Discovery's Crowther: Spaghetti Monster Gets More Attention than ID's "Robust" Scientific Research Program

I'd like to see Crowther - or anyone - show me where on the Discovery Institute website they describe this "robust scientific research program" they're so proud of. I for one would be very interested in hearing about it.

Don't be fooled by the cute humor, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is really Cthulhu!

And not only does the Discovery Insitute have a scientific research program, they've got practical results, like the math that led to Bill Dembski's multi-level marketing scheme and the biology research that led to Behe's penis lengthening pills.

the DI gets way more attention than they've earned, i don't see what he's bitching about.

From the article:

Mark Coppenger, a pastor who teaches at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. "Besides, the parody is lame, and there are few things more encouraging than cheap shots from one's opponents."

I guess that's why after all this time the "evilutionists" are still encouraged...

Actually, part of the parody is that the creationists don't realize how spot on the satire really is....(talk about lame....)

I'd like to see Crowther - or anyone - show me where on the Discovery Institute website they describe this "robust scientific research program" they're so proud of. I for one would be very interested in hearing about it.

I'd like to see Crowther - or anyone - show me where on the Discovery Institute website they describe this "robust scientific research program" they're so proud of. I for one would be very interested in hearing about it.

— Kevin Parker

Ah, the folks at Uncommon Descent have had their feelings hurt. It's a mean world out there. But there's reason for the mockery, and they're the cause of if.

Traditionally in this country (the US) one's religion was above criticism, mockery, or satirizing. But the minute a party projects their religious beliefs into politics as a basis for public policy, those beliefs are fair gaime for mockery. Don't want your religious beliefs mocked? Then keep them in the privacy of your home or church, and all will happily let you belief whatever you want without comment.

By "robust" I can only assume that the Disco Inst is using more garlic. That would certainly be a step in the right direction.

Someone over on TO just posted this link to a Discovery Institute article in response to the Discovery Institute claim:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

The title of the article claims that these are articles that support the theory of intelligent design. The publication date is after the Dover court case. The two Discovery Institute fellows that testified in the Dover court case should be surprised by this list because they are named as authors of seversl of these papers. Surprised because they both testified under oath that there were no scientific papers supporting ID published at this time. So what are these papers supporting?

Look at the trackback..

Wah wah I'm davescot..
*throws toys out of pram*

When I'm not making idiotic generalizations, I'm replying to every post I see in BOLD because I have that high opinion of myself.

I love him for the comedy value.

Check out the Uncommon Descent trackback on this article:

"Last month the big joke was three college kids torching 9 churches in Alabama. This month it's making a mockery of the religion of 8 of 10 Americans. The bungling political ineptitude of the Darwin worshippers is just incredible."

Yeah, it's those damn Darwinists who are somehow responsible for three students from a Christian-affiliated college burning down a bunch of churches. I guess it's not any more nonsensical a claim than the Nazis being Darwin's fault.

Oop, sorry about the redundancy. But DaveScot can be happy that at least three people are reading his site...

I'm sure Crowther has a 'robust' ID scientific research program around somewhere. It's just as obvious to him as the identity of the designer the ID lot claim exists is.

we have a robust scientific research program

Hahahahahhahahha

NOT Amusing attention getting drivel?

hahhahahahhahahhaha

Why do they waste the best irony on themselves...is there such a thing as Martyrdom by self irony ?

Just wait until a lame parody of the Dis-intelligence Industry's BIG IDEAS ....Idiocy Detector/ Incomprehensible Crapulence/ Come Spend Income arrives.

THEN they will complain

Not everyone finds ID/IC/CSI so amusing. Its too bad they get attention for this sort of drivel when we have a robust scientific media research program that the media nobody? seems to want to write much about,

RBH wrote: "[research] being performed in the secret Disco Institute laboratories, buried deep under a mountain, by a platoon of lawyers and PR flacks disguised in white lab coats."

Over on Crash Landng, er, Uncommon Descent - Davescot asks:

"Who all thinks this is quite humorous and will enjoy seeing much more of it?"

Dave, couple of points;

You've banned everyone who doesn't agree with you, so it's not a fair question.

By starting that post yourself you've left yourself no chance of giving a smug retort in bold, thus limiting your pleasure greatly.

Bruce Thompson

On your "Super Natural Research Facility"

Oh yeah of little FAITH (0)!!! hahahhahahaha

The US army spend squillions on just such a facility.

The Men who stare at Goats.

Crack mind readers were placed into a room so they could read the minds of their KGB counterparts.(giggle)
Goats were de-bleated so they could be stared to death.(Gaffaw)
An army of super soldiers were supposed to be trained to adopt a cloak of invisibility.
(presumably after they had taken mescalin)

It just goes to show you don't have to make up stupidity it just happens.

What's all this "parody" nonsense? I had pasta last night. I tell you guys, this is real! My plate of pasta was worth more that all the ID research papers, more worth than all the time spend on ID research and more substantial than all the ID arguments put together. So, enough of the "parody" stuff already! Ramen!

Anyone knows where I can by humour? Some people on a certain other blog sure needs some. I am willing to donate.

...we have a robust scientific public relations research program...

Fixed.

I just want to point out how sexist you pastafarians are. How do you know it's a "He"? I defy you to show me any trace of a male noodly appendage. ;-}

Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" ---- but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.

— Paul Nelson, Discovery Institiute Center for Science and Culture Fellow

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research. "They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned. "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.

— Charles L. Harper Jr.

As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. ********** The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications. ********** On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex." In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. ********** After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science.

— THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Last month the big joke was three college kids torching 9 churches in Alabama. This month it's making a mockery of the religion of 8 of 10 Americans.

Last month the big joke was three college kids torching 9 churches in Alabama. This month it's making a mockery of the religion of 8 of 10 Americans.

They should remove the term "think" from "think tank" if they truly believe that supporters of science and evolution consider church arson a joke. I find that pretty offensive.

JAllen references the Templeton Foundation's Charles Harper's quote about actual ID research. I think if you're an ID supporter, that quote has to make you swallow hard. The Templeton Foundation wants to merge science and religion, they want to find evidence for christianity, they wanted to give ID money to do reasearch, and the IDers couldn't think of any. They can do press conferences, they can do debates, but they can't do any actual scientific research.

Wait a minute-- didn't the Discovery Institute logo used to feature a parody (kind of) of a religious painting-- God creating DNA (instead of man)? Why was it okay for DI, a purely scientific enterprise to be sure, to get away with that?

Advice to the DI and the religious right in general: If you mix your religion with your politics, you can't expect your political opponents to separate them.

Flying Spaghetti Monster fish and Cthulhu fish are available on the net. You can also make tee shirt designs by printing onto t-shirt paper.

Creationism holds that God created human beings in their present form exactly as described in the Bible, a belief held by 53% of people nationwide, according to a recent USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

yes.

Russell asks

Can that be right???......Creationism holds that God created human beings in their present form exactly as described in the Bible, a belief held by 53% of people nationwide

Yes ...in a totalitarian Theocracy.

