the tone, please leave your screenname and thread and I'll get back to you as soon as possible... BEEP!

— STJ's voicemail

make that "dry", duh!

I'm sorry. My strikeout of Larry in my last post was not intended to screw up the name count.

Please--if necessary, I have no idea whether "find all" finds terms that have been stricken--deduct two, um, names from the count, and I'll promise to strike out no more (would that my minor league coach could have received the benefit of that pledge!).

But, silly me, I somehow thought we were working towards a thousand comments, not a thousand, um, you knows...

You rang?

ahhh. a few laps in the pool, followed by a quick soak in the hottub. Almost as good as a trip to the pub.

anyway, where were we...

at this point, I think we all agree this has become larry's thread, so..

larry, what do YOU want to talk about?

c'mon now, I'm sure you haven't run out of pearls to throw before us swine yet?

oh and..

461.

strikeouts and names as a part of a link, like larry.com (462) count.

but larryscrumpdeliicious doesn't, nor does larryson since there is not a distinct "larry" (463) there.

the post count for the thread is kept automatically, so there is no reason to pay someone to keep track of that.

uh, you did realize i was getting paid to keep the Larrycount(TM) didn't you?

Comment #70732 posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 05:43 PM ****And fairly large wing muscles would be required just to extend such huge wings.**** amazing as your devotion to unsubstantiated suppositional thinking is, Larry (341), perhaps just this once you might actually look up whether or not albatross actually have large wing muscles or not?

You ever seen footage of an Albatross take off Larry? and what point are you trying to make or have you forgotten:

Try starting here:

"Because I think the Albatross has huge wing muscles......."

(I'm beginning to think that Monty Python didn't actually, you know write their own scripts - and you know Larry would be about the right age: anyway that is my theory that belongs to me, which is fine, what I thought of....... (falls off stool again))

I recognized 3 of the extinct species in your list --- allosaurus, velociraptor, and archaeopteryx. Of these, only archaeopteryx is a transitional form between dinosaurs and modern birds.

And I see no reason why the movie Jurassic Park would have deviated from paleontology.

not only are there flying snakes, Larry

Notes on the Biology and Captive Care of the Flying Snakes (Chrysopelea). By Lenny Flank, Jr. Reptile and Amphibians Hobbyist magazine, July 1999, pages 28-32

I already pointed out that the albatross has the ability to flap its enormous wings ---- it is not limited to just jumping off a cliff like a hang glider. So how could it not have large wing muscles ?

So how could it not have large wing muscles ?

— BlindLarry

Folks,

I have refrained from commenting for some time for the reason I gave for not commenting on another thread that had a feature in common with this one. I just will not do business with holocaust deniers or revisionists, nor be seen anywhere within earshot of such creatures. I quoted the Talmudic dictum that guides my behavior in this regard and that still stands.

But let me say something to anyone listening out there with similar motives to debunk evolution. I understand where you are coming from. You believe (erroneously in my opinion) that the Bible contradicts evolution, or you think evolution diminishes the lofty uniqueness of humanity (image of God) by treating it as just another animal, or you think evolution encourages immorality by highlighting the seeming immorality of how life developed (survival of the fittest) or you subscribe to all of these.

But it is time to give up the game. We are endowed with superior intelligence in order that we put that gift to use. The evidence for the basic framework of evolution has in recent decades grown by leaps and bounds. I will not go over the details here yet again, anyone interested can surely get the facts quite easily these days. My background is in physics and philosophy, so I claim no great expertise in Biology. But the trend should be clear to all reasonable human beings. "Missing links" are repeatedly being filled in and genetics is adding its voice to support the ideas gleaned from the fossil record.

Instead, we need to more rigorously examine our objections in light of the concincing evidence. Recent works have demonstrated that a careful reading of the original Bible, as opposed to poor translations, has never conflicted with evolution. Perhaps this was not noticed up to now because there was no perceived need to look closely. And if one believes in God, one usually also believes in His transcendent wisdom and unfathomable will. The evolutionary path is the one He employed, for reasons best known to Him. If you cannot abide by this, you really don't understand nor accept the God of the Bible.

