Creationist admits to being "a deceiver and a liar"

Evolutionist admits to being "not at all surprised."

Yes, it's called homophobia, Haggard. You'd do better with science than ancient proscriptions to understand yourself and humanity.

I think that the lying part is what matters most here. We have odious people on our side, including liars and deceivers. But when you're open to the meaning of the evidence you simply don't have any reason to lie concerning origins, and the rest of science (including the psychology of homosexuals). This is why one needs to be honest about science, for it at least gives a person a foothold in the world of truth (small-t truth, naturally), and perhaps will lead to truthfulness about oneself (doesn't always happen, certainly).

Too much can be made of Haggard, nonetheless it is true that lies lead to more lies, which is essentially the history of the ID movement. The lies must stop somewhere.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Thanks for that. It was interesting. Despite Haggard's obvious difficulties in understanding basic science, the guy interviewing comes across as sarcastic and mean-spirited. I've seen this before in debates, and it's a shame. I think we can make a much greater impact in convincing the general public of the truth of evolution if we are polite and kind in our interactions, even with those who are so immensely lacking in understanding. The average guy on the street is probably not going to go with where the evidence leads, sadly. They'll go with the person they like the best- the person who appears to be the nicest.

Thanks for that. It was interesting. Despite Haggard's obvious difficulties in understanding basic science, the guy interviewing comes across as sarcastic and mean-spirited. I've seen this before in debates, and it's a shame. I think we can make a much greater impact in convincing the general public of the truth of evolution if we are polite and kind in our interactions, even with those who are so immensely lacking in understanding. The average guy on the street is probably not going to go with where the evidence leads, sadly. They'll go with the person they like the best- the person who appears to be the nicest.

That guy interviewing him is Richard Dawkins. I think it was a bit mean-spirited of him to say the bit about Goebbels and Nuremberg to Haggard but if you watched the enrapt audience, I don't think it's an unfair comparison. It's just undiplomatic. Then again, how can you be diplomatic with the willfully ignorant.
It really irked me to watch Haggard lecture Dawkins about selectivity regarding science when he had just espoused how selective he is by regarding the entire Bible as never self-contradictory. That's some disastrous (non)selectivity. "I believe in all of it even if the first two chapters of the first book contradict eachother."
*stunned looks from close readers*

That guy interviewing Haggard is Richard Dawkins. I think it was a bit mean-spirited of Dawkins to say the bit about Goebbels and Nuremberg but if you watched the enrapt audience, I don't think it's an unfair comparison. It's just undiplomatic for Dawkins to say. Then again, how can you be diplomatic with the willfully ignorant.
It really irked me to watch Haggard lecture Dawkins about selectivity regarding science when he had just espoused how selective he is by regarding the entire Bible as never self-contradictory. That's some disastrous (non)selectivity. "I believe in all of it even if the first two chapters of the first book contradict eachother."
*stunned looks from close readers*

I think we can make a much greater impact in convincing the general public of the truth of evolution if we are polite and kind in our interactions

It certainly has been a rough few days for disgraced Rev. Ted Haggard

Yup, Professor Dawkins does indeed come across as somewhat arrogant in this clip, and indeed in parts of "The God Delusion". But he isn't arrogant - he's mad as hell and he is quite right to be so. For too long people like him, and me, and the rev Dr Lenny have have sat silently by while these appalling idiots say exactly what they want (well, not you Lenny) and we've been driven to understand that we must act, and speak, and confront these f___wits.
Expect to see Dawkins, and Sam Harris, and others yet to emerge be fully as strident against the hypocrisy of Haggard and others as they are against us.
And, BTW, the RD website www.richarddawkins.net really rocks and so far without the trolls that beset PT (not too much) and talk origins (sadly too much) - try it out.

edited for foul language - dt

The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem... I am a deceiver and a liar. There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life.

— Ted Haggard

It's kinda sad really. In a sane world, Haggard would just say "I'm gay/bisexual. Deal with it."

It never ceases to amaze me how people can fall so readily and so completely for hucksters like this. Even back when I was nominally religious I recognized that the evangelical movement was mostly just a scam. Yet millions of people eat this stuff up.

Tell me, is there any major evangelical leader left in the U.S. who hasn't been outed for a "transgression" of some sort?

It sure feels good when one of these hypocrites gets exposed for what they really are. If only their followers would get a clue from it.

Well, this is also an excellent object lesson that homosexuality is not an exclucive either/or practice, nor a simple "life style" choice.

Fnxtr, the reason why he can't say "Just deal with it" is because one of his major talking points is about how homosexual relations are evil, and are a blasphemy in the eyes of God. Any people who partake in them are the worst degree of sinner.

Seems a bit odd that those who are most vocal about the evils of homosexuals often are homosexual...

Seems a bit odd that those who are most vocal about the evils of homosexuals often are homosexual...

Seems a bit odd that those who are most vocal about the evils of homosexuals often are homosexual...

Peter-

I think actually Dawkins was coming across mean a number of other times in the clip- just in general tone and demeanor.

Flank-

I was once a Literal Creationist. I saw the Light in undergrad studying biology, as I was progressively convinced of the evidence. What I'm saying is I can feel where these guys are coming from. I agree that people won't be convinced away from Literal Creationism through science- I mean I was, but most won't be. That's my point. Yeah, I'm angry with the way the Fundamentalists respond to science, how they are lying and cheating their way to convince people and denying science. I don't like how I was treated. Yes, we need to start going on the offensive, and not pull our punches, in our arguments. But it's not about convincing the Fundamentalists, just as it's not about convincing the Hard Right or the Hard Left in this upcoming election. It's about convincing the unconvinced, the undecided. And unless they have a scientific background, and precious few of them do, they're going to be convinced by personality, by someone being nice, rather than the logic of their arguments. I've seen debates between an evolutionist and a Discovery Institute guy. The evolutionist had all of the evidence on his side. But he was obnoxious, mocking, and sarcastic the entire time. And the audience went with the ID guy. I was almost convinced- just because the guy for our side was so mean-spirited. We can't underestimate the value of our approach, as well as the ideas themselves. Ethos is as important in convincing as logos.

That guy interviewing Haggard is Richard Dawkins. I think it was a bit mean-spirited of Dawkins to say the bit about Goebbels and Nuremberg

Yup, Professor Dawkins does indeed come across as somewhat arrogant in this clip

I think that Dawkins had every right to be inflammatory given the spectacle he just watched. It was Nurembergish. Goebbels could have learned a thing or two there if only through the integration of massive film screens and how to use informality. The Creationists who visited him before suck. Those people, though, are/were not Haggard or his "flock."
It's clear that Haggard's response was over-the-top. Look at his body language, the sneering and listen to the tone of his voice. He was definitely trying to intimidate Dawkins and there is no sense in Dawkins trying to feign diplomacy with a would-be Ayatollah who is clearly (at least the way the film was edited) interested in picking a fight. Dawkins was absolutely correct to retort, "Excuse me. But did you say 'By accident?'" and then follow that with, "I don't know a single scientist who believes that" and "You obviously don't know anything about science." Those statements are factually correct and Haggard, like way too many power-hungry deceitful leper messiahs (thanks Metallica) moves the goal posts around and changes the argument that he clearly couldn't win (Biblical inerrancy and consistency) by making it about Dawkins arrogance.
Whether or not Dawkins is arrogant (a claim often directed at him that seems fairly accurate) is irrelevent when he is:
a) invited to a "fight" and
b) correct.
We can investigate everyone of the claims each of them made and learn, quite easily, that Dawkins' claims are verifiable and that Haggard's are, at best, highly questionable.
I am somewhat with Lenny on this one. This is a boxing match and sometimes, your boxing might turn into more of a fight in the octagon. We should be as diplomatic as possible in every case where it is worthwhile, but sometimes idiocy needs to be mocked for what it is and not treated with simpering wussitude. That will only make IDiots and YECers believe that we are limp-wristed (read: not gay) liberals. F*** that.

Don't worry. Haggard is going to be counciled by James Dobson. That will fix everything!

Sorry about all of those type-os. I was in a hurry to go vote.

In a way, I feel sorry for Haggard. By the time his body let him know that (a) he had homosexual desires; (b) it was totally unexpected and involuntary; and (c) there wasn't anything he could do about it because it's permanent and irreversible, he had already been permanently brainwashed into "knowing" that such people were sinners who "choose" evil.

What we're seeing, at least what I think I'm seeing, is someone with directly opposing, hardwired requirements, trying to reconcile them. It tells me that no amount of sincere (not to mention desperately urgent) effort can overcome biological demands, and no degree of intransigence of those biological demands can penetrate the certain knowledge that they are NOT intransigent inculcated through early indoctrination.

Ted Haggard is a wonderful illustration of what happens when biology wars with brainwashing, and ONE of them must be abandoned. The result is a lifetime of confusion, misery, and deceit. Creationism is, by the time of puberty, no more open to choice than biology.

Religion is mostly harmless. But in cases like this it leads to real anguish.