I just noticed this in the USA Today article: Creationism holds that God created human beings in their present form exactly as described in the Bible, a belief held by 53% of people nationwide, according to a recent USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll. Can that be right???

— russell

I wouldn't say the US is a totalitarian theocracy. I would say it is a mild theocracy. The government leans on you to be christian, but it doesn't break you.

Florida State University science philosopher Michael Ruse, a critic of creationism, doubts that parodies change anyone's mind about evolution. "However, sometimes parodies outlast the originals," he adds, pointing to the classic Alice in Wonderland, in many ways a poke at math and logic.

Just as Lenny is careful to point out that this is a strictly religious issue whenever they explicitly make a religious case (blathering about Jeezus, calling scientists unbelievers and atheists, etc.), I think it's important to point out that the DI's tactics are also implicitly religious. They sincerely believe that the way to make their doctrinal claims "robust scientific research" is to SAY that's what they are. This is the only way anything comes true in a religious context, which is the only context the DI people really understand. "I want it to be true, I NEED it to be true, I *believe* that it's true, therefore it's true."

As Lenny says, they can't help shooting themselves in the foot. They don't even realize how deeply pervasive their faith is.

They really don't get it, do they? They just don't see how one bit of drivel is the equivalent of another bit of drivel, which is the whole point of the FSM.

I'm not sure if the FSM deserves MORE exposure than ID, but it deserves every bit as much. What we really need, of course, are a dozen or more other "origins theories" as robustly scientific as ID is, so that the IDists can really learn about tolerating "dissent".

I mentioned Platonic Forms once as a reasonable alternative (to ID, anyhow) quasi-seriously, eventually grading into commentary. A couple posters did take it seriously, while another one thought that it abetted the magical thinking of IDists.

I really do think that Platonic Forms are a better explanation than ID, however, since at least this ideas doesn't have the problem of poor design and parasite design dogging it (Forms may be morally indifferent), and Platonism is less obviously religious than ID is. Of course its status is problematic (it might be harder to rule against than ID--but there is no constituency for it), however I like the fact that it is contrary to the theology of most IDists. I'd rather like to challenge IDists to open their minds to "critical analysis" using ancient pagan ideas turned philosophical.

Be that as it may, I think that we need more "alternative theories" like the FSM. I have never taken a liking to the whole notion of FSM (yes, it sounds puerile), but anything that bugs the DI in relation to FSM's "drivel" by comparison to their "robust scientific research" has certainly served its purpose well.

Will the DI "fellows" never understand that, if nonsense disturbs even their own blithering IDiocy, ID nonsense is bound to be troubling to those committed to actual robust scientific research? Perhaps they even do understand this on some level, the reason why they write of nonexistent "research" and nonexistent "censorship".

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

They don't even realize how deeply pervasive their faith is.

Glen, you might be interested to know if you google "salvador cordova" and "Platonic" you'll find quite a few items. The reason being, one of the fatal problems with CSI is that nobody can tell you what Specified really means. There's no way, for instance, to tell that ATGATCA is specified but GTACAGT is not. Salvador for a while was saying something is specified if it resembles a platonic form.

Arguably more respectable (even!) than Salvador Cordova: here's Michael Denton on Platonic forms.

k.e. admonishes: On your "Super Natural Research Facility" Oh yeah of little FAITH (0)!!! Hahahhahahaha ...you don't have to make up stupidity it just happens.

Salvador for a while was saying something is specified if it resembles a platonic form.

Arguably more respectable (even!) than Salvador Cordova: here's Michael Denton on Platonic forms.

Perhaps things like Denton's article are why the platonic forms definition of Specified was dropped (if indeed it has been completely dropped, which is unlikely). Plenty of platonic forms represent perfectly natural objects. A raindrop resembles (contains?) a few platonic forms, yet doesn't require intelligence for its construction.

The likely problem is that they never really distinguished between the "truths" of science and the "truths" of religion. Not seeing the difference of what is meant by "truth" in each case, they have no consistent epistemological view, and think that leaving religious claims out of science is arbitrary and capricious.

— Glen Davidson

Steve S. wrote: I wouldn't say the US is a totalitarian theocracy. I would say it is a mild theocracy. The government leans on you to be christian, but it doesn't break you.

Why is it that society would look with contempt or pity on the latter but not the former?

Why would society look at me with contempt or pity if I decided to wear white cotton briefs on my head?

GvlGeologist, FCD

I Agree. The Pastafarians commenting here appear to be sexist. Clearly they are following in the mould of the other Abrahamic religions.

At first I thought the FSM had big, brown, compound eyes. However as I devotedly studied the image, I noticed that in fact the eyes are on stalks, rather like a crab (No PZ, no! Put that fork down! Sacrilege! Wait for your pasta wafer like the rest of us.)

Perhaps these misogynists have confused what are obviously Her egg masses with male anatomical features. Logically they must be wrong, as these are normally displayed by religious artists as wrapped in fig leaves.

Perhaps we will have to form a new church to properly follow Her teachings and leave them to their own damnation. An eternity of cold leftover pasta.

I see that DS at Uncommonly Dense banned a commenter on the FSM story for a mild defense of Unitarian Universalism. DS claims UU can't be a religion because it includes atheists. Isn't it usually the position of his sort that atheism IS a religion?

A church which has cut out the insane and evil bits? This conversation's got me curious. Curious enough to look up the nearest congregation, the Eno River Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, about 4 miles away. I think I might tool on over there this weekend and check it out.

Just as Lenny is careful to point out that this is a strictly religious issue whenever they explicitly make a religious case (blathering about Jeezus, calling scientists unbelievers and atheists, etc.), I think it's important to point out that the DI's tactics are also implicitly religious. They sincerely believe that the way to make their doctrinal claims "robust scientific research" is to SAY that's what they are. This is the only way anything comes true in a religious context, which is the only context the DI people really understand. "I want it to be true, I NEED it to be true, I *believe* that it's true, therefore it's true."

I wouldn't say the US is a totalitarian theocracy. I would say it is a mild theocracy. The government leans on you to be christian, but it doesn't break you.

No argument there. I have seen with my own two eyes, people like Bob Enyart declare that fags should be murdered.

DS claims UU can't be a religion because it includes atheists. Isn't it usually the position of his sort that atheism IS a religion?

ID simply MUST be different, because they use DIFFERENT WORDS for it.

The federal income tax is inapplicable, invalid, unenforceable, or unconstitutional because _________________________. Because most tax protesters believe that their positions are correct, and all of the tax protester losses are due to "bad arguments", they also believe that, if the courts do not agree with them, it is only because they have not yet used the right words to explain their positions. So, after a particular argument loses for the twentieth or thirtieth time, one of the less dim bulbs in the tax protester community comes up with a new "formula" with different words.

Lenny(shrug), please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.

What we really need, of course, are a dozen or more other "origins theories" as robustly scientific as ID is

i'm still confused. how did evolution get connected to the church arson in alabama? did i miss something?