That is not to say that we ought not speculate about God's purpose or motivation. Here is a thought. Having been granted "dominion" over all creatures on earth and free will to do good or evil, which is the real and deeper meaning of being created in God's image, we are also given reasons to be humble. We got here the same way all the other creatures got here, albeit somewhat later, and under the rubric of the same rules and processes. The reason humankind was originally prohibited from eating meat, the Talmudists tell us, is to convey just this message. By eating the same foodstuffs as many other creatures, our commonolity with them is highlighted. Don't let the "dominion" get to your head, is God's message, you need to earn it!

I see no reason

Earth to Carol: WE DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. END OF STORY.

But keep up with that "refrain from commenting" thing, it looks good on you.

What flavor are albatross?

— Sir_Toejam

I just will not do business with holocaust deniers or revisionists, nor be seen anywhere within earshot of such creatures. I quoted the Talmudic dictum that guides my behavior in this regard and that still stands.

Carol, why, again, should science give a flying fig about your religious opinions?

Why, again, are your religious opinions any better than anyone else's (other than your say-so)?

And why, again, is your opinion that the New Testament is full of crap, better than Heddle's opinion that the New Testament is the Word of God?

Until you answer those simple questions, Carol, I have no interest in anything you say. (shrug)

Off topic ish!

BRITS PROPOSING BEERS IN THE NATION'S FAIR CAPITAL (That's Dean Morrison, Corkscrew et al.):

google for "skeptics in the pub" and I'll see you there. Similarly,if you can tolerate another like minded beer drinker let me know. louis at heurema dot co dot uk is a decent way to get hold of me.

Oh and by the way you are all wrong. The sublimest beer in the land is Ringwood Fortyniner. As I shall hope to demonstrate to you gentlemen forthwith. If not fifthwith.

;-)

'STORM PETREL ON A STICK !!!!!!'

I just will not do business with holocaust deniers or revisionists, nor be seen anywhere within earshot of such creatures.

Duly copied in Louis - Bring a Panda...

Probably tastes a lot like chicken ...

'STORM PETREL ON A STICK !!!!!!'

What flavor are albatross?

winner!

I would have also accepted just "albatross flavor" or "bloody albatross flavor"

well, i guess larry (473) had his chance.

oh well.

Darwins Downfall 5.0% ABV Named in honour of Charles Darwin's link with the University City, the beer has been tried by a descendant who said Darwin would have approved! A blended ruby-golden coloured fruity flavour bitter with a tangy aftertaste. Firkin: £110.86 20ltr Polypin: £65.93 10ltr Polypin: £36.97 12x500ml: £21.74

Monty Python humor would be utterly lost on Fafafooey. Have you ever seen him, in his trillions of words of posting, make anything like a joke or a pun? He's way too wrapped up in his conception of himself as learned scholar, persuasive orator, and righteous crusader.

hmm. it is interesting to note that, while Darwin's love for beer was legendary, there are very few beers to actually carry his name.

Oh Lennnnyyyy!

I think there is a marketing opportunity here.

maybe you could put some effort into developing a true "Darwin Beer"?

Monty Python humor would be utterly lost on Fafafooey

Comment #70682 posted by Ubernatural on January 12, 2006 04:06 PM Creationism is not taught as science in British public schools, even the religious ones. If you disagree with me please don't respond here. Take it to After the Bar Closes.

Creationists taking over state schools,"

Creationism is not taught as science in British public schools, even the religious ones

oh btw Larry (478), we are so far off topic on this thread, I don't think anyone would mind you addressing any topic you choose to.