Just ONCE, I'd like to see one of these Christofascists come out and say, "I'm gay, I'm sorry I tried to cover it up and thus deceive everyone around me -- and by the way, I learned a little something from all this, which is that if an upstanding Christian like me can be gay, maybe those homosekshuls aren't such evil perverts after all, and maybe we should save our righteous rage for people who are REALLY dangerous, like child-abusers, polluters, and hucksters who get paid for bearing false witness against their neighbors..."

Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?

and by the way, I learned a little something from all this, which is that if an upstanding Christian like me can be gay, maybe those homosekshuls aren't such evil perverts after all

Flint: I disagree. The biggest obstacle to learning (or to admitting what one has learned) is not "hardwiring" (a word that carries a certain amount of prejudice); it's peer-pressure: If Haggard had said what I dreamed him to say, he would have been instantly, quietly, disowned by everyone he "grew up" with; and it is this threat of ostracism that kept him living the lies for so long. To use Bruce Springsteen's wording, there's the "darkness on the edge of town," and getting shoved out into this darkness is, at best, a form of death, to be avoided at all costs.

That's why I dream of the occasional televangelist wingnut showing the bravery Jesus should have given him: every such admission weakens the peer-pressure, and makes honesty a little easier for future generations.

I wonder which closeted mega-church evangelist is going to be the first to infect his wife with AIDS.

Raging Bee:

I hear you, but I don't offhand know of any way to resolve this. My sense has always been that people like Haggard really do not have any choice. Sure, peer pressure would force him to do some zero-based reconstruction of his life, since he would surely be rejected (as you say) by everyone he's ever known. And even knowing that he'd have earned the deep respect of a great many people he hasn't met personally is small consolation.

But internalizing the recognition that homosexuality is neither sinful nor choosable after all? I can't help doubting that this is possible. I suspect there are cases of creationism that are exactly as incurable as sexual orientation. Yes, you can control yourself to the extent of not acting on these things, but they're still there.

(I smoked for 33 years, and 6 years ago I quit. The claim that I am now a "nonsmoker" is absurd - I want a cigarette every moment of every day. I believe this condition is permanent. I can SAY I'm cured, but I can't say it honestly.)

Flint,
This is getting off-topic but I smoked for 10 years and am now a high-level amateur XC bike racer. 10 years isn't 33 but it's a long time. I don't crave smoking and I used to smoke Lucky Strikes when I worked in a plastic factory. (Wow I'm glad I went to school and beyond.) People can move away from these maladaptive practices but they require large shifts in daily behaviour that might be awful for some time.
I think that you are taking too hard a line or maybe overgeneralizing. I suppose I'd like some actual data.
Perhaps what you mean is that some people have been so brainwashed into believing Creationist doctrines that they cannot possibly logically unpack those beliefs without genuinely and (possibly) irreparably damaging their identities and psyches so it's easier for them to maintain their worldview than dismantle it and begin anew? Much like scientologists are the hardest to remove from their belief system or Mormons leaving TLS? I think it's clear that it can be done, it just might be dangerous to the identity make-up of the individual.
Am I understanding you? Am I moving in the right direction?

Seems a bit odd that those who are most vocal about the evils of homosexuals often are homosexual...

Reminds me of a dialogue from the movie Victor Victoria (as recounted from old and fading memory):

James Garner: "You CAN'T be gay! You're the toughest sonofabitch in town!"

His newly-out Bodyguard: "When you're gay, you HAVE to be the toughest sonofabitch in town."

Peter:

"Leper Messiah" is from Bowie's "Ziggy Stardust".

- Mr. Tidy Bowl.

Fnxtr, the reason why he can't say "Just deal with it" is because one of his major talking points is about how homosexual relations are evil, and are a blasphemy in the eyes of God. Any people who partake in them are the worst degree of sinner.

The statements by Flint, Toejam and Raging Bee, etc. are interesting, because it appears that you are all completely ignorant of what it means to be a religious believer and asribe all sorts of false motives and draw all sorts of false conclusions.

It's not propaganda or peer pressure or "hardwiring"; they simply believe that homosexual activity is sinful, regardless of who does it or why. And since this isn't a conclusion reached by objective reason, but by revelation, there really is no definative, objective or reasonable argument that says that they are wrong to consider it sinful. (You may think it is not a sin, but there is no objective measure, so you can no more right about the issue than they are. You may also think that there is no rational reason to even believe in "sin," but they don't believe that rational thinking is everything.)

And when someone is, in their view, afflicted with the temptation toward homosexuality, that is not sinful, in and of itself. It is only when that person gives in to those temptations that it is sinful.

If you want to understand them, you must first learn why it is they think the way they do. Otherwise, just be bigots and call them names and drop any pretense.

It's not propaganda or peer pressure or "hardwiring"; they simply believe that homosexual activity is sinful, regardless of who does it or why.

If you want to understand them, you must first learn why it is they think the way they do.

Peter,

Maybe that's what I'm saying; I'm not sure about all that stuff. I notice that creationist doctrines are impervious to education, information, or evidence. I notice that when creationists attempt to "defend" their positions, they are profoundly dishonest. The misquote and ignore the corrections, they change the subject or vanish. They misrepresent and are immune to any and all attempts to get them to represent honestly.

And when they are backed into a corner and grow tired of claiming persecution and vanish, we notice that eventually they return making word for word the original claims, as though the entire exercise had never happened. Just wander over to ABC and watch AFDave spend over 200 pages dodging the questions and ignoring the corrections.

Now, whether there's a difference between my notion of hardwiring (i.e. that certain things learned at very early ages become indelible as the brain ages) and your notion of damage to identies and psyches, I really don't know. What evidence I can glean from all these discussion groups is that sexual orientation and creationism are EXACTLY as permanent. They seem, by the age of puberty, equally biological in some sense.

Look at this guy claiming that these things result from "revelation". Which just happened to be "revealed" during toilet training. And by now, they can no more change their delusions than they can wet the bed in their sleep deliberately. Beyond a certain age, these things simply can't be unlearned.

they simply believe that homosexual activity is sinful, regardless of who does it or why. And since this isn't a conclusion reached by objective reason, but by revelation, there really is no definative, objective or reasonable argument that says that they are wrong to consider it sinful... they don't believe that rational thinking is everything

fnxtr,
"Leper Messiah" may well be David Bowie but the sixth track from Metallica's 1986 release, Master of Puppets is "Leper Messiah." Metallica are not Bowie fans. An example of convergent evolution perhaps.

.It's not propaganda or peer pressure or "hardwiring"; they simply believe that homosexual activity is sinful, regardless of who does it or why

more interesting space debris from the Centennial State (that's Colorado to you flatlanders). It sez right here in the Denver Post that "early organisms dined on haze"(whether it was purple isn't mentioned) It seems that mixed CH4 and CO2 with some uv rads could have resulted in "a haze of energy rich organic chemicals that could have rained down on primeval organisms growing on the earth surface." Gentlemen I give you manna from heaven. Just like it says in the Bible! You can check it out at khuman@denverpost.com. To Gary Hurd: I think the psychological defense used by Ted Haggard is called "reaction Formation" Regardless he's nothing more than the Rock Hudson of the Elmer Gantry set. And to Khan,you don't infect anyone with AIDS, you infect them with HIV. To don't be Hateful: I'd like to alter one of your remaks:"It's not propaganda, peer pressure or hardwiring, they simply believe that evolution is wrong regardless of the mountain of evidence supporting it.

I found this little gem of a quote at:

http://www.spcc-storrs.org/blog/archives/community_blog/general/current_events/ted_haggard/

"It's a good thing when sinners continue to oppose sin, even if they are still struggling with sin in their own lives...Sometimes, hypocrisy is what allows sinful people to be decent while they try to do what's right."

You can read the whole column here: "Hypocrites are us" (Terry Mattingly)

Any thoughts? Yeah! Ha haha hahahaha haaaahaaahaaaa!

it's not innate or learned, it simply "is"

...and yet, by your own admission, you have no clue as to why it is that they "think" the way they do. they just "do", right?

you give us a perfect case example of denial acting as a defense mechanism, with a nice bit of concern trollishness thrown in for good measure.

Altair IV wrote:
"Tell me, is there any major evangelical leader left in the U.S. who hasn't been outed for a "transgression" of some sort?"

Yeah, Dobson. In any discussion of adultery/homeosexuality/pedophilia etc., he blames pornography as a major cause - even when the offender never mentions pornography. So, I'm expecting to hear about a discovery of Dobson's huge porno stash any day now.
Chris

It's not propaganda or peer pressure or "hardwiring"; they simply believe that homosexual activity is sinful, regardless of who does it or why.

So if that belief didn't come from propaganda, peer pressure, OR "hardwiring," then where DID it come from? Is this another "poof-goddidit" argument?

And yes, we know what they believe. And we simply believe it's NOT a sin, and that there's no good reason to believe it is. We do, however, consider hypocricy and false witness to be sins, or at least wrong.

...there really is no definative, objective or reasonable argument that says that they are wrong to consider it sinful.

Thre's the objective fact that hatred of homosexuality, and teaching homosexuals to hate an integral part of themselves, does more harm than good -- and more harm than homosexuality itself -- to innocent people. This is not a mere matter of opinion -- we're seeing it with our own eyes every day. Bigotry is more harmful to people than homosexuality -- not to mention more contrary to the explicit teachings of Jesus.