I'm not sure if this is the FSM soul center of the universe but in Breckenridge Colorado at 9600 ft above sea level where hypoxemia can cloud men's minds, on Main Street you will find the Rasta Pasta restaurant where some of their entrees will uh...take what's left of your breath away (even without Lenny's pizza delivery boy's "oregano"). It's a good place to get some eye watering nutrition before tackling the 12800 ft. above sea level Imperial Bowl. The pro sez check it out.

on Main Street you will find the Rasta Pasta restaurant where some of their entrees will uh...take what's left of your breath away (even without Lenny's pizza delivery boy's "oregano").

Comment #90290 Posted by dre on March 28, 2006 08:54 PM (e) i'm still confused. how did evolution get connected to the church arson in alabama? did i miss something?

Regular viewers of Uncommonly Dense can tell you, nothing I described in comment 90308 is in any way, shape, or form, out of the ordinary over there.

Can the residents of one blog sue the inmates populace of another for libel?

Maybe we should ask our resident legal eagle beagle, Larry Farflungdung?

I had occasion to point out to someone some time ago that Theravadin Buddhists, while they are obviously quite spiritual and reject the label "atheists," nevertheless have no belief in a supreme being, which sort of puts the kibosh on the notion that religion = theism. Lenny(shrug), please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.

A few weeks ago DaveScot, at Uncommonly Dense, said the arsonists must've read too much of the hate speech at PT, developed a hatred for christianity, and committed the arsons. Complaints by the Uncommonly Dense community that there was no evidence whatsoever for this went unheard. And last night DaveTard continued the theme by referring to PTers as Church Burners.

Lenny, you might be interested in reading this religious site: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html The federal income tax is inapplicable, invalid, unenforceable, or unconstitutional because _________________________. Because most tax protesters believe that their positions are correct, and all of the tax protester losses are due to "bad arguments", they also believe that, if the courts do not agree with them, it is only because they have not yet used the right words to explain their positions. So, after a particular argument loses for the twentieth or thirtieth time, one of the less dim bulbs in the tax protester community comes up with a new "formula" with different words.

I know this because I have seen Lenny's middle name. On his credit card. Once. Several years ago. Immediately after which, for reasons we need not go into here, we stopped accepting his credit card and switched to a cash-only basis for pizza delivery...

None of the Asian traditions (Taoism, Zen, Buddhism, Hinduism) asserts the existence of any gods or goddesses.

"Posted by gwangung on March 27, 2006 09:54 PM (e)

Actually, part of the parody is ,,,"

what the heck are you talking about? The holy noodle is not a parody...may his,her,,its appendage strike you..

"Posted by Doc Bill on March 27, 2006 11:10 PM (e)

By "robust" I can only assume that the Disco Inst is using more garlic. That would certainly be a step in the right direction"

err I think they meant Robusto...for the coffee beans they drink out there.

"Hmmm, since the FSM is a parody of Intelligent Design,,,,,:"

HOW DARE YOU PEOPLE....spit on my religion and my pirates why don't you....Shiver me timbers matey!

The worship of the pastafarian diety is not related to ID. We just enjoy the fact that the FSM manipulates all the information you receive to provide you with emphirical data that matches our pre-conceived ideas! its great!

and if we get anything wrong .... blame it on the diety...not me!

Aren't Hindus pantheists? "I am become death, shatter-er of worlds."

How do you differ from Christians? A primary way we differ is that we do not regard Jesus as a unique revelation of God. Most UUs (even UU Christians) would reject a literal interpretation of accepted Christian beliefs such as the Virgin Birth, the miracles of Jesus and the Resurrection. While UU Christians would accept a symbolic interpretation of these events, most UUs view Jesus as a moral and ethical teacher and no more than that. http://www.uunashua.org/100q/c2.shtml#q19

So, there you go, Rev. Lenny. Quite clearly stated, very honest, very upfront about their denial of key Biblical and Gospel beliefs. Remember what I said in the other thread about the UU abandonment of some very important, critically important items? Now you can see the real deal for yourself.

...important, critically important items

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4853/1803/1600/The-Creation-of-Darwin.jpg

:) enjoy

So, there you go, Rev. Lenny. Quite clearly stated, very honest, very upfront about their denial of key Biblical and Gospel beliefs.

Totally subjective. So you think the Bible is the end-all and be-all, they don't.

So, there you go, Rev. Lenny. Quite clearly stated, very honest, very upfront about their denial of key Biblical and Gospel beliefs.

It's too bad that they'll get attention for this sort of drivel when we have a robust scientific research program that the media doesn't seem to want to write much about,

Er, I confess I don't know the history of the FL-Lenny exchange on Unitarian Universalism (in our lingo, "UUism")--but as a UU atheist I wanted to affirm that (1) yup, we exist and (2) the Nashua, NH church's "100 Questions" document (linked in post #90333 above) gives a fairly accurate picture of UUism. (I took a shot at introducing UUism myself, on my blog.)

Something like 20% of us UUs are self-declared atheists, and many more are apathetic at best about the "God" concept. Meanwhile, self-declared Christians also constitute around 20% of UUism. (UUs being the quirky people we are, no doubt there is overlap between those categories. Exactly what "God," "Christian," "religion" and other similar words mean tends to be a very open question in UU discourse.)

In my experience, the only difference between UU atheists and the remainder of atheists is that we tend to have more of an affinity for church-y gathering activities and for hanging out with liberal believers generally. I don't think there's any real philosophical difference between those two categories of atheists; I certainly wouldn't say my kind has any "superstitions" to speak of.

One old joke holds that UUs are just "atheists who haven't kicked the church habit." That's probably not a fair characterization of lots of my fellow parishioners, but for us UU atheists I think it's pretty much on target.

Over 24 hours ago, on the "access research network" intelligent design forum, I started a thread titled "The Robust ID Scientific Research Program" where I quoted Crowther's claim about the DI's "robust scientific research program" and asked:

"Does anybody know when the DI is going to publish anything about their research program?"

So far, there's been 49 views but not a single reply. I guess the "research" into this question is still being conducted.

Paul C writes, "I don't mean any slight against Lewis Carroll, but has Alice in Wonderland really outlasted math and logic? If so, a lot of things are starting to make sense at last."

Actually, Lewis Carroll was an extremely competent amateur mathematician and logician, and Alice in Wonderland and his other writings are full of mathematical and logical puzzles and tricks. To say that Alice outlasted math and logic would be like saying the Chronicles of Narnia outlasted religion.

Robust research program? This surely must be an early april fool's joke?
ID is scientifically vacuous, everyone knows that...

Actually Lewis Carroll was an extremely competent professional mathematician and logician. When Queen Victoria hinted that she'd love to have Carroll's next book dedicated to her, he obliged. The book was Principles of Algebra as I recall.

Lenny wrote:

"Carol is another good example ---- she is so much in love with the holy power of Words that her sole role here has been to tell us mere mortals that the wonderful Judah Landa can tell us all what the Holy Words REALLY MEAN. When someone like me asks Carol why Landa's interpretations of the Holy Words are any more authoritative than anyone else's, she seems rather puzzled that anyone would even question the matter. After all, we should just accept that Landa is right because Carol SAYS he is, silly."