Larry - I gave you that link - and if you look its three years out of date - it says so itself. The site has in fact moved to the British Humanist Association website - :

http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1915

Since you won't come over and continue the discussion where your bonkers ideas have been refuted - then you need to look there for the up-to date and accurate information.

If a British school starts teaching creationism as science they're going to get into trouble and will have their funds withdrawn. This has been explained to you before but you ran away from the thread. Its a reason why us Brits are helping our mates across the water defeat ID in the USA, so the stupid bloody idea doesn't get pushed by American Bible Bashers over here.

Why won't you tell me why your idea that albatrosses have muscley wings proves there is a god?

... and do you need stabilisers for your bike?

All running costs of the so-called Academies are met by the Government but they are legally independent, privately owned by their trustees, and so have considerable freedom.

Any suggestions from the other side of the pond for a good Darwin Day beverage that might be available in upstate New York? If it helps: I adhere to the motto, "Real women don't drink light beer!"

Any suggestions from the other side of the pond for a good Darwin Day beverage that might be available in upstate New York? If it helps: I adhere to the motto, "Real women don't drink light beer!"

Oh Lennnnyyyy! I think there is a marketing opportunity here. maybe you could put some effort into developing a true "Darwin Beer"?

hmm. pace decreasing. gonna be hard to get this to 1000 posts before it drops off the front page.

new topic, anybody? larry's given up spouting drivel in this thread and has moved to another one, at least temporarily.

does anybody have anything to add to Carol's brief appearance and her change of definitions from:

the bible does not conflict with science

to

the bible does not conflict with evolutionary theory

??

How about green pigs?

From CNN:

"Taiwan, home to the world's first transgenic glowing fish, has successfully bred fluorescent green pigs that researchers hope will boost the island's stem cell research, a professor said."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/01/12/taiwan.pig.reut/index.html

A first step towards green eggs and ham.

EvilBible.com is replete with so much silliness and ignorance, it is beneath me (I cannot speak for David) to dabble in it. I prefer to talk to intelligent and knowledgeable folk, such as those found on PT.

I absolutely gaurantee that you cannot prove that God does not exist.

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 12, 2006 09:02 PM (e) (s) ... I will respond here because this subject --- unlike the Holocaust and Confederate flags --- is on-topic...

designer humans, of course.

you'll be able to pick the skin color and pattern of your kid, hair style and eye color, and any number of other minor adjustable attributes.

easy.

could be done right now; the technology has been available for 10 years.

remember the designer rabbits?

I'm sure it will be de riguer in a decade or so.

hey, I'd want my kid to glow in the dark so they would be easy to find at night :)

on a more philosophical note, i don't doubt that genetic modification in humans will start a whole new debate about what it means to be "human".

I personally look at it as the beginning of a whole new frontier.

ever read "Blood Music" by Greg Bear?

hmm here's an interesting tidbit:

http://www.physorg.com/news9792.html

seems a group of physicists has stumbled upon perhaps an entirely new metabolic pathway, apparently common in plants, that produces methane even under oxygenated conditions.

If correct, and there is every evidence it is, the discovery of an entirely new metabolic pathway, and even one of apparently high significance, is big news indeed!

Perhaps the biggest discovery in ecological physiology since the discovery of entire ecologies based on reduction reactions (the vent animals).

I can't get to the original reference, but it's in the current volume of Nature if anybody has a subscription.

God's definig qualities, namely omnipotence and omniscience, are self-contradictory - paradoxical. Like a square circle or married bachelor, neither omnipotence nor omniscience can exist. Therefore, an entity that has those qualities cannot exist.

Comment #70860 posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 09:26 PM Larry - I gave you that link - and if you look its three years out of date - it says so itself.

If a British school starts teaching creationism as science they're going to get into trouble and will have their funds withdrawn.

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 13, 2006 03:55 AM (e) (s) ... Just below the title "Creationists taking over state schools" is the note, "Minor Update 25 July 2005," less than 6 months ago. I presume that a government threat to deny funds to schools teaching creationism as science did not exist at that time, because otherwise the article would probably note it...