Tell me, is there any major evangelical leader left in the U.S. who hasn't been outed for a "transgression" of some sort?

— Altair IV

The whole point of my post is to say that YOU should learn why it is that they think the way they do. That way you wouldn't look like a complete ass to anyone who has even passing familiarity with the mindset.

oh, btw, your handle "don't be hateful" is entirely ironic given your posts so far.

a bit more self reflection would be warranted, methinks.

It's not propaganda or peer pressure or "hardwiring"; they simply believe that homosexual activity is sinful, regardless of who does it or why. And since this isn't a conclusion reached by objective reason, but by revelation, there really is no definative, objective or reasonable argument that says that they are wrong to consider it sinful. (You may think it is not a sin, but there is no objective measure, so you can no more right about the issue than they are. You may also think that there is no rational reason to even believe in "sin," but they don't believe that rational thinking is everything.)

Tell me, is there any major evangelical leader left in the U.S. who hasn't been outed for a "transgression" of some sort?

Don't Be Hateful wrote

"And since this isn't a conclusion reached by objective reason, but by revelation, there really is no definative, objective or reasonable argument that says that they are wrong to consider it sinful...(You may also think that there is no rational reason to even believe in "sin," but they don't believe that rational thinking is everything.)"

I'd disagree on two points. One, most people would except that sin exists, whether or not they feel comfortable with that term. Sin is just doing what's inappropriate- and everyone feels that there are certain things that are inappropriate, and most of us can agree on most of what we would consider inappropriate. (i.e. murder, cheating, stealing- all wrong.)

I'd also disagree that there's no way to convince someone who considers homosexuality wrong because it's what the Bible says. You can convince them if you argue from the Bible- i.e. that the text says something different than what they think, or if the text needs to be interpreted in a different manner. It's just arguing from beyond the text won't convince them.

Altair also wrote "Tell me, is there any major evangelical leader left in the U.S. who hasn't been outed for a "transgression" of some sort?"

Besides those mentioned, also and Tony Campolo.

Don't Be Hateful wrote

"And since this isn't a conclusion reached by objective reason, but by revelation, there really is no definative, objective or reasonable argument that says that they are wrong to consider it sinful...(You may also think that there is no rational reason to even believe in "sin," but they don't believe that rational thinking is everything.)"

I'd disagree on two points. One, most people would except that sin exists, whether or not they feel comfortable with that term. Sin is just doing what's inappropriate- and everyone feels that there are certain things that are inappropriate, and most of us can agree on most of what we would consider inappropriate. (i.e. murder, cheating, stealing- all wrong.)

I'd also disagree that there's no way to convince someone who considers homosexuality wrong because it's what the Bible says. You can convince them if you argue from the Bible- i.e. that the text says something different than what they think, or if the text needs to be interpreted in a different manner. It's just arguing from beyond the text won't convince them.

Altair also wrote "Tell me, is there any major evangelical leader left in the U.S. who hasn't been outed for a "transgression" of some sort?"

Besides those mentioned, also Jim Wallis (sojo.net) and Tony Campolo.

...and most of us can agree on most of what we would consider inappropriate. (i.e. murder, cheating, stealing- all wrong.)

— Jedidiah Palosaari

Yes, sexual immorality and deceit are wrong but the fact he had brought into the light some of the most darkest secrets in his life was very courageous. He knew that he would get persecuted and put down. He is repenting of his wrongs. You aim to point out the wrongs in his character. The fact is we are all sinners and some have deeper secrets than others. We all have lied, yet this man is courageous enough to be accountable for all the wrong he is done. How often do you see people stop pointing fingers, stop placing blame on others, and finally take responsibility for all the hurt and damage they have caused. Or confess secrets they felt would ruin their relationships. I am not here to preach but, evolutionists--I challenge you. You give all the arguments for evolution but how much have you researched the other side of the argument? Yes, you have evidence and science books, scientists investigating the origins of life. God has always been a radical thought even in the days of Jesus' times. Only a few believed he was the Son of God and faced the reality of persecution and death. Same as today, only a few truly believe and would die for their convictions. But once again I challenge you, to swallow your pride, pick up a Bible, start in the New Testament with the Book of John, and see what it does to you. I am a Biological Sciences major and I have taken classes on evolution and many classes in biology biology so, I am aware of the evolutionist standpoint. I challenge you once again, if your ideas don't change let me know. As for Mr. Haggard, he is human like the rest of us. We can give eachother titles and positions but at the end of the day that, when we are alone no title really matters. A day will come, when we will all be judged and take account for all the things we have done in our life (Rom14:10). Then you will realize, that being an evolutionist or a reverend won't really matter. This may all seem very fuzzy right now but once again I challenge you to decide for yourself by investigating the other side of the argument.

Yes, sexual immorality and deceit are wrong but the fact he had brought into the light some of the most darkest secrets in his life was very courageous. He knew that he would get persecuted and put down. He is repenting of his wrongs. You aim to point out the wrongs in his character. The fact is we are all sinners and some have deeper secrets than others. We all have lied, yet this man is courageous enough to be accountable for all the wrong he is done. How often do you see people stop pointing fingers, stop placing blame on others, and finally take responsibility for all the hurt and damage they have caused. Or confess secrets they felt would ruin their relationships. I am not here to preach but, evolutionists--I challenge you. You give all the arguments for evolution but how much have you researched the other side of the argument? Yes, you have evidence and science books, scientists investigating the origins of life. God has always been a radical thought even in the days of Jesus' times. Only a few believed he was the Son of God and faced the reality of persecution and death. Same as today, only a few truly believe and would die for their convictions. But once again I challenge you, to swallow your pride, pick up a Bible, start in the New Testament with the Book of John, and see what it does to you. I am a Biological Sciences major and I have taken classes on evolution and many classes in biology biology so, I am aware of the evolutionist standpoint. I challenge you once again, if your ideas don't change let me know. As for Mr. Haggard, he is human like the rest of us. We can give eachother titles and positions but at the end of the day that, when we are alone no title really matters. A day will come, when we will all be judged and take account for all the things we have done in our life (Rom14:10). Then you will realize, that being an evolutionist or a reverend won't really matter. This may all seem very fuzzy right now but once again I challenge you to decide for yourself by investigating the other side of the argument.

Yes, sexual immorality and deceit are wrong but the fact he had brought into the light some of the most darkest secrets in his life was very courageous. He knew that he would get persecuted and put down. He is repenting of his wrongs. You aim to point out the wrongs in his character. The fact is we are all sinners and some have deeper secrets than others. We all have lied, yet this man is courageous enough to be accountable for all the wrong he is done. How often do you see people stop pointing fingers, stop placing blame on others, and finally take responsibility for all the hurt and damage they have caused. Or confess secrets they felt would ruin their relationships. I am not here to preach but, evolutionists--I challenge you. You give all the arguments for evolution but how much have you researched the other side of the argument? Yes, you have evidence and science books, scientists investigating the origins of life. God has always been a radical thought even in the days of Jesus' times. Only a few believed he was the Son of God and faced the reality of persecution and death. Same as today, only a few truly believe and would die for their convictions. But once again I challenge you, to swallow your pride, pick up a Bible, start in the New Testament with the Book of John, and see what it does to you. I am a Biological Sciences major and I have taken classes on evolution and many classes in biology biology so, I am aware of the evolutionist standpoint. I challenge you once again, if your ideas don't change let me know. As for Mr. Haggard, he is human like the rest of us. We can give eachother titles and positions but at the end of the day that, when we are alone no title really matters. A day will come, when we will all be judged and take account for all the things we have done in our life (Rom14:10). Then you will realize, that being an evolutionist or a reverend won't really matter. This may all seem very fuzzy right now but once again I challenge you to decide for yourself by investigating the other side of the argument.

Yes, sexual immorality and deceit are wrong but the fact he had brought into the light some of the most darkest secrets in his life was very courageous. He knew that he would get persecuted and put down. He is repenting of his wrongs. You aim to point out the wrongs in his character. The fact is we are all sinners and some have deeper secrets than others. We all have lied, yet this man is courageous enough to be accountable for all the wrong he is done. How often do you see people stop pointing fingers, stop placing blame on others, and finally take responsibility for all the hurt and damage they have caused. Or confess secrets they felt would ruin their relationships. I am not here to preach but, evolutionists--I challenge you. You give all the arguments for evolution but how much have you researched the other side of the argument? Yes, you have evidence and science books, scientists investigating the origins of life. God has always been a radical thought even in the days of Jesus' times. Only a few believed he was the Son of God and faced the reality of persecution and death. Same as today, only a few truly believe and would die for their convictions. But once again I challenge you, to swallow your pride, pick up a Bible, start in the New Testament with the Book of John, and see what it does to you. I am a Biological Sciences major and I have taken classes on evolution and many classes in biology biology so, I am aware of the evolutionist standpoint. I challenge you once again, if your ideas don't change let me know. As for Mr. Haggard, he is human like the rest of us. We can give eachother titles and positions but at the end of the day that, when we are alone no title really matters. A day will come, when we will all be judged and take account for all the things we have done in our life (Rom14:10). Then you will realize, that being an evolutionist or a reverend won't really matter. This may all seem very fuzzy right now but once again I challenge you to decide for yourself by investigating the other side of the argument.