This totally misrepresents what I have been saying. After posting here for a few months, you have no idea what the essence of my position on the Bible is. Or you are deliberately lying.

... have confused what are obviously Her egg masses with male anatomical features.

Carol wrote:This totally misrepresents what I have been saying. After posting here for a few months, you have no idea what the essence of my position on the Bible is. Or you are deliberately lying.

It's very appropriate to cite Lewis Carroll as someone who produced parodies which have outlasted their original models; the thing is, it's his parodic poems which have done that. Compare Carroll's How doth the little crocodile to Isaac Watts' Against Idleness and Mischief, or Carroll's You Are Old, Father William to Robert Southey's The Old Man's Comforts and How He Gained Them, to name only two examples of Carrollian parody which have far eclipsed their original models.

There's a web page which puts some of Carroll's parodies on display, accompanied by their originals...

Cheers Cubist,

I like that link.

When someone like me asks Carol why Landa's interpretations of the Holy Words are any more authoritative than anyone else's, she seems rather puzzled that anyone would even question the matter. After all, we should just accept that Landa is right because Carol SAYS he is, silly."

This totally misrepresents what I have been saying.

Lenny wrote:

"Really. Then, uh, why are Landa's interpretations of the Holy Words any more authoritative than anyone else's ... ?"

I never said they were. I don't appeal to authority. Instead, I claim that they make a lot of sense. And I am willing and was always willing to discuss and debate the issues on the merits, only to find many closed minds here not interested in engaging the issues, just in spewing mindless claptrap.

This is probably the tenth time I have answered this silly question of yours. Your response will be "shrug", then next week you will ask the same question again with the claim that I never answer your questions.

My question is: Why can you not discuss and debate these issues seriously and with an open mind? What are you afraid of? That it will indeed turn out, as I maintain, that the original Bible can be translated quite literally and correctly and yet not conflict in any way with science? Why does that pose a problem for you?

only to find many closed minds here not interested in engaging the issues

Hahahahaha
(the) Bible can be translated quite literally and correctly and yet not conflict in any way with science

Carol you say that almost as though you mean it !

Now come on why did 'the name you won't say' not create water in Genesis?

Simple question.

The fact that god did not tell everyone he created water MEANS IRREFUTABLY you and Landa are WRONG...why?

If the Bible were correct then water would not exist.

And because life requires water and without it the Bible would not exist thus your arguement fails.

Mere tautology you say?....well yes of course all theology is. It has to be, none of it survives logic or examination by the human senses at some stage it ALWAYS fails, always has and always will you could even say (as a figure of speech or deeply believe it, it doesn't matter) god designed it that way.

So Carol what about that elephant? ......to use one of your more brilliant aphorisms giant generators of dung.

Oh and while we are at it were there any Elephants on the Ark ? and how did Noah get all those animals from South America onto it Blah Blah blah

Sure Carol, science is consistant with the imagined history of the Jewish People otherwise known as the 'old testament' just don't consider the scientific method, data, evolution, the big bang, and oh Water did I mention Water ?

ben wrote:

"Maybe you should find a Bible-related discussion board, instead of continuously straining to find excuses to inject your religious opinions into an evolutionary biology blog."

This is not an evolution blog. It is an "evolution vs. ID" blog and more generally a "science vs. religion" blog. I do not strain to inject my religious opinions but seek to engage in challenging discussions pertaining to science vs. religion issues. In doing so, I express my opinions, as does everyone else here.

The only distinction you can point to in my posts compared to most others is that many folks here disagree with some of the ideas I express. If I were looking to have my back scratched I would take your advice and go to a "Bible-related discussion board. But I seek to refine my views based on challenges and opposition and debate. I think that is the most rigorous method and I enjoy it too.

Carol, I for one(regardless of our huge differences) do not have a problem with you.In fact it helps me honed my arguments when I debate others.I do think you tend to run off the rails occasionally,but we all may be accused of that from time to time.

Carol, by the way (Sheyihiye lach yom na'im)

I never said they were. I don't appeal to authority. Instead, I claim that they make a lot of sense.

Posted by jonboy on March 31, 2006 05:05 PM (e) Carol, I for one(regardless of our huge differences) do not have a problem with you.In fact it helps me honed my arguments when I debate others.I do think you tend to run off the rails occasionally,but we all may be accused of that from time to time.

This is not an evolution blog. It is an "evolution vs. ID" blog and more generally a "science vs. religion" blog. I do not strain to inject my religious opinions.....

Ummm. TO be honest, that's not my impression, given the number of derailed threads I've seen.

Nothing that a little more care couldn't take care of, however....

Carol,I would like you to comment on these reviews of your sages book.

Landa does _not_ present the Sages of the Talmud as scientific experts anticipating the discoveries of today. On the contrary, his repeated point is that the Talmud and other classic works of Jewish religious thought and law contain many scientific mistakes. When compared, not only to contemporary scientists, but to the natural philosophers of their own times, our Sages do not seem to have been particularly well-versed in scientific fact or method. Landa argues that this should not shock anyone because our Sages, though wise and good men, were only human and science was not their major interest. Therefore, he argues, an Orthodox Jew need not try to reconcile Talmudic statements with contemporary scientific ones. There should be no religious problem in just accepting that the Talmud (and the Rambam, etc.) are sometimes simply mistaken on questions of how nature works. AND
The material centers on the technical (its fascinating and revealing in the Rabbis' conception of the cosmos), not the philosophical. It is was already dated when it was written (redshift and other evidences for the Big Bang had already been public by then), particularly in his discussion of Bereshis; he presupposes that the Big Gang theory is not the dominant conception of the universe, and then wastes an entire chapter on defending convoluted interpretations of Chazzal and torah to the end that the universe is eternal!
In general the book received poor at best reviews,why do you seem to hold in so much reverence?

"Really. Then, uh, why are Landa's interpretations of the Holy Words any more authoritative than anyone else's ... ?"

I never said they were.

I do not strain to inject my religious opinions

In general the book received poor at best reviews,why do you seem to hold in so much reverence?

Andrew MaClure,

There would be a shred of validity to your analysis if in fact any of my (or Landa's and others') translations were disputed by so called "authorities". There are no such disputes. No one with ANY knowledge of Hebrew can claim that any particular translation of mine (or Landa's and others) is incorrect or faulty. All we are doing is putting them together in a reasonable way with the highly charged result that the original Hebrew Bible does not conflict with science even if interpreted literally.

All the debating, Andrew, is based on emotion and visceral reaction. Many folks just don't like the consequences and implications to their world view. That is to be expected of anything that touches upon religion.

Jonboy and Stephen,

Thanks for your welcome and support.

Jonboy,

I think you are looking at different books by Landa. Some of the comments you quoted I agree with, some are off the wall. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, Jonboy, and these are controversial issues. Religion is more of an emotional phenomenon than an intellectual one. So it means very little to me.