If a British school starts teaching creationism as science they're going to get into trouble and will have their funds withdrawn.

Just below the title "Creationists taking over state schools" is the note, "Minor Update 25 July 2005," less than 6 months ago.

Hi Dean,
I was aware of the national curriculum. What I am uncertain of though is whether we actually have a law that specifically forbids mentioning religion in science classes. I will check later on when I get home ( in work atm). We are technically a theocracy after all (although about as dilute as that can get).

I am pretty sure a state school attempting what the ID movement want would be disciplined PDQ. Just not certain it is actually illegal rather than unprofessional or unethical.

If you look on the other thread I explain how it works there Steve. In simple terms if a school wilfully disregards the National Curriculum, then OFSTED find out, and funding can be pulled so the school closes down.
We have to remain alert though.

I'm bored with the 'British School' stuff anyway

Tickets are selling out for the Dawkins Darwin Day thing - If I don't hear from anyone ( by 2.00pm GMT) to tell me they've already got a ticket then I' get four.

Any other Brits who want to join us need to get a move on!

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 13, 2006 07:02 AM (e) (s) Tickets are selling out for the Dawkins Darwin Day thing - If I don't hear from anyone ( by 2.00pm GMT) to tell me they've already got a ticket then I' get four.

If nothing else I may a snarky remark from Rev. Dr.

I think a god can/may exist, but if he does, he would not be the being any religion in the world have ever described to any sort of accuracy

Well, this foundation school junk really gets on my wick. Here in the UK, we have a gvt that is trying to privatise evrything it can. What this means is that for the paltry dontation of 2 million quid, a private donor gets something like 20 million from the taxpayer to build the new school, then gets pretty much total rights to dictate who teaches what. Now, I have not read the guidelines, but it seems that they dont have to faithfully follow the same national curriculum that everyone else does. Moreover, foundation schools are permitted to exclude whom they want from schools. Normal council schools have to put up with badly behaved children, but the foundation schools can get rid of them. Guess which ones will come out smelling of roses?

I think larry probably is correct, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence for creationism being taught in these schools. However, it will take a good bit of digging to find out the truth, and the problem is that these schools are politically protected. (Yes, that sounds extreme, but I see no reason to think otherwise.)

Sir TJ:

"on a more philosophical note, i don't doubt that genetic modification in humans will start a whole new debate about what it means to be "human"."

I don't doubt that for a minute either. I also postulate that any suggestion of genetic modification in humans will not go down at all well with the fundies! If only repeated mentions of it would cause spontaneous combustion... ;)

Guthrie -

any chance that you might want to join us for a beer in London on 13th Feb?

The foundation school stuff gets on my wick too - They are required to teach the National Curriculum though (they are allowed more freedom in forming lesson plans and schemes of work - although this is becoming more generally true anyway) - which is why we have to be alert. Hopefully the new white paper about to go through parliament will be de-railed by the Ruth Kelly/Paedophile teacher thing - and the whole thing will blow up in Blairs face to the extent that Blair will make way for Brown. Most of the population are against more faith schools, especially after the London Bombings, so they are vote loser. They have even more problems than ordinary schools in attracting qualified teachers - so how are they going to expand? used car salesmen or not?
We have to be on our guard - a topic for our pub conversation perhaps?

If you need to catch up on the topic check out the original thread here.

Anyway I feel that we are bing rude to our American hosts with this parochial talk -what the hell was Larry on about again?

Oh yes - Larry? does the Earth go around the Sun? or is it the other way around like it says in the Bible?

BRITS PROPOSING BEERS IN THE NATION'S FAIR CAPITAL

— anonymous Beer drinker

Four Tickets duly booked lads!