The other side of WHAT argument? We're quite familiar with the other side(s) of the evolution debate -- it's rubbish, and doesn't stand up EITHER as science OR as a valid interpretation of the Bible.

And stop trying to imply that none of us evolutionists have ever read any part of the Bible. Many of us are Christians, and have been for years; and many Christian churches explicitly accept evolution as valid science, not at all contradictory to Christian doctrine. And they -- and we -- have been known to discuss the Bible with more coherence than you show in your post.

Looks like Roger doesn't quite have the hang of this software. Here's how it works: If you post and it times out or produces an error message or returns but your post doesn't show up, keep a copy of what you posted. Wait a while. Exit your browser. Return, make a dummy post, and preview it. If your previous post shows up, don't repost it. If it does NOT show up, and you repost what you saved, it will show up twice. If you don't repost, it will never show up.

See how easy that is?

Yes, sexual immorality and deceit are wrong but the fact he had brought into the light some of the most darkest secrets in his life was very courageous.

Yes, sexual immorality and deceit are wrong but the fact he had brought into the light some of the most darkest secrets in his life was very courageous.

— Coin

Wait, what? He didn't bring them into the light. A gay prostitute did.

Yes, sexual immorality and deceit are wrong...

We all have lied, yet this man is courageous enough to be accountable for all the wrong he is done.

Michael Suttkus wrote, "The problem with saying that is that A) all of those terms include "incorrect {action}" in their meaning and B) none of us likely completely agrees on what actions constitute murder, cheating or stealing."

But that's not my point. Many of us would disagree about exceptions, and find loopholes. But most of us on the planet would agree about general principals- hence we find there is very little difference in the general morality of most religions. Murder is wrong. What constitutes murder will vary on the edges in cultures and among individuals.

I am a Biological Sciences major and I have taken classes on evolution and many classes in biology biology so...

Seeing this lying homophobic creationist overpaid scumbag from the religion industry brought down by his penchant for some particularly crappy powder and a 'bit of rough' made me think 'Perhaps there is a god after all??'

Only there isn't of course.

I haven't seen anyone answer the really important question? Is Ted a 'giver' or a 'receiver' ? or a 'stone' or a 'sponge' as Noel Coward used to say? Or does he swing both ways?? Now that he's give to a sudden burst of honesty perhaps he could tell us?

- and is he going to be handing any of the cash he made from fraudulently passing himself off as an upstanding member of the community??

I've met Dawkins: he's a very nice chap and unfailingly polite. That isn't arrogance - its uncompromising honesty -

Thanks for the helpful note about posting comments. Have I offended you and your beliefs? Individuals like Haggard do give Christians a bad name. But now you have to ask, is he really a Christian? A true Christian is someone who denies himself and carries his cross daily. For those who are only "familiar" with bible, check out Matthew 16:24. It is obvious, that Haggard has not done so and has finally revealed that he has been pretending to do so. When I say read your Bible, I am not talking about simply reading but studying it the way you would any other text. Reflect on each chapter, see how it relates to you. If you study the Bible you will realize that Haggard is not living the life of a Christian or true disciple, therefore cannot represent Christianity in its true form. What it all comes down to is this: FAITH. It takes faith to believe that there is a God because His existence goes beyond any HUMAN logical explanation or understanding. You do not believe because you have no faith. However, you do have a strong faith in the theory of Evolution. No matter how much evidence or how many fossils are uncovered, you will truly never really know if it is your theory is true unless you were there when the world started. It takes faith to believe in the things we do not see. For some, they only believe in what they can see and what they can comprehend. For others, they understand that they will never ever comprehend the mysteries of this world unless they put their faith and trust in God. So let me rephrase, for those who may take on the challenge, do not just read the Bible, study it. If you have any questions just let me know. I would love to be of help.

Have I offended you and your beliefs?

Individuals like Haggard do give Christians a bad name. But now you have to ask, is he really a Christian?

Roger, you seem to have changed your mind about how "Christian" Haggard's behavior has been in just the last few posts.

You keep telling us to study the other side of the "argument," and then regale us with Biblical quotations.

This would suggest that you think belief in Christianity is on the other side of an argument with the evidence of evolution.

Most of us here, however, would suggest that the only "argument" of relevance is between Science (the overwhelming evidence for evolution) and PsuedoScience (the hokey hilarity of YEC and ID being foisted upon the ignorant by shills and charlatans who reek of the same sort of hypocrisy you have--somewhat inconsistently--deplored in Haggard).

Religion only finds itself on the wrong side of the argument when it makes the mistake of making "real-world" (as opposed to spiritual) claims that are contrary to the findings of Science.

Which side of this "argument" between Reality and Hypocrisy are you on, again?

...you will truly never really know if it is your theory is true unless you were there when the world started. It takes faith to believe in the things we do not see.

Sir Toejam, you think that I am fool because you do not understand me. You have yet to read the bible and you are so quick to ridicule me. Does evolution/science give you guidance to how you should treat people or how to the love them, or why you should not judge them. The Bible does. Read this passage before I answer your second question about the 30 million "Christians".

The Narrow and Wide Gates
13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

The religious world is filled with Hypocrisy. They put tradition before God and because of that few can find any kind of inspiration or guidance from their religion. If you study the Bible, you find out that being religious and having good deeds is not enough for you to get through the narrow gate. I am not a hypocrite because I study the Bible everyday and I follow its commands. I have given up all the deceit, sexual immorality, hatred and so forth that use to reign supreme in my life. I am no longer a slave to my own desires but I am now a slave to serving others.
T
o GuyeFaux, of course I was not present when Jesus died and I have faith that I do have kidneys. But the effects of his death are still being felt 2000 years later. Do you have science texts written thousands of years ago that give a scientific basis for our existence? Show me.

SteviePinhead--My faith and conviction tells me that Haggard is not a Christian. So, using him as evidence against creationism is useless. His character has nothing to with the fact that God created the world or not. He is however another reason to be weary about the religious world. I am not arguing in favor of the religious world. When I think about all who are being misled, I am deeply saddened. But to avoid all religious pitfalls and hypocrisy, I have made the Bible my doctrine and my rock. There is not a day that goes by that I don't study it.

Before I go, is there anything in your life that you would die for? Would you die for the idea of Evolution so that world will know how strongly you felt about it?

Sir Toejam, you think that I am fool because you do not understand me.

The religious world is filled with Hypocrisy.

GuyeFaux, of course I was not present when Jesus died and I have faith that I do have kidneys. But the effects of his death are still being felt 2000 years later.

Before I go, is there anything in your life that you would die for?

Roger, congratulations on learning how to use linebreaks!

Roger,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

"Would you die for the idea of Evolution so that world will know how strongly you felt about it?"

Dying for evolution would be the same as dying for gravity - it ould be pretty silly. No-one has "faith" in evolution.

So since you have admitted that you were wrong about Haggard and what people here were saying about him, why are you still preaching to us from the Bible? You seem to be generalizing that all "evolutionists" are non-believers. Some ARE believers, even here at the Panda's Thumb. Our aim is not to complain about religion, but anti-science. So why preach here?

"Evolutionist". My other religions include "Gravitationalism", "Spherical Earthism", "E=MCsquaredism", "Man DID land on the moonism", "Brick walls might hurt if I bang my head against themism"...

"Evolutionist". My other religions include "Gravitationalism", "Spherical Earthism", "E=MCsquaredism", "Man DID land on the moonism", "Brick walls might hurt if I bang my head against themism"...

— Darth Robo

Oh, I'm definately a heretic! ;)

Sadly, Brick-walls-might-hurt-if-I-bang-my-head-against-themist churches have broken up over a squabble of interpreting the holy writ.

GuyeFaux, of course I was not present when Jesus died and I have faith that I do have kidneys.

But the effects of his death are still being felt 2000 years later.

Roger wrote: I have given up all the deceit, sexual immorality, hatred and so forth that use to reign supreme in my life. I am no longer a slave to my own desires but I am now a slave to serving others.

This is true. So what?

One of these days, I'm going to have to try that "slave of my own desires" thing. It sounds like fun.

Until then, I guess I'll stick to serving humanity by rebuking creationism and other lies and trying to keep the world safe for science.

Hey Roger, since you're here to preach at everyone (whether they like it or not, apparently), I have a simple question for you before you go ona ny further.

*ahem*

What exactly is the source of your religious authority. What exactly makes your (or ANY person's) religious opinions more (or less) authoritative than anyone else's. Why should anyone pay any more attention to my religious opinions, or yours, than we pay to the religious opinions of my next door neighbor or my gardener or the guy who delivered my pizza last night. It seems to me that no one alive would or could know any more about God than anyone else alive does, since there doesn't seem to be any potential source of such knowledge that isn't equally available to everyone else. You pray; I pray. You read the Bible; I read the Bible. You go to church and listen to the pastor; I go to church and listen to the pastor. So what is it, exactly, that makes your religious opinion any more (or less) valid than anyone else's. Are you more holy than anyone else? Do you walk more closely with God than anyone else? Does God love you best? Are you the best Biblical scholar in human history? What exactly makes your opinions better than anyone else's? Other than your say-so?