On the whole, Landa's books have been very positively reviewed in academia. There are some scholars who actually swear by Landa's books, such as Prof. Kellner of Hifa University.

On the whole, Landa's books have been very positively reviewed in academia.

Jonboy,

Now, as I promised, let me ask you to address some citations. These, unlike yours, represent actual Biblical endorsements of ideas pertaining to women. How do these fit in with your view that the Bible treats women as property or chattel?

(1) "God said to Abraham.... all that Sarah says to you hearken to her...." (Genesis 21:12). This sounds to me like God is telling Abraham to treat his wife as an equal and pay careful attention to her opinions.

(2) "And the people did not journey until Miriam was brought in...." (Numbers 12:15). The entire nation waiting for a woman as if she were their revered leader Moses. Property, heh?

(3) When a man marries.... he shall be free for his home for one year... and he shall gladden his wife.... (Deut. 24:5) No army, no job, just the wife! Does that sound like chattel-like treatment to you?

Your turn.

TJM,

These reviewes have been quoted in scholarly articles and have appeared in printed material put out by the publisher, but I have not seen any internet links. May I remind you that, as I have said here many times and contrary to the garbage repeated here often, I AM NOT the publicist for this book or any other. I have described my role in other threads.

And Lenny will NEVER be satisfied nor will his mouth EVER cease repeating his various mantras until the day he dies.

These reviewes have been quoted in scholarly articles

So Judah Landa has done what no other Biblical scholar in the entire history of mankind has ever been able to do --- write a book about religion that nobody disagrees with . . .?

B.S., Carol.

Pure, unadulterated, B.S.

Lenny,

READ what I write before commenting.

TJM,

Ok, sir, when I get to the office on Monday I will prepare a list of scholarly reviews of Landa's latest book, but here is one that comes to my mind right now:

Jewish World Book Journal, winter 2005, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 58.

Seek and ye shall find.

Seek and ye shall find.

There would be a shred of validity to your analysis if in fact any of my (or Landa's and others') translations were disputed by so called "authorities". There are no such disputes. No one with ANY knowledge of Hebrew can claim that any particular translation of mine (or Landa's and others) is incorrect or faulty. All we are doing is putting them together in a reasonable way with the highly charged result that the original Hebrew Bible does not conflict with science even if interpreted literally.

— Carol Clouser, in responding to Andrew MaClure,

So how DARE I even mention the word "literally" when it was "demonstrated" that I do not know and cannot comprehend the meaning of the word?

I guess I didn't get the message.

The characters that prowl the corridors of Panda's Thumb!

Jonboy?

So how DARE I even mention the word "literally" when it was "demonstrated" that I do not know and cannot comprehend the meaning of the word?

— Carol Clouser

I guess I didn't get the message.

The characters that prowl the corridors of Panda's Thumb!

CAROL, I have often equated with extracting (gems) of wisdom from the bible,with removing pearls from a large bucket of cow manure.You are so happy to see the occasional pearl Carol,that you fail to see all that is left, (manure).
You quoted (Deut. 24:5) but prior to that you missed
(24:1-4) If a man marries a woman and later finds "some uncleanness in her," he can divorce her and kick her out of his house. If another man marries her and then dies, the first husband cannot marry her again. "For that is an abomination before the Lord."
You cited,(Genesis 21:12) but over looked the previous verses which state (21:10-14) "And God said unto Abraham ... hearken unto her voice."
Sarah, after giving birth to Isaac, gets angry again at Hagar (see Gen.16:5-6) and tells Abraham to "cast out this bondwoman and her son." God commands Abraham to "hearken unto her voice." So Abraham abandons Hagar and Ishmael, casting them out into the wilderness to die. In (Numbers 12:15).The entire nation is waiting for Miriam,why Carol? 12:9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.12:10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous.God was angry so who did he punish, a woman. Come on Carol,you can do better than that?
You wrote "How do these fit in with your view that the Bible treats women as property or chattel? Well I will concede the bible does say that females have a value.
Leviticus 27:3/7 God defines the value of human life in dollars and cents. Of course, to God, females are worth considerably less than males (50 - 60%) -- but neither are worth much. Males (< 5 years old) are worth 5 shekels.
Females are worth 3. Males (5 - 20 years old) are worth 20 shekels.
Females are worth 10. and Males (20 - 60 years old) are worth 50 shekels.
Females are worth 30. Would you consider your self that way?

Jonboy,

The manure is entirely a figment of your imagination, as I demonstrated with the first ten items of your 61 citations.

I see only pearls, and not for lack of trying to find some manure.

Admit it, you are biased!

Your citation from Leviticus regarding the values placed on human life is altogether preposterous. What the Bible is doing there is no different than what the 9/11 commission needed to do in evaluating human life for compensation purposes. How else to put a quantifiable value on human life other than to go by earning power, life expectancy and productivity? A person who vows to donate the value of a particular person must be held to some specific number, much as insurance companies need to.

As far as God choosing to punish a woman, you seem to forget that Miriam perpetrated the evil while Aaron merely went along. The pertinent Hebrew is, VATIDABAIR MIRIAM VI-AHARON, "and Miriam spoke", in the singular and feminine. Had both Miriam and Aaron engaged in the evil talk on an equal basis it would have said, VAYIDABROO, "and Miriam and Aron spoke".

God tell you that himself, did he Carol?

Thanks for sharing with us your opinion of what God and the Bible really mean.

Why, again, is your interpretation any better than anyone else's? Other than your say-so?

I await your list on monday.

TJM,

I am working on it. Give me a break. It's been a long day.

In the meantime you have the one reference I cited above. That should keep you off the streets for awhile.

one reference does not a portfolio make.

waste of my time to check out only one reference.

hey, you said you'd have it on monday.

shouldn't be a difficult assignment, for someone who is such an ardent supporter, should it?

hmm.

one wonders if you yourself have ever taken the time to examine the critiques of landa's work.

If you want to claim his techniques to be laudable, I would think the first thing you would want to do is have ready a list of academic supporters of his work.

I find it odd that you don't...

If i were to begin speaking about issues relating to one of my own fields of expertise, ontogentic color change, i certainly would have a ready list of supporting articles for the arguments i was making. (hell, i usually have them memorized i've read them so often)

If you want to press your arguments, you really should think about independent support, as they haven't really held up on their own merits over the months you have spent here on PT; your own illusions about the issue aside, I'm sure.

TJM,

No one here ever asked for a list of references until you did the other day. Quite the contrary has been the case. The mere mention of Landa by me usually leads to a chorus of "stop shilling, this is not a flea market". Some of which you yourself engaged in.

My support of Landa's thesis is not based on my having read and digested all the reviews. Rather it is based on my own expertise in Hebrew linguistics. It is why I was a "good fit", as they say in the industry, to do the preparatory and editorial work for the book.

So I need to do some research to get you an accurate and complete list. As I said, I am working on it.

Lenny,

My say-so is not good enough for you?

I am disappointed.