Any Brits - especially Northerners who don't want to venture down that far Siuth might be interested to know that Nick Matze is coming to talk in Birmingham for Darwin Day on the 10th Feb. Followed by a 'Reggae' version of 'Origin of the Species' I kid you not...

Friday 10 February, Birmingham, 09.00 --- 17.00 hours
Darwin Day conference
Keynote Speaker: Dr Nick Matze (NCSE, USA)
"News from the Panda Tria in Dover, Pennsylvania: The Evolutionary Origin of Intelligent Design"
Birmingham Medical Institute, 36 Harborne Road,
Birmingham B15 3AF

http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentChapterView.asp?chapter=379

Ah yes - Theakstons Old Peculiar - a couple of pints of that and I'd be inclined to agree with Larry that the Sun spins around the Earth ( or would that be the Earth spinning around my head?).

Off topic, but an interesting story (and we still haven't hit 1000 yet!)

I once met a chap who was the most irritating person I have ever met (not, it's not Larry!). He was - in his own opinion - an absolute expert in everything. It didn't matter what the subject matter was, as soon as someone started a conversation about it it would be 'Ah yes. Artificial Intelligence. Blah blah blah.' The 'blah blah blah' bit was the irritating bit - because it would very rapidly become clear that no matter what the subject matter was, he had little or no idea about what he was talking about. Even more irritating was that after three or more hours of patient argument and explanation from experts in the field (this was tested repeatedly with different subjects) he still would not concede a single point in the argument or admit that he didn't know anything about it.

This saga came to and end after around six months of increasing frustration when we eventually found out this amazing source of knowledge. This is a direct quote: "I know what it isn't, therefore I know what it is".

And no, I'm not kidding.

A few more patient explanations followed: "Let's take this table for example. We know it isn't a fridge. We know it isn't a jumbo jet. We know it isn't a walrus. Are we any closer to what it is? No."

He didn't get it. He never got it. There appeared to be a special black hole that followed him around everywhere and bent logic around him (this is a hypothesis only, I have no supporting data ;) ).

At this point we stopped talking to him, because we realised it was just not worth the effort.

Posted by jim on January 13, 2006 09:53 AM (e) (s) ... The most, ah, unique Beer I've had is "Old Peculiar". It came in 10 oz bottles. Interesting flavor, pretty good IMO. But 10 oz is about all I'd care to drink at a time.

Tim, would this chap happen to be President George W. Bush?

Eugene (post 70950): personal definitions of words only leads to confusion and ignorance, IMO. Omni means, essentially, infinity, which is a purely fictional construct. Moreover, placing limits on God, in many (most?) Christian circles, would get you well-charred - I'm sure a certain toasty location to spend eternity would be mentioned. . . .

I didn't even mentioned the proofs regarding God's benevolence quality (or lack of it), particularly when coupled with the "omni" attributes I mentioned above.

UnMark - no. I've not met Bush and I doubt I'm likely to. But I like your thinking!

Stephen Elliot,

10 oz is = 5/8 pint.

It was not the alcohol content that limited me to 10 oz of Old Peculiar. It was the richness/sweetness/intensity of the flavor of the drink.

Kind of like not wanting to get drunk on eggnog + rum.

I similarly enjoy Guinness Stout but only up to ~2 pints. The flavor gets too rich for me after that.

Besides, I'm not so much of a beer person. When I drink, I typically drink my own homemade mead.

I don't make batches frequently enough to standardize my recipes, so my meads range from insipidly sweet to bone parchingly dry. All of it is pretty potent. The alcohol content ranges from ~12% alcohol to over 20%. Regardless of the actual alcohol content, it always tastes much less alcoholic than it actually is :) .

I'm currently aging pomegranate, apple cider, & chocolate meads. I actually should rack them off this weekend. After that the chocolate and apple cider are probably good to drink. I expect the pomegranate will need another 3-6 months.

If I was single, it'd be a great way to meet women!

If you ever come across it, I can thoroughly recommend Enville Ale which regularly appeared as a guest beer at my old local.