Is it your opinion that not only is the Bible inerrant and infallible, but YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of it are also inerrant and infallible? Sorry, but I simply don't believe that you are infallible. Would you mind explaining to me why I SHOULD think you are? Other than your say-so?

It seems to me that your religious opinions are just that, your 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 your religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.

Can you show me anything to indicate otherwise? Other than your say-so?

Hey Roger, since you are obviously such a Biblical expert and all, I have another simple question for you:

*ahem*

Exodus 22:18 "Suffer not a witch to live".

My questions:

(1) do you think supernatural witches exist?

(2) if so, do you think they should be executed?

I have given up all the deceit, sexual immorality, hatred and so forth that use to reign supreme in my life. I am no longer a slave to my own desires but I am now a slave to serving others.

...and while we're at it...
Where did Cain's wife come from?

Maybe Cain was abel to find a spare rib someplace?

heres one for you Roger:

Proverbs 18:2-3

2 A fool finds no pleasure in understanding
but delights in airing his own opinions.

3 When wickedness comes, so does contempt,
and with shame comes disgrace.

and one from me:

- stick that in your pipe and smoke it......

Roger...it is no use...they are blind and wish to remain so. I would ask that you, as a brother in Christ, would join me in leaving this forum and praying for these people - that God might open their eyes and that they would see the truth of the Gospel of Christ. The questions only bring more questions - to then bring more and to waste everybody's time.

1 Corinthians 15:1-7 KJV 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

He's alive! Repent and trust in Christ...

Matthew 16:24-26 KJV 24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

No more questions...

No more questions...

praying for these people - that God might open their eyes

Roger...it is no use...they are blind and wish to remain so.

Is anyone here going to heaven when they die??

Is anyone here going to heaven when they die??

You did not answer my question.

Is anyone here going to heaven when they die??

— Da Man

You did not answer my question.

Da Man wrote: Is anyone here going to heaven when they die??

Yeah if they can get that stardrive running at 2008 times the speed of light they might catch up to Jesus Christ himself, at that speed they will have to keep a keen lookout though, they might miss him.

Da Man:

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I'm dead I expect I'll stay that way. One life is enough, thanks. Anything else just strikes me as desperately wishful thinking. Silly, really.

Stupid divine pro-Kryptonian bigotry.

Roger, Craig L; if you're still there could you help me out with a couple of queries please?

i. Many times I've asked literalist friends and acquaintances for an explanation of why, if the Bible is true because it says it is, this same reasoning doesn't apply to anything else, for example this posting (which is true). The only kind of answer I've had is BECAUSE IT'S THE BIBLE. Now having been brought up on the Bible I'm convinced that we'd all do well to follow the message of the Gospels. But this "it's true because it says so" is circular reasoning, which is no reasoning at all. Perhaps you could explain this in a different way, one that doesn't involve quotes from, er, the Bible.

ii. back on thread (sort of), Jesus is reported to have said some quite unambiguous things about Mammon and about hypocrites, but nothing specific about sodomy or drugs. So why is it that the Reverend Haggard and his flock are getting so upset about what appear, from the Gospels, to be entirely the wrong issues?

Da Man wrote: Is anyone here going to heaven when they die??

Is anyone here going to heaven when they die??

i. Many times I've asked literalist friends and acquaintances for an explanation of why, if the Bible is true because it says it is, this same reasoning doesn't apply to anything else, for example this posting (which is true). The only kind of answer I've had is BECAUSE IT'S THE BIBLE.

— Gav

Bravo - good answers

It's faith in Martin Luthor.

Ah, yes, my many misspent hours with the four-color vice leaks through again. :-)

It's faith in Martin Luthor.

— GuyeFaux

Ok, uhm, just for the record, it's Martin Luther. I'm not aware that Martin was related to Lex.

Comment #143551 Posted by Roger on November 9, 2006 7:41 PM (e) ...Before I go, is there anything in your life that you would die for? Would you die for the idea of Evolution so that world will know how strongly you felt about it?

— Roger

Comment #143572 Posted by Darth Robo on November 10, 2006 4:38 AM (e) "Would you die for the idea of Evolution so that world will know how strongly you felt about it?" Dying for evolution would be the same as dying for gravity - it would be pretty silly. No-one has "faith" in evolution. ...

— Darth Robo

"just that dieing won't help it."

Hmmm, not too sure. If I did jump off a building, wouldn't that be natural selection? :P

Re "If I did jump off a building, wouldn't that be natural selection? :P"

I'd think it'd have to be a trend to be significant as natural selection; one individual wouldn't have all that much affect on the future of the species. ;)

Henry

Jumping off a high building to demonstrate or disprove some theory or other might just put you in the running for a Darwin Award. It would be most apt if the theory in question were the theory of evolution. This might appear to others as irrational behaviour, but that might depend on the circumstances, for example, how important getting an Award was to you, and your reasoned assessment of whether your action would qualify. As an example of someone who might not qualify for an Award: Ibn Battuta tells of seeing a man cut his own head off to demonstrate his loyalty to some far eastern despot or other. This is remarkable but arguably quite rational behaviour - the account suggests that he had reason to hope that his family would be richly rewarded.

Ibn Battuta tells of seeing a man cut his own head off to demonstrate his loyalty to some far eastern despot or other.

Reminds me of a tabloid headline I saw once: "Man Cuts Off His Head With Chainsaw And Lives!". I loved it so much we used it for an instrumental song title.

So do y'all evolutionists also believe that Frosty the Snowman really came to life? I am guessing, YES.

Alright, who left the door open?

Boy howdy, Evolution?--that there's a real poser!

But first, tell me: do you believe any non-living thing or, ahem, no longer living thing--at any time in the history of the world, however long you happen to think that it--has ever "really come to life"?

Or, ahem, "really come back to life"?

Just curious, y'know...

My guess is that, if you're honest with us--as I'm sure you will be--you will say, YES.

If there is a lot of snow around and a magic hat, you just might be in luck.

Frosty the Snowman!! Was a jolly happy "piece of matter that came to life"...okay, a little corny but I thought I would add a little evolution DOCTRINE to the song to humor you. Enjoy your responses.

Frosty loves you!

(yawn)

Enjoy your plastic, er, frankenstein!

It's oh so easy believing that icky three-day dead corpses can come back to life if they just receive that special *spark*...

...but oh so hard to believe in a magic hat?

Or in the special magic of a planet covering, tectonically-heated pre-biotic soup?

Where's this not-exactly-clever chappy gonna take this from here?

Snowball earth?

RUN - RUN - KEEP RUNNING!!!

I've seen creationists try a lot of different tactics in my time, of various levels of sophistication and efficacy. But I have to say, a creationist trying to disprove evolution by shoving his fingers in his ears and singing "Frosty the Snowman" at the top of his lungs is a new one on me.

Evolution?... do you actually have anything to say?

Or are you just a troll?

...(somewhere in the distance, a dog barked)...

That's what I thought.

Bye, now.

Oh hell, let the fundies have their fun. After all, their "teach the controversy" scam got the crap kicked out of it in Ohio; all their political supporters were just tossed out of office, en masse; their pal Hovind went to jail; and their other pal Haggard got kicked out on his holy little ass for doing drugs and banging a male hooker.

They've had a rough couple of weeks.

So let them sing "Frosty the Snowman" to themselves if it makes them feel better. (shrug)

Hey, Evolution?, I have a problem.

See, I've been trying to believe in creationism for about two decades, but every time I do, the rotten evidence keeps getting in the way. So, if you could do me a small favor, please let me know how the fossils got sorted. I've been assured that the sorting results from a Really Big Flood, and that all the species outran the rising flood waters, but this somehow seems to fail to explain how mangroves (ocean shore living trees) made it to the top of the fossil record. Please help me out. Explain how the mangroves all got sorted to the top. Thank you.

After that, you can deal with the rest of the problems listed in the fossil sorting article at EvoWiki. That would be a HUGE help. It's that evidence stuff that keeps making people believe in evolution, you're just going to have to deal with it eventually.

Your doctrine is skewed and biased against God...all over the world people are being deceived by those who have become reprobate in their thinking - worshiping the creation and not the Creator...Below is what seems to be happening in America - right before our eyes.

Ro 1:19 ¶ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

We pray that you repent and put your faith in Christ for your salvation.

Your doctrine is skewed and biased against God

http://groups.msn.com/thegoodwitchesguidetopaganismandwicca

Just one example...I hear stories of missionaries running into them as well.

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live - God commanded Israel as a nation to kill the witches among other offenders of God's law (adulterers, homosexuals, etc.). They were to be an example to show the purity and holiness of God.

I am not sure if there are any nations that exist today that execute witches, but I would not be surprised.

http://groups.msn.com/thegoodwitchesguidetopaganismandwicca

Just one example...I hear stories of missionaries running into them as well.

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live - God commanded Israel as a nation to kill the witches among other offenders of God's law (adulterers, homosexuals, etc.). They were to be an example to show the purity and holiness of God.