For the record, the carol clouser of post #94121 does not appear to be the real Carol Clouser. Posing as someone else is against the rules, so for the integrity of this blog, please don't do it. If it was the real Carol, then ignore my comment.

(This comment is not meant to be a moderation post, merely the concerns of a PT denizen)

Hmm, I could be wrong. I see that she can't decide whether or not to capitalize her name. Still, that last comment didn't seem quite right.

Carol, You have become a legend in your own mind, I perceived that our debate was about biblical discourse,NOT about your personal beliefs and interpretations.I refuse to argue from authority,but your defense flies in the face of most recognized biblical scholars. You most certainly have not, successfully answered any of my questions,your rebuttals are vacuous and without any foundation. You said" How else to put a quantifiable value on human life other than to go by earning power, life expectancy and productivity?
Correct Carol,and a female is Worth Less than a male.
Lets address one passage at a time,so their can be no ambiguity Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." A father could sell his daughter as a slave. Even though a male slave is automatically given his freedom after 6 years, a female slave remained a slave forever. Even slaves are not attributed equal status.References:"Women in the Bible," BibleUfo.com, at: http://www.bibleufo.com/ B.M. Metzger & M.D. Coogan, "The Oxford Companion to the Bible",

Posted by carol clouser on April 4, 2006 07:42 AM (e) Lenny, My say-so is not good enough for you? I am disappointed.

Jonboy,

You give me too much credit. Much of what I write to you is not the product of my imagination, but standard stuff passed around in the circles of those who should know. And that does not refer to so called "Bible scholars," most of whom have demonstrated their utter ignorance long ago. I refer instead to the folks who cherished the Bible for centuries before the big wide world out there even knew of its existance, the people for whom the Bible was intended and who are repeatedly addressed directly within it -- the children of Israel. It is not my problem that folks later hijacked the document, proceeded to distort and mistranslate it, are totally unaware of the nuiances of meaning passed on orally to accompany the written version, then added to it and decalred the original null and void. What chutzpah!

Posted by Carol Clouser on April 4, 2006 11:10 AM (e) Jonboy, You give me too much credit. Much of what I write to you is not the product of my imagination, but standard stuff passed around in the circles of those who should know. And that does not refer to so called "Bible scholars," most of whom have demonstrated their utter ignorance long ago. I refer instead to the folks who cherished the Bible for centuries before the big wide world out there even knew of its existance, the people for whom the Bible was intended and who are repeatedly addressed directly within it --- the children of Israel. It is not my problem that folks later hijacked the document, proceeded to distort and mistranslate it, are totally unaware of the nuiances of meaning passed on orally to accompany the written version, then added to it and decalred the original null and void. What chutzpah!

Stephen and W. Kevin,

Both of those posts are mine. I don't know how to prove it to you, but I take full responsibility for them.

Lenny endlessly repeats his questions despite my having answered them on more than one occasion, and consequently I keep ignoring him and feel somewhat guilty about doing so (he is well intentioned but wrong), I thought I would respond this time with some poignant humor.

I don't know Stephen what you found in the second post that doesn't "sound" like me, but me it is, the one and only.

Posted by Carol Clouser on April 4, 2006 11:51 AM (e) Stephen and W. Kevin, Both of those posts are mine. I don't know how to prove it to you, but I take full responsibility for them. Lenny endlessly repeats his questions despite my having answered them on more than one occasion, and consequently I keep ignoring him and feel somewhat guilty about doing so (he is well intentioned but wrong), I thought I would respond this time with some poignant humor. I don't know Stephen what you found in the second post that doesn't "sound" like me, but me it is, the one and only.

Posted by Carol Clouser on April 4, 2006 11:10 AM (e) Jonboy, You give me too much credit. Much of what I write to you is not the product of my imagination, but standard stuff passed around in the circles of those who should know. And that does not refer to so called "Bible scholars," most of whom have demonstrated their utter ignorance long ago. I refer instead to the folks who cherished the Bible for centuries before the big wide world out there even knew of its existance, the people for whom the Bible was intended and who are repeatedly addressed directly within it --- the children of Israel. It is not my problem that folks later hijacked the document, proceeded to distort and mistranslate it, are totally unaware of the nuiances of meaning passed on orally to accompany the written version, then added to it and decalred the original null and void. What chutzpah!

I refer instead to the folks who cherished the Bible for centuries before the big wide world out there even knew of its existance, the people for whom the Bible was intended and who are repeatedly addressed directly within it --- the children of Israel.

It is not my problem that folks later hijacked the document, proceeded to distort and mistranslate it

are totally unaware of the nuiances of meaning passed on orally to accompany the written version,

then added to it and decalred the original null and void.

What chutzpah!

Carol You wrote" It is not my problem that folks later hijacked the document, proceeded to distort and mistranslate it, are totally unaware of the nuiances of meaning passed on orally to accompany the written version, then added to it and decalred the original null and void. What chutzpah!" But Carol it IS your problem, Unless you can supply evidence to out weigh the counter position,you arguments have little value.
There can be no questioning this historical fact:
2 Chronicles 36:23 mentions the Second Temple which was constructed after some Jews returned from exile in Babylon. It was rebuilt by Herod late in the 1st century BCE. One of its features was women's court, considered the least sacred area. Next was the court of the Israelites (reserved for males), then the court of the Priests, and finally the Temple itself. The courts were laid out in this order to separate the women as far as possible from the Temple.
During the Second Temple period, women were not allowed to testify in court trials. They could not go out in public, or talk to strangers. When outside of their homes, they were to be doubly veiled. "They had become second-class Jews, excluded from the worship and teaching of God, with status scarcely above that of slaves." Frank Daniels, "The Role of Woman in the Church." I see no point in continuing our dialog.

Stephen,

I am saying that the so called Old Testament, which contains some 613 commandments, is a document that was intended for Jews, was written by Jews, and the lion's share of it is clearly addressed to Jews, and they are in fact the only people observing those commandments today. The Jews also are the only people speaking the Bible's tounge as a first language, had scholars studying the Bible for the longest and most ancient times. It is to be expected therefore that it is among them, especially the Taludists, that the greatest expertise on Biblical interpretation is to be found.

My support of Landa's thesis is not based on my having read and digested all the reviews. Rather it is based on my own expertise in Hebrew linguistics.

For Jehovah's sake ,Carol take your old book and just go.

In a thousand years if your book hasn't been the cause of blowing the planet apart then I will be very surprised.

Is this the real CC? That post made me laugh. So, is Carol lightening up or do we have a doppelganger?

Posted by Carol Clouser on April 4, 2006 01:48 PM (e) Stephen, I am saying that the so called Old Testament, which contains some 613 commandments, is a document that was intended for Jews, was written by Jews, and the lion's share of it is clearly addressed to Jews, and they are in fact the only people observing those commandments today. The Jews also are the only people speaking the Bible's tounge as a first language, had scholars studying the Bible for the longest and most ancient times. It is to be expected therefore that it is among them, especially the Taludists, that the greatest expertise on Biblical interpretation is to be found.