Never heard of "Owd Roger", but Marston's Pedigree is excellent where the cellar care is good. I remember a pub near where I used to live (70's) with a clientele that seemed to be almost exclusively building workers. There was one beer pump in the bar and they only served Marston's Pedigree. On a Sunday lunchtime, that pump was in constant motion, and the beer was nectar. I have often been sorely disappointed since.

But let me say something to anyone listening out there with similar motives to debunk evolution. I understand where you are coming from. You believe (erroneously in my opinion) that the Bible contradicts evolution, or you think evolution diminishes the lofty uniqueness of humanity (image of God) by treating it as just another animal, or you think evolution encourages immorality by highlighting the seeming immorality of how life developed (survival of the fittest) or you subscribe to all of these.

— Carol

In the interest of getting to a 1000:

It bears repeating that it is perfectly possible to prove a negative. For example, consider the following atheistical proof:

If God is defined as the supreme being where supreme means largest prime number, then we know there is no God since there is no largest prime--detailed proof in Euclid's Elements.

Of course there aren't too many folks who define God as the largest prime number; but, fact is, there aren't too many folks who are willing to define God at all since what they are seeking has only a distant analogy to knowledge. Which is frustrating to the tiny minority for whom all that matters is figuring things out. A moving target we might be able to hit in a virtuoso display of metaphysical skeet shooting, but you can't lead a clay pigeon that isn't even there.

Alan,

Reminds me of some behavior here in the States...

I'm a consultant and spend ~1 year at various customer sites helping them with my companies product.

Anyway, one company's (not my current one) workers had an unofficial ritual of going out to a bar for a few drinks and lunch on Fridays. That company's management got wind of this and decided that they didn't want to expose the company to a lawsuit if one of its workers got into an accident while driving or at work.

So they made a company policy that said workers could not return to work if they had anything to drink at lunch.

Now the workers don't go back to work after lunch on Fridays. :)

I don't think management counted on that reaction!

Dean,

I don't know where you think you are headed with that question you have repeated a few times regarding the sun going around the earth or vise-versa. But you ought to know that the Bible makes no comment on the matter either way. And with the earth as your frame of reference, the sun does indeed revolve around the earth.

Thanks Carol for 655 :)

Posted by jim on January 13, 2006 12:36 PM (e) (s) Alan, Reminds me of some behavior here in the States... I'm a consultant and spend ~1 year at various customer sites helping them with my companies product. Anyway, one company's (not my current one) workers had an unofficial ritual of going out to a bar for a few drinks and lunch on Fridays. That company's management got wind of this and decided that they didn't want to expose the company to a lawsuit if one of its workers got into an accident while driving or at work. So they made a company policy that said workers could not return to work if they had anything to drink at lunch. Now the workers don't go back to work after lunch on Fridays. :) I don't think management counted on that reaction!

AC,

I cannot agree with you that "scientists are quick to point out that they are incorrect, and why. People just don't tend to listen, for various reasons."

Scientists not only do not make the points you indicated, they frequently emphasize just the opposite. They insist that the Bible is in conflict with science (one look at this blog should confirm that) and they insist that humans are just another form of animal. And on the implications of evolution for morality, the scientific community is by and large silent.

Posted by jim on January 13, 2006 12:08 PM (e) (s) Stephen Elliot, 10 oz is = 5/8 pint. It was not the alcohol content that limited me to 10 oz of Old Peculiar. It was the richness/sweetness/intensity of the flavor of the drink. Kind of like not wanting to get drunk on eggnog + rum. I similarly enjoy Guinness Stout but only up to ~2 pints. The flavor gets too rich for me after that. Besides, I'm not so much of a beer person. When I drink, I typically drink my own homemade mead. I don't make batches frequently enough to standardize my recipes, so my meads range from insipidly sweet to bone parchingly dry. All of it is pretty potent. The alcohol content ranges from ~12% alcohol to over 20%. Regardless of the actual alcohol content, it always tastes much less alcoholic than it actually is :) . I'm currently aging pomegranate, apple cider, & chocolate meads. I actually should rack them off this weekend. After that the chocolate and apple cider are probably good to drink. I expect the pomegranate will need another 3-6 months. If I was single, it'd be a great way to meet women!