I am not sure if there are any nations that exist today that execute witches, but I would not be surprised.

Also, just so you know, the theory of origins, etc...has not been scientifically proven and has gaping holes in it and is open to interpretation. It is sad that these things are presented as fact in science books when there is a huge lack of evidence to support it. It takes great faith to cover all of the huge holes. Science - no...religion - yes.

Evolution?... I can't help but notice that I asked you a question about that annoying evidence stuff... and you don't seem to have answered it. Is it that you cannot address the actual evidence? Do you feel that the evidence is lying to you? Reality is wrong and you are right?

I'm just asking.

Evolution?, I can point you to several people who are homosexuals and/or witches. Will you kill them? God told you to kill them. I am currently wearing a shirt made of two different fabrics in violation of God's law. Will you kill me? Or are you disobeying God?

Well...I cannot answer your question since I have not researched this pariticular topic. But, it certainly would not be a bad thing for you to see what things have been written by those on the side of Creation to see what they have to say. I think you have to look at both sides.

I cannot go and kill people...again, this was a law given to Israel as a nation and these things were to be carried out in a court type setting. There was no freedom for you to just go around killing people. So, I will not kill you =). God gave them these laws for a reason - to make them stand out from the pagan nations around them and to communicate His purity and holiness.

So you see, Lenny, MS2, et al, the problem is simply that you haven't heard the other side of the argument... ever... in the last 20 years...

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

I don't think you need to respond that way. I wouldn't mind having an adult conversation. So tell me what the Creationists say about this and let's move on. I do not have all the answers - do you?? How did everything come from nothing?? Do you have the answer to this? Don't discredit me because I am not all-knowing.

Sorry, evolution?

Religious arguments are pointless. You either believe or you don't.

And there's very little likelihood that any creation website will have any new arguments that haven't been beaten to death here several time over.

But do some homework, at least.
Read talk.origins.

Look around this site and the links to pharyngula, aetiology, and others. Try to grasp the sheer volume of information that has been gathered by thousands of individuals over the last couple of centuries, and how it all fits together.

"We don't know" is not an argument in favour of Creation. It's an impetus to investigation.

There are those of us who are not content to just shrug and say "Well, I guess God did it."

And by the way, evolution?
The reason no-one took you seriously is that your entrance was typically troll-like.
"Evolution is atheistic!" (runs away).

I asked a question - do you know everything? You've figured it all out, haven't you. Everything fits together perfectly. Write a book already. The next time that you accuse someone of not knowing everything, make sure you prove to them how you have come to know everything.

What did all the scientists that abandoned evolutionary theory know that you don't know?

This is getting Pythonesque.
"I came here for a good argument."
"No you didn't you came here for an argument."
etc. etc.

So that wasn't a rhetorical question? You were really wondering if I know everything? You expect an answer to that? Okay: No.

The difference is: I'm looking for information to get answers, not simply regurgitating chapter and verse.

You see, if I wanted to, I could visit the Alberta Badlands and see the Burgess Shale for myself. Or visit Africa and join the search for early hominids.

These things are *real*. What do you have? Superstition (cue Stevie Wonder).

I didn't accuse you of anything.

No-one expects you to know everything. But if you're going to argue here, we expect an educated argument.

.. and then Lenny and the boys will probably cream you anyway.

I asked a question - do you know everything? You've figured it all out, haven't you. Everything fits together perfectly. Write a book already. The next time that you accuse someone of not knowing everything, make sure you prove to them how you have come to know everything.

What did all the scientists that abandoned evolutionary theory know that you don't know?

Great, "Doc" Mike Martin comes back from his mission to spend ages saying nothing and now this guy. Since Haggard & Hovind, the nutters seem to be on the defensive. The quality of trolls is going down...

Well...I cannot answer your question since I have not researched this pariticular topic.

Just one example...I hear stories of missionaries running into them as well. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live - God commanded Israel as a nation to kill the witches among other offenders of God's law (adulterers, homosexuals, etc.). They were to be an example to show the purity and holiness of God. I am not sure if there are any nations that exist today that execute witches, but I would not be surprised.

What did all the scientists that abandoned evolutionary theory

By the way, my fundie friend, may I ask by what authority you claim to speak on behalf of God? What makes your particular religious opinions any more authoritative than mine, my next door neighbor's, my car mechanic's, my veterinarian's, or the kid who delivers my pizzas?

You seem to think that not only is the Bible infallible, but YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of it are also infallible. Sorry, my fundie friend, but I simply don't believe that you are infallible. In fact, I don't even believe that you are very smart.

Can you give me any reason why I *should* think your religious opinions are infallible? Are you God's Annointed Spokesman(tm)(c)? Do you walk closer to God than we mere mortals do? Are you holier than everyone else? Does God love you best?

(sigh) No WONDER everyone thinks fundies are arrogant self-righteous pride-filled holier-than-thou (literally) pricks.

I wouldn't mind having an adult conversation.

Well...I cannot answer your question since I have not researched this pariticular topic.

— Evolution?

But, it certainly would not be a bad thing for you to see what things have been written by those on the side of Creation to see what they have to say. I think you have to look at both sides.

— Evolution?

I cannot go and kill people...again, this was a law given to Israel as a nation and these things were to be carried out in a court type setting.

— Evolution?

There was no freedom for you to just go around killing people. So, I will not kill you =).

— Evolution?

God gave them these laws for a reason - to make them stand out from the pagan nations around them and to communicate His purity and holiness.

— Evolution?

Another one of those dummies eh?

Reverend Doctor - I think you're being unfair, accusing evolution? of not answering your questions. While not explicit, it's pretty clear from evolution?'s posts that:

- do witches exist? Yes
- should they be killed? - Yes, by due process of law

Very 17th century.

What are the right answers, anyway? I'd suggest:

- do witches exist? Yes of course they do. I met a real witch once when I was doing some field work in Co. Donegal. She lived on her own in a hovel about ½ mile away from our tents. We called her Mrs Cullen, after the powders. It wasn't her real name but we were afraid to use that. She made soda bread which we used to buy from her. The soda bread was very gritty. We think she used to put grit into the flour to discourage weevils. Later we all went down with diarrhoea. She always seemed pleased to see us and used to cackle horribly. All these things prove she was a witch. A couple of months ago I was hired to play some music at a pagan wedding. The lady officiating claimed to be a witch, but I'm not so sure. She wasn't in Mrs Cullen's league, that's a fact.

- Should they be killed? - Each case on its merits. In Mrs Cullen's case, the answer's clearly no (assuming the old biddy is still alive .... she'd be getting on for 150 years old now). Killing someone for putting a diarrhoea spell on you would be a disproportionate response. As regards the other lady - for 2 of the most tedious hours of my life I would take away hers? Let me think about that. Hm, isn't capital punishment inconsistent with Jesus' teachings on forgiving people? Maybe we'll let her off this time.

Reverend Doctor - I think you're being unfair, accusing evolution? of not answering your questions. While not explicit . . .

When was the last time you saw a judge forgive a serial killer and let him go. Forgiveness is a personal matter - not a matter of government.

Anyway...you are right - I really need to go out and study up on this myself. I have done some reading but not a whole lot. I have no ill will toward you and your derogatory comments - you know, calling me dummy and other things like that.

I will see y'all later. Maybe you can make more derogatory comments about me now if that will make you feel better.

Good night.

Lord - lay not this sin to their charge...
Forgive them Father - for they know not what they do...

I really need to go out and study up on this myself

Thanks...I will remember that.

Forgive them Father - for they know not what they do...

viz. comment #144455 in "IRS Claims Kent Hovind's" etc.

Now...see...you lose all credibitlity when you say things like that. You make assumptions of my motives and attempt to make up your own explanation of what I am thinking/saying...Christ is my example and I follow Him and we are commanded to forgive just as Christ forgave. I am hardly comparing myself to Christ - I am a far cry from that.

"forgive them Father - for they know not what they do..."

You actually think Jesus reads Panda's Thumb?

You actually think Jesus reads Panda's Thumb?

Not really. It is called in old school psychotherapy "resistance" or "avoidance," transactional therapy language used different words for the same thing.

All these things prove she was a witch

yeah but, did she have a big nose?

did she float?

When was the last time you saw a judge forgive a serial killer and let him go. Forgiveness is a personal matter - not a matter of government.

— Evolution?

Anyway...you are right - I really need to go out and study up on this myself. I have done some reading but not a whole lot. I have no ill will toward you and your derogatory comments - you know, calling me dummy and other things like that.

— Evolution?

Lord - lay not this sin to their charge...

— Evolution?

Forgive them Father - for they know not what they do...

— Evolution?

Just as you ridicule me for my lack of knowledge on the creation/evolution debate (which I have gladly accepted as true - and am going to study more), you have a very huge lack of knowledge with regard to the Bible as well. You pull scripture out of context and read it as it is (you would make a great politician). So, you are wrong on your scripture quoting and interpretation. But, anyway, I have enjoyed speaking with you all. Have a great Thanksgiving and Christmas Season.