Stephen wrote:

"Is there 1 God or not? Is there a God that is solely for Isreal? Am I going to burn for eternity because I cannot speak Hebrew?"

What did I say to deserve these questions? There is but one God and we all are his children. Burning in hell is not in the Hebrew Bible and is not a Jewish concept but a Christian one. It is actions that count, how you live your life, not whether you know Hebrew nor what you believe or think.

The Talmud states that when one arrives at the heavenly court, after death, four questions will be asked and judgement will be based on the answers. (I am translating loosely from the Aramaic.)

First question: Did you engage your fellow human beings honestly and faithfully?

Second question: Did you do your part to build a family?

Third question: Did you seek to improve the world, thereby advancing the messianic era?

Fourth question: Did you set aside time for study?

According to the Bible, God has imposed upon Jews a special obligation to bring this message and related themes to the world, primarily by setting an example of exemplary behavior (as opposed to proslytizing). Anyone can join the marines, so to speak, in this "war" by accepting the obligations. But even if you do not, it is still incumbant upon you to obey the seven commandments for non-Jews and to live an upright life.

Glen Davidson,

I do not appreciate your distorting what I say. I say exactly what I mean and mean exactly what I say. If you wish to engage me in conversation you will need to begin by reading my comments carefully before foaming at the mouth in response.

I said nothing, nor did I imply anything, about the ability or intelligence of Jews or non-Jews to do anything, such as understand the Bible. My comments were geared to a comparison of expertise, exposure to and familiarity with the OT.

The rest of your post is entirely irrelevent to this conversation.

Glen Davidson,

I do not appreciate your distorting what I say. I say exactly what I mean and mean exactly what I say. If you wish to engage me in conversation you will need to begin by reading my comments carefully before foaming at the mouth in response.

I said nothing, nor did I imply anything, about the ability or intelligence of Jews or non-Jews to do anything, such as understand the Bible. My comments were geared to a comparison of expertise, exposure to and familiarity with the OT.

The rest of your post is entirely irrelevent to this conversation.

Glen Davidson,

I do not appreciate your distorting what I say. I say exactly what I mean and mean exactly what I say. If you wish to engage me in conversation you will need to begin by reading my comments carefully before foaming at the mouth in response.

I said nothing, nor did I imply anything, about the ability or intelligence of Jews or non-Jews to do anything, such as understand the Bible. My comments were geared to a comparison of expertise, exposure to and familiarity with the OT.

The rest of your post is entirely irrelevent to this conversation.

Glen Davidson,

I do not appreciate your distorting what I say. I say exactly what I mean and mean exactly what I say. If you wish to engage me in conversation you will need to begin by reading my comments carefully before foaming at the mouth in response.

I said nothing, nor did I imply anything, about the ability or intelligence of Jews or non-Jews to do anything, such as understand the Bible. My comments were geared to a comparison of expertise, exposure to and familiarity with the OT.

The rest of your post is entirely irrelevent to this conversation.

Jonboy,

You are moving the goal posts from the Bible to practices and customs. And your litany of those customs are riddled with errors and misconceptions.

Does it not speak volumes that you and I have ostensibly been discussing the same book, the Old Testament, and yet anyone watching the conversation could not tell that is the case. You see only manure, I see only pearls. Apparently repeated distortions on top of misunderstandings have accumulated to the point that it is not easy to see through the fog.

Thanks for your time. I enjoyed it.

Glen Davidson,

I do not appreciate your distorting what I say. I say exactly what I mean and mean exactly what I say. If you wish to engage me in conversation you will need to begin by reading my comments carefully before foaming at the mouth in response.

I said nothing, nor did I imply anything, about the ability or intelligence of Jews or non-Jews to do anything, such as understand the Bible. My comments were geared to a comparison of expertise, exposure to and familiarity with the OT.

The rest of your post is entirely irrelevent to this conversation.

Jonboy,

You are moving the goal posts from the Bible to practices and customs. And your litany of those customs are riddled with errors and misconceptions.

Does it not speak volumes that you and I have ostensibly been discussing the same book, the Old Testament, and yet anyone watching the conversation could not tell that is the case. You see only manure, I see only pearls. Apparently repeated distortions on top of misunderstandings have accumulated to the point that it is not easy to see through the fog.

Thanks for your time. I enjoyed it.

God has imposed upon Jews a special obligation to bring this message and related themes to the world, primarily by setting an example of exemplary behavior (as opposed to proslytizing).

Oh Carol!

Excuthe my lithp, but perhaps this should've just been titled the "Clouser" thread from the outset, rather than the "Crowther" thread.

Before you post your anti-Glen comment a fourth time, Carol, you might note that your first three postings were successful.

If you don't consider that sufficient to have gotten your point across, you may wish to consider revising your comments, rather than merely repeating them.

Sigh.

I might've just said, "Yadda yadda yadda." But then I'd have risked being informed of the definitive Landa-translation. Over and over again...

Carol, as long as you're going to hijack this thread (Hey, anybody remember the "Flying Spaghetti Monster"? Or Crowther's Complaint, "I Ain't Got No Respect"?), please have the common courtesy to only post each message one time.

Just to clarify, Preview does not publish your comment, but allows you to see how it will appear when published.

Post is what you click to publish your final, self-reviewed comment.

It appears that you mistook "Post" for "Preview" three times in a row. They really are different things. Please abide.

Dave Thomas

Make that five repeats for the Glen diatribe now. Eeesh...

Whatsamatter, Jonboy? She only *nailed* you twice. You clearly just don't rate in Carol's anti-landa.

Is this the real CC? That post made me laugh. So, is Carol lightening up or do we have a doppelganger?

I am saying that the so called Old Testament, which contains some 613 commandments, is a document that was intended for Jews, was written by Jews, and the lion's share of it is clearly addressed to Jews, and they are in fact the only people observing those commandments today. The Jews also are the only people speaking the Bible's tounge as a first language, had scholars studying the Bible for the longest and most ancient times. It is to be expected therefore that it is among them, especially the Taludists, that the greatest expertise on Biblical interpretation is to be found.

I recently stumbled across this one-stop shop, a veritable Mall of False Doctrines.

These are said to include Catholics, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, Evolution, Calvinism, etc. etc.

Check it Out!

"Big Tent," my arse.

Cheers, Dave

I do not appreciate your distorting what I say. I say exactly what I mean and mean exactly what I say. If you wish to engage me in conversation you will need to begin by reading my comments carefully before foaming at the mouth in response.

I said nothing, nor did I imply anything, about the ability or intelligence of Jews or non-Jews to do anything, such as understand the Bible.

My comments were geared to a comparison of expertise, exposure to and familiarity with the OT.

The rest of your post is entirely irrelevent to this conversation.

Nothing you write is sound, except in that context.

Glen Davidson wrote:

"Here's where your distortion of what I wrote becomes rank indeed. I didn't suggest that you were writing about "ability"... of non-Jews," (#94522)

You didn't suggest that, heh? What about your saying:

"you pointedly claim that those of us without the knowledge held by Jews are incapable of understanding the Bible?" (#94215)

You are nothing but a liar.