And on the implications of evolution for morality, the scientific community is by and large silent.

— Carol Clouser

You might have a world record if that is true.

Posted by Ubernatural on January 13, 2006 01:17 PM (e) (s) Sam Adams highly evolved yeast beer. *cough* 25.6% ABV *cough*

I don't know where you think you are headed with that question you have repeated a few times regarding the sun going around the earth or vise-versa. But you ought to know that the Bible makes no comment on the matter either way. And with the earth as your frame of reference, the sun does indeed revolve around the earth.

Gregonomic,

Many people see survival of the fittest as an immoral doctrine, one that can be used to justify all kinds of evil behavior. Criminals used justify attacking little old ladies by saying "it's a dog eat dog world out there", can now say "it's a survival of the fittest world out there." It seems to be saying that it is nature's way to confer privileges upon those more fit than others.

Posted by Carol Clouser on January 13, 2006 01:40 PM (e) (s) Gregonomic, Many people see survival of the fittest as an immoral doctrine, one that can be used to justify all kinds of evil behavior. Criminals used justify attacking little old ladies by saying "it's a dog eat dog world out there", can now say "it's a survival of the fittest world out there." It seems to be saying that it is nature's way to confer privileges upon those more fit than others.

OK, in the interest of getting this thread to 1000 replies I'll delurk.

I'm from South Africa (I think Renier is as well?) and I come up against a lot of these ID\Creationist discussions with my friends. I'm a science junky and I always try to defend the scientific viewpoint, but I'm not all that knowledgable on biology, so...

Thanks to people like Lenny, STJ and all the others who always provide me with ways of showing how stupid ID\Creationism is.

That's what they say, Arden. I can't find anything on the web about the process, but what I saw on the History Channel was Jim Koch talking about how they bred a yeast specifically to survive high alcohol percentages, so that they could use the traditional means of making beer to make a new kind of beer that was previously impossible. The ABV of the new beer, Utopias, has been steadily increasing every year. Who knows what new limit they might find!

BTW, did I get post 666? If so:

Excccceleeeeeent /rubs antennae gleefully

Many people see survival of the fittest as an immoral doctrine, one that can be used to justify all kinds of evil behavior.

— Carol Clouser

Criminals used justify attacking little old ladies by saying "it's a dog eat dog world out there", can now say "it's a survival of the fittest world out there."

It seems to be saying that it is nature's way to confer privileges upon those more fit than others.

An HTML document of 1MB? You know what's funny is that I've only encountered that before on a crank website...
Anyway, that's my contribution to reaching 1,000.

Are you certain that is only by fermentation? Port is only 20% and that is not done by just fermentation. It is augmented by adding distilled alcohol. Known as "fortifying".

— Stephen Elliot

Well, in the interest of getting to the magic number, this is kind of cool, too:

Ants help each other as teachers and pupils:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10806078/.

This ain't bad (maybe Oh Carol can even identify the women for us):

Millions of Jews traced to four women>:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10827385/.

And then there's the one about the Tuang Boy having been killed by an aerial raptor (admittedly, Larry, the wing muscles on these babies must have been pretty hefty, so watch your twelve, dude!). Ah, here it is:

Were human ancestors hunted by evolved dinos birds?:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10819471/.

I'm still looking for a study that suggests those early cyanobacteria and photosynthesizing microbial mats may all have been anoxic.

I cannot agree with you that "scientists are quick to point out that they are incorrect, and why. People just don't tend to listen, for various reasons."