E?: Pointing out facts is not ridicule. You *do* have a lack of knowledge. Am I supposed to not point this out? Am I supposed to not use my knowledge so that I'm on par with your lack there-of?

As for the Bible, please point to where it claims to be divinely inspired, thanks.

And for goodness sakes learn to indicate who you are responding to, E?.

I think there's a lot hiding behind this debate than you realize Evolution?. Give me an e-mail sometime, my e-mail is mmartinyale@yahoo.com. By the way, allow me to introduce myself, Dr. Michael Martin, graduate of Yale, PHD in Molecular and Cell Biology, ThM from Talbot Seminary. I have some terrific information that may shock you in regards to this debate. I am a recovered Evolutionist myself, who became a YECS after studying all of the evidence, as well as studying Linguistics and such. Good to meet you.

Dr. Michael Martin

All I can say is I'll be praying for Mr. Ted Haggard cause it looks like he needs it right about now. Its really a shame to see this kind of activity out of Evangelists in our society today.

The Bible claims to be divinely inspired through the use of the principle of sufficient reasoning, and also the use of 2 Timothy 3:16, which states: 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

Now, in proper format, I don't think it takes a rocket Scientist here to figure out that if its a God-breathed book, then its divinely inspired. As such, this is all we need in determining whether or not the Bible/Scripture is divinely inspired or not.

And for that matter, God's logic, is our logic. It just takes a few people a bit longer to figure that out than most.

God's thoughts are not our thoughts, but in order for the laws of logic to have a proper cause and effect, God is the necessary Creator.

And guess where that leads us to all us Science buffs here? A finely tuned universe that is 100% coherent and sensible!

The Laws of Logic are first a law of being/Metaphysics, and then are a law of our Psychology and our being. This does us wonders when we are trying to figure out a proper Cosmology.

Thank you, Dr. Martin.

"Evolution?", let me attempt to help you understand the people here and their response to you. They are, for the most part, highly educated people who have spent a great deal of time studying and researching these issues. Some of them are actually the scientists who did the research. Some have written books. Many have PhDs.

So when you come in front of a group of people like this and suggest that they should study both sides of the issue before holding an opinion that disagrees with yours, can you see how that might be insulting to them? It would be like you being a math teacher and your 8 year old coming home, making an arithmetic error and, upon hearing your correction, telling you that you should study the issue before correcting her.

People who put a lot of effort into learning about something tend to get pissed off when it is suggested that they are wrong merely because someone who hasn't disagrees with them. It is also very insulting to have questions posed to you as challenges that are very basic stuff. If you want adult conversation, stop asking the kinds of questions you might ask children.

Approach these people as if they have something to teach you about biology, and you might find them very helpful and instructive. Approach them as if you somehow magically know more than they do, despite them having earned advanced degrees and published scientific work that you have not, and you will likely find them very dismissive of you, and rightfully so.

Thank you for your guidance. Forgive me for not understanding this from the beginning. The problem is I do not trust them nor do I trust their sources. People can take things and call them truth, when in fact, it is twisted and skewed "truth". How can you trust anyone unless you figure it out for yourself? So, when I hear about studies and this that and the other thing, I cannot necessarily trust them. Just how many times have they been wrong about things (speaking of the scientific community). Anyway, thank you and have a great Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Epehsians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

I guess this is what I am up against!

Just as you ridicule me for my lack of knowledge on the creation/evolution debate

Evolution?: The problem is I do not trust them nor do I trust their sources. People can take things and call them truth, when in fact, it is twisted and skewed "truth". How can you trust anyone unless you figure it out for yourself?

Evolution?: Just how many times have they been wrong about things (speaking of the scientific community).

when in fact, it is twisted and skewed "truth".

Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. I guess this is what I am up against!

Again, I apologize for my barging in and for the way I spoke to you all in some cases. Sometimes, I get a little excited and a little sarcastic. Hope you'll forgive me.

Thanks, and I will continue to pray for you all.

Sometimes, I get a little excited and a little sarcastic. Hope you'll forgive me.

look to your own house for snakes.

whatever :).

Fortunately for you, ignorance and arrogance are correctible conditions.

UN-fortunately for you, correcting them requires a bit of effort on your part.

Oh the irony :)......

Hey Lenny

"BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

In the case of our modern scientific machine, a lot less than any other epistemology you care to name. One bad side effect of a religious influence on one's thinking can be the quest for perfection that is not possible. Sometimes the best we can do is the best we can do. Science is the best we can do. It not only corrects everyone else's errors, it corrects it's own.

Sounds a little like, "Twould be in vain to say we know something we have not antecedently felt!"

Hume ALERT!

If Science is the truth, prove this statement through Science. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll eventually get this one right. (self defeating)...or maybe you wish to call it a connundrum, which, um means self defeating too!

In the case of our modern scientific machine, a lot less than any other epistemology you care to name. One bad side effect of a religious influence on one's thinking can be the quest for perfection that is not possible. Sometimes the best we can do is the best we can do. Science is the best we can do. It not only corrects everyone else's errors, it corrects it's own.

Lets critique shall we?

Well, he's got the first part right, Empiricism surely does not know anything.

The quest for perfection that is not possible? It follows we have already attained it then! You've defeated your purpose, self defeating and false. Remember, should does not mean can. Just because we should act a certain way does not mean we always can do it.

Sometimes the best we can do is the best we can do. Science is the best we can do.

Prove that statement with Science if its "the best you can do." If you can't prove the statement, then its not the best you can do, because the statement must exist if anything is to be done at all here. So....gee golly, there must be something out there a little bit better than Science. Could it be...Philosophy?

It not only corrects everyone else's errors, it corrects it's own. - Wow guy, sounds like you've got a religion going here. Isn't a religion, a set of beliefs! It follows you're following a set of beliefs to "correct your own errors here." Scientism however, as we know it, is still self defeating and false. Try Christianity and the Nature of Science by JP Moreland for more information on that one. Or check out: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-20379231.html

Try avoiding your fake inquiry and sham reasoning, you know your little tautologous "Science is the only thing that proves anything at all."

There's something very ironic about "Dr." Michael Martin--his latest self-conferred degree is in "NeuroScience" (a good thing, since he's in distinct need of a couple of neurons to rub together)--posting on this particular thread.

Three guesses, Michael, you deceptive, lying little Creationist.

Gay's don't exist! Gays are an illusion created by mankind. The Gay gene is false.

Oh Mikey, why won't you just admit you're bitter because your Bio 101 prof is flunking you over there at William and Mary?

Who knew those darn atheistic teachers wouldn't accept "Goddidit" as answers to all your exam questions! It's a conspiracy.

Looking forward to your inevitable IP-banning.

Religion is mostly harmless. But in cases like this it leads to real anguish.

This is a fallacy in reasoning. One man does not affect the truth behind religion. The position of religion is not affected by what one person does or does not do. In other words, some people make mistakes, but does it means that they SHOULD make mistakes? No, but, the only way we are justified in being forgiven is through knowing Jesus Christ. The only way to come to know Jesus Christ is through Logos. John 1:1 In the beginning was Logos, and Logos was the word, and the word was God.

Without the Bible, nothing makes sense.

Peter-

I think actually Dawkins was coming across mean a number of other times in the clip- just in general tone and demeanor.

Flank-

I was once a Literal Creationist. I saw the Light in undergrad studying biology, as I was progressively convinced of the evidence. What I'm saying is I can feel where these guys are coming from. I agree that people won't be convinced away from Literal Creationism through science- I mean I was, but most won't be. That's my point. Yeah, I'm angry with the way the Fundamentalists respond to science, how they are lying and cheating their way to convince people and denying science. I don't like how I was treated. Yes, we need to start going on the offensive, and not pull our punches, in our arguments. But it's not about convincing the Fundamentalists, just as it's not about convincing the Hard Right or the Hard Left in this upcoming election. It's about convincing the unconvinced, the undecided. And unless they have a scientific background, and precious few of them do, they're going to be convinced by personality, by someone being nice, rather than the logic of their arguments. I've seen debates between an evolutionist and a Discovery Institute guy. The evolutionist had all of the evidence on his side. But he was obnoxious, mocking, and sarcastic the entire time. And the audience went with the ID guy. I was almost convinced- just because the guy for our side was so mean-spirited. We can't underestimate the value of our approach, as well as the ideas themselves. Ethos is as important in convincing as logos.

Quite frankly, an argument from emotion, if anyone is smart is what needs to be avoided in the first place. BUT, this does not mean we separate reason from faith. A reasonable faith is needed in order to make sense out of anything with any kind of truth value.