You also wrote:

"You haven't answered anything I've brought up yet, which shows just how incompetent you are at matters Biblical" (#94522)

There is an alternative explanation for my not answering anything you brought up yet. It is that you bring up irrelevant, vacuous and baseless nonsense and add a few insults to the mix. I generally avoid dialogue with such types. It gets nobody anywhere fast.

TJM,

As long as you are civil we can continue our dialogue. As soon as you revert back to form, as you came close to doing in your last post here, I am gone.

Here are three more references to add to the list I have been working on for you:

Tradition, Vol. 35, No. 4

The Torah U-Madda Journal, Vol. 12

Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, No. 39

I am sure there is more but I will probably need to contact Landa for the details. His wife informs me that he currently is counting neutrons on top of Mount Herman and it has been challenging to reach him.

Hope this helped.

"you pointedly claim that those of us without the knowledge held by Jews are incapable of understanding the Bible?" (#94215)

You are nothing but a liar.

It is that you bring up irrelevant, vacuous and baseless nonsense and add a few insults to the mix.

I generally avoid dialogue with such types.

It gets nobody anywhere fast.

Why DO you spend time here anyway? there have got to be thousands of sites better suited to discuss the subject material you are apparently interested in.

I think Emba would make that statement more like this: "Nothing you write is sound, EVEN IN that context."

It's kinda why I finally decided to ask Carol for references, cause it sure seems like she is talking out of her rear most of the time, and it doesn't take a biblical scholar to see it.

TJM,

Landa is an astropysicist by training and engages in scientific activity at various universities from time to time.

I see that you will not do much with that list. You just wanted to waste my time. How nice.

It is ok not to engage in civil discourse for civil discourse's sake, it is not ok to engage in uncivil discourse for uncivil discourse's sake.

If I wanted my back scratched I would go to those other sites you mention. But that would be a real waste of my time. I seek challenge and debate, as I have said many times in the past.

Posted by Carol Clouser on April 4, 2006 05:00 PM (e) What did I say to deserve these questions? ...

Posted by Carol Clouser on April 4, 2006 01:48 PM (e) Stephen, I am saying that the so called Old Testament, which contains some 613 commandments, is a document that was intended for Jews, was written by Jews, and the lion's share of it is clearly addressed to Jews, and they are in fact the only people observing those commandments today. The Jews also are the only people speaking the Bible's tounge as a first language, had scholars studying the Bible for the longest and most ancient times. It is to be expected therefore that it is among them, especially the Taludists, that the greatest expertise on Biblical interpretation is to be found.

Nothing you write is sound, except in that context.

— Sir_Toejam

I think Emba would make that statement more like this:

"Nothing you write is sound, EVEN IN that context."

Totally irrelevant, but I just got around to doing Sunday's NYT crossword puzzle, and there it was 82 Down "Bearcats", six letters. With enough cross letters, I figured out it was PA––AS. Hmmm. Yes, PANDAS fit in. Checking out Wikipedia, it seems a bearcat is the Malay civet. But using Google, it seems that "bear cat" is the literal meaning of the Chinese name for giant panda, so some people call them "bearcats" in English also. Learn something new every day!

Like a challenge Carol?
Well Carol I'm still waiting, why didn't g_d create water ?

Apparently repeated distortions on top of misunderstandings have accumulated to the point that it is not easy to see through the fog.

— Carol

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 4, 2006 06:37 PM (e) She wants me. I can tell.

Jewish World Book Journal, winter 2005, Vol. 23, No. 1,

— Carol

If I wanted my back scratched I would go to those other sites you mention. But that would be a real waste of my time. I seek challenge and debate, as I have said many times in the past.

Well, from a certain point of view, I would say that everything that Carol writes is "sound". As in, all noise, no content.

ouch

Jewish World Book Journal, winter 2005, Vol. 23, No. 1

— Rilke's Granddaughter

Oh, and Carol? This Journal doesn't appear to exist.

The Talmud states that when one arrives at the heavenly court, after death, four questions will be asked and judgement will be based on the answers. (I am translating loosely from the Aramaic.) First question: Did you engage your fellow human beings honestly and faithfully? Second question: Did you do your part to build a family? Third question: Did you seek to improve the world, thereby advancing the messianic era? Fourth question: Did you set aside time for study?

— Carol

...the so called Old Testament, which contains some 613 commandments, is a document that was intended for Jews, was written by Jews, and the lion's share of it is clearly addressed to Jews, and they are in fact the only people observing those commandments today.

TJM wrote:

"challenging debate? from a group of folks interested in evolutionary biology? Your continuing lack of logic astounds me."

Now you are getting into the realm of gratuitous insults. Just look around you. This is a science vs. religion blog. We have here dedicated, intelligent atheists and agnostics with strong anti-Bible convictions. On top of that some here have strong science backgrounds. No sooner do I appear in a thread and a lively debate ensues. Unfortunately, the debates also animate the morons and ignoramuses to come out of the woodwork but that comes with the territory and would occur in any comprable blog.

This is a science vs. religion blog.

The Panda's Thumb is the virtual pub of the University of Ediacara. 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.

NMSR is a science organization; it is not a civil liberties or an anti-religious organization. Several of our members, like scientists in general, belong to various religious groups. We see no inherent conflict between science and religion, in that science concerns the natural world (the one accessible to our senses and instruments), while religion concerns the possibility of a supernatural world accessible only through faith. While we respect and cherish religious freedom, we stand ready to challenge those who promote bad science to further their goals, religious or otherwise.

I seek challenge and debate

I would be willing to pay to listen to a conversation between yourself and Carol in a bar.

This is a science vs. religion blog.

This is a science vs. religion blog

No sooner do I appear in a thread and a lively debate ensues

Carol Clouser.

I answered your question. You did not respond. What conclusions should I draw from that?

Stephen,

My previous post #94404 is my response. You have not responded to that response of mine.

The correct title is Jewish Book World, as confirmed by the Library of Congress and Amazon.com. It is published three times a year by the Jewish Book Council.

— Emba

Posted by Carol Clouser on April 6, 2006 12:21 PM (e) Stephen, My previous post #94404 is my response. You have not responded to that response of mine.

Posted by Stephen Elliott on April 5, 2006 11:03 AM (e) Posted by Carol Clouser on April 4, 2006 05:00 PM (e) What did I say to deserve these questions? ...

Posted by Carol Clouser on April 4, 2006 01:48 PM (e) Stephen, I am saying that the so called Old Testament, which contains some 613 commandments, is a document that was intended for Jews, was written by Jews, and the lion's share of it is clearly addressed to Jews, and they are in fact the only people observing those commandments today. The Jews also are the only people speaking the Bible's tounge as a first language, had scholars studying the Bible for the longest and most ancient times. It is to be expected therefore that it is among them, especially the Taludists, that the greatest expertise on Biblical interpretation is to be found.

the Big Gang theory is not the dominant conception of the universe