Scientists not only do not make the points you indicated, they frequently emphasize just the opposite. They insist that the Bible is in conflict with science (one look at this blog should confirm that) and they insist that humans are just another form of animal.

Many people see survival of the fittest as an immoral doctrine, one that can be used to justify all kinds of evil behavior. Criminals used justify attacking little old ladies by saying "it's a dog eat dog world out there", can now say "it's a survival of the fittest world out there." It seems to be saying that it is nature's way to confer privileges upon those more fit than others.

that And on the implications of evolution for morality, the scientific community is by and large silent.

hmmm. no comments about this at all?

http://www.physorg.com/news9792.html

thought that would at least raise a couple of eyebrows.

isn't there anybody going to take the Rush Limbaugh oxycontin postion that this means that global warming is caused by trees?

c'mon!

All the talk of good beer is making me lament living in a wine-friendly region.
For all you Brits (and anyone else that likes a good beer), have you ever tried an ale called Old Engine Oil (or Old Engine Oil Special Reserve) out of Scotland? It can be terribly hard to find in the U.S., but certainly worth it. It's a dark ale (very dark, hence the name), and the special reserve is aged in whiskey casks. S.R. is far and away my favorite dark beer; more interesting flavor than Guinness I think. I'd like to know what some veteran beer drinkers think of it.

Onward to 1000...

the scientist is no more qualified to comment on the morality of how science is USED than your local pizza delivery boy.

*shudder* lite pasta - ewwww.

You take that back. I don't want that image stuck in my head for the rest of the evening.

Luckily my wife made chili for us tonight. I'm hoping to get some nice garlic bread to go with it.

Would Lite Pastafarianism be concordant with the Atkins diet?

gregonomic,

I was using "the little old ladies" expression in the preverbial sense, referring to the hapless victim in general. If you think crime in the USA is perpetrated solely by those who need to engage in such activity in order to survive, you have lost all touch with reality.

I recall an interview on TV some time ago with a confessed member of the Mafia, who readily admitted to having killed dozens of people. When asked how he could live with himself, he merely shrugged his shoulders and argued that it's nature's way that the fittest survive. Having the gun at the ready, being willing to use it, having the guts to aggressively fight for his interests, he argued, place him among "the fittest".

Keep in mind that these ideas about evolution were not stated as my ideas. I certainly don't subscribe to them. But they are out there.

I recall an interview on TV some time ago with a confessed member of the Mafia, who readily admitted to having killed dozens of people. When asked how he could live with himself, he merely shrugged his shoulders and argued that it's nature's way that the fittest survive. Having the gun at the ready, being willing to use it, having the guts to aggressively fight for his interests, he argued, place him among "the fittest".

— carol Clouser

Keep in mind that these ideas about evolution were not stated as my ideas. I certainly don't subscribe to them. But they are out there.

Oh Carol's comments are as content-free as ever, but it's downright neighborly of her to lend a hand toward our effort to get to 1,000!

Now if only Larry the Maroon would stop wasting his our time over on the legal eagles thread and haul his blather back over here where it belongs...!

We're well past two-thirds, folks! C'mon, Heddle, where are you when we could really use you (hmmm, I wonder if it would be "legal" to just copy a few of Heddle's comments from other threads?-- they're all the same anyway...)?

Scientists not only do not make the points you indicated, they frequently emphasize just the opposite. They insist that the Bible is in conflict with science (one look at this blog should confirm that) and they insist that humans are just another form of animal. And on the implications of evolution for morality, the scientific community is by and large silent.

— Carol

(hmmm, I wonder if it would be "legal" to just copy a few of Heddle's comments from other threads?--- they're all the same anyway...)?

Sir TJ, I think Carol has simply taken The Pledgeâ„¢.

Folks, I have refrained from commenting for some time for the reason I gave for not commenting on another thread that had a feature in common with this one. I just will not do business with holocaust deniers or revisionists, nor be seen anywhere within earshot of such creatures