Au contraire my friend. I reviewed the evidence. The reason I went away from Evolution was because Evolution had no evidence or logic in its corner. It was always a matter over at NIH, that we, "suppress the other side's evidence. Pay no attention to them, because they don't know what they're talking about." Essentially, this was the mentality maintained. I began to buy into this for a while, until I started actually thoroughly studying the evidence for Genetics. Genetics and Evolution started to no longer be compatible. I began to think to myself, if Evolution is true, I have got to find something here to make Genetics compatible with Evolution. I literally started running out of things to agree with it. I tell you, I was one desperate sun of a gun. I was thinking, whats going on here? This Science no longer makes since. At this point, nothing at all made sense to me. Almost assuredly, the biggest drawback was the fact I saw no new genetic information in the mutations that we observe. And I figured, if this were so, Evolution could not occur. My next problem was my presuppositions. I had preconceived ill formed judgments about the other side, the YECS. I had always been taught that the YECS side did not agree with Natural Selection, Variation or Speciation. It was around this time that I ran into Dr. Jonathan Safarti. Dr. Safarti was the gentleman who actually got me interested into YECS. I found an impressive supply of information (positive evidence) supplied that actually agreed with a Young Earth. This was blowing my mind. Eventually, I began to search deeper into this, and deeper. I found some really interesting facts, that the YECS had already come up with a model for the origins of the earth, and had an explanation for the one thing I could not make sense of out of Science, which was the lack of beneficial mutations in Science. Ultimately this was the conclusion I came to. I also studied Intelligent Design and Progressive Creation Science as well as Theistic Evolution. In the end, YECS made the most sense. So, I object, the reason I believe YECS to be the truth is because it is the truth, and for no other reason. It has nothing to do with which way I sway on religious grounds or Philosophical grounds. Religion and Philosophy should be thought of to be of a necessary dichotomy between the two, as well as a necessary dichotomy between Science and the two. Science is based around inductive reasoning. Philosophy is based around deductive reasoning. However, in the end, all of this seemingly ties right into the Bible, and therefore, I also object that we use the Bible to prove the Bible. It ties into the Bible because the Bible is the truth. We can reason our way to this conclusion, and in like turn, we are able to prove the existence of God as well. Theres a lot more information out there than you might expect my friend. Religious implications have nothing to do with it. Believe me, I was a PHD working at the forefront of a Peer Review organization before I came to the conclusion that YECS was the only correct Science that we have out there. If you would like, I can supply you with some fantastic information and evidence to demonstrate my point. You'd also be surprised to know that there are truly more Evolutionists who become YECS, than YECS who become Evolutionists in the scientific community.

God bless,

Dr. Michael Martin

Roger to further confirm the accuracy of your claim, I think we should go with this claim instead.

If Evolution is correct, then our thoughts are nothing but brain reflexes. If it is true that our thoughts are nothing but brain reflexes, we have no reason to trust the thoughts because they are not really thoughts in the first place. But then, if we have no reason to trust our thoughts, we have no reason to think that our thoughts are nothing but brain reflexes in the first place. This is a problem, wouldn't you say?

Roger to further confirm the accuracy of your claim, I think we should go with this claim instead.

If Evolution is correct, then our thoughts are nothing but brain reflexes. If it is true that our thoughts are nothing but brain reflexes, we have no reason to trust the thoughts because they are not really thoughts in the first place. But then, if we have no reason to trust our thoughts, we have no reason to think that our thoughts are nothing but brain reflexes in the first place. This is a problem, wouldn't you say?

Without the Bible, nothing makes sense.

E? Writes... The problem is I do not trust them nor do I trust their sources. People can take things and call them truth, when in fact, it is twisted and skewed "truth".

...have dominion over .... all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Again - who do you trust - You talk about evidence and this and that and the other but so many answers seem to be the result of, not only a lot of hard work, but assumption upon assumption. History itself can be twisted because it happened so long ago. The Bible calls Satan a liar and a deceiver - He twisted the Word of God around when speaking to Eve and I am seeing everyday the twisting around of truth and utter deception from day to day to the point that I cannot trust anything that I hear from anyone. Even dating methods are in question because there are so many variables and so many assumptions. How can you stand on such shaky ground? See below...

Critics use the pyramids to claim the Bible can't be right. They say the pyramids were built long before Noah's Flood, so the Flood must have only been a local affair, not global like the Bible says. Otherwise, the pyramids would be buried under lots of sediment.

The problem is with the way modern scholars have constructed their chronology of Egypt. Manetho, an Egyptian priest, left a list of kings and dynasties with their length of reigns, and although inscriptions on tombs and temples give chronological information, the issue is how to interpret this information. With so little to work from, archaeologists have had to make copious assumptions. And modern scholars have developed a long chronology consistent with the idea that humans have evolved over millions of years.

All this has turned these wonders of the ancient world into something of an enigma. If the first human societies evolved from primitive hunter-gatherers, how could ancient artisans have built such amazing structures? If they began without technology or social organization, why do these incredible feats of engineering burst upon the ancient world? Some have even wondered if the technology was supplied by aliens.

But the pyramids of Egypt are no enigma when we use biblical history as our starting point. According to the Bible, the first settlers of Egypt migrated from the Euphrates River, the site of the Tower of Babel, where the languages were confused after the Flood. The modern chronology of Egypt is far too long because dynasties have been placed sequentially, whereas they were, to a greater or lesser extent, contemporary. In other words, the reigns were concurrent with each other. Also, some dynasties may not have existed at all.

It seems the first settlers of Egypt were descended from Mizraim, the son of Ham (Genesis 10:6, 13). That's why, at the first dynasty, there bursts on the scene a people of culture and skill who already possessed a form of writing.

For the first two dynasties, the earliest settlers did not build pyramids. Instead, kings were buried in chambers underneath mud-brick edifices, called mastabas. However, in the third dynasty, King Zoser had a vizier (chief minister) called Imhotep, who used rough blocks of stone, instead of bricks, to build the king's mastaba. Then he added six stages making the famous Step Pyramid of Saqqara, on the west bank of the River Nile, 20 km (12 miles) south of modern Cairo. This is believed to be the first pyramid ever built in Egypt.

"He said" - "She said"

Evolution?

Remember? "Though shalt not steal?"

Why did you steal a large part of your previous post from David Down at Answers in Genesis? If you tried such a thing in a science course at any reputable university you would get zero for the assignment, if not kicked out of the course. On a second offence it is possible to be kicked out of the university in disgrace.

It seems that you are indulging in projection when you accuse scientists of dishonesty and poor scholarship. You yourself need to adopt a higher standard of integrity and to think for yourself.

Hey, Evolution?

Carefully re-read this thread, particularly the spectacular meltdown of that little lying YEC, "Dr." Michael Martin, who lied to all us--including you, dude!--about his claimed biology credentials in an effort to persuade us--and you!--that he had some idea of what he was talking about when he atacked the Theory of Evolution and upheld Young Earth Creationism.

Ask yourself why he felt it necessary to lie--to pretend to scientific credentials he never had and never will--to cover up his lack of knowledge and evidence.

Take a lesson from the ease with which his lies were exposed.

There's simply good evidence for some propositionss: multiple, independent lines of evidence that all meet at the same point, even though they depend on multiple different objectively-verifiable physical principles, which can be replicated by multiple, competing independent investigators (and, many times, by interested lay people).

And then there are propositions for which there is no good evidence. The only way to attempt to uphold these propositions--ultimately, beyond attempting to discredit one isolated line of evidence here and one finding there, attempts which get all crossed up, because they require numerous inconsistent, self-contradictory claims about the underlying physical processes--is to lie.

When you come right down to it, do you believe that (your concept of God or Jesus) would want you to lie--or be lied to, as "Doc" Martin has attempted to lie to you here--in order to avoid confronting the evidence and the facts?

Or do you believe that He would prefer you to act honestly, and to interact honestly with others, even if doing so requires you to corageouly face reality and to deal with facts and evidence that appear to run counter to some particular, limited, imperfect interpretation of His word?

Think really hard about the example of Michael's behavior on this thread before you answer, please.

If you do, maybe you will have learned something new, deep, and vital about your own faith and beliefs.

Unintentional Irony?

Seems to me that the folks trying to ride this thread to their preferred destination - Read Your Bible - have had some problems of their own.

"Dr." Michael Martin has misrepresented his credentials, and gotten himself banned from the Thumb. And his sycophant sidekick, Evolution?, has been caught plagiarizing.

Point is, if you lads were hoping to take our minds off of creationist scandals (anybody remember Ted Haggard?), you're doing so is in itself a parody worthy of Monty Python.

Dave

P.S. Get your final comments in, this thread will be History by later today...

"He said" - "She said"

The Bible calls Satan a liar and a deceiver

I am seeing everyday the twisting around of truth and utter deception from day to day to the point that I cannot trust anything that I hear from anyone.

"He said" - "She said"

The Bible calls Satan a liar and a deceiver

I am seeing everyday the twisting around of truth and utter deception from day to day to the point that I cannot trust anything that I hear from anyone.

Isn't "Dr. Michael Martin" the same person who called himself an author, Greene or something like that, as well as a host of other names?

I mean, he always seemed familiar, kind of a hyper creationist who knows AIG-type things only, and who churned out huge numbers of clicheed comments whenever he went onto a thread. These same tactics and styles came from both Martin and that other name. As the "author", he claimed that he had "talked with ophthalmologists" who told him the eye was too complex to have evolved (something like that), which he thought was an excellent argument against evolution.

It looks to me like he learned something, like sticking with one name, and claiming to be both doctor of theology and doctor of genetics. Not that he seemed to know much about either one.

Anyway, yes, the irony of fraudulent practices used to defend the fraudulence of certain creationists is only lost on certain other creationists.